Originally Posted by BobKat1

I should have added that this scenario is subject to reversal depending on the adminstration in office at any given time.

Seriously, Your original post, answered quite well by Bucco was a vision of the media that was IMHO, Way out there. After posting your response to Bucco, "Way out there" was a gross understatement.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Originally Posted by Bucco

The large daily newspapers made a serious financial error by not charging for internet access, not saying I like that but I am afraid that is their only salvation financially. Why pay for it when you can get it online for nothing !!

Simple answer to this one: Some papers did try to charge for access early on. But users soon realized that the National news was just that, National. They could get that anywhere. And most (not all of course) local news is just fluff to fill the pages. Some sites still have a premium section for fee but I can't imagine that they make much cash on this.

What will be missed if too many go under is the quality investigative reporting that goes on to keep local governments etc. in check.

If case you haven't seen this site: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/flash/

It is a good starting point for the front page of almost every paper in the USA. From there you can go to their web site (if any) for more in depth coverage.

At one time the only news came from town criers, and as much of the population was illiterate, that's all that worked. Town criers were opinionated, and their success depended on the generoosity of their audience and the leniency of the state.

Eventually, enough of the population could read and write, and newspapers flourished. Many cities had several newspapers, as it was the only medium for mass information transfer, town criers having "died off." Again, opinions governed the news presented by commercial newspapers as each newspaper sought audiences for their messages and sponsoring advertisements.

Then radio came along, and it's entertainment value soon became supplemented with its news delivery capacity. As commercial as newspapers, radio stations and networks had the same audience capture problems, and used structured bias to garner market segments.

Lo and behold, television joined the fray. TV evolved through cable and personal satellite receivers to provide near-time reporting of news, but proved to be just as biased in order to be commercially successful.

The bottom line is, where newspapers had flourished as being alone in the public information business, competition from other media sliced into the newspaper's monopoly, and newspapers - as any business with a shrinking customer base - started to cease operations due to that natural business phenomenon, competition.

Now the Internet appeareth. A new competitor for the public information delivery business. It delivers information faster than newspapers and from multiple sources. It too has bias in its sources. It costs less than newspapers, too.

Sometime in the future, the Internet will find itself facing a new competitor for access to human curiosity market. Innovation creates change.

So, just like companies making buggywhips, stagecoaches and dial-type telephones, the newspaper companies find themselves having to adapt to a technologically changing and ever-demanding customer base - or cease to exist. Their evolution, in the face of an ever-shrinking market, is inevitable.

Originally Posted by Russ_Boston

Simple answer to this one: Some papers did try to charge for access early on. But users soon realized that the National news was just that, National. They could get that anywhere. And most (not all of course) local news is just fluff to fill the pages. Some sites still have a premium section for fee but I can't imagine that they make much cash on this.

What will be missed if too many go under is the quality investigative reporting that goes on to keep local governments etc. in check.

If case you haven't seen this site: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/flash/

It is a good starting point for the front page of almost every paper in the USA. From there you can go to their web site (if any) for more in depth coverage.

Russ...your point on investigative reporting is EXCELLENT ! I have nothing to add to what you said, except to say how great a point that was.

We get the St. Louis Post Dispatch and I really worry about the bird cages in St. Louis if this paper goes out of business.
Irish

Originally Posted by Irish Rover

We get the St. Louis Post Dispatch and I really worry about the bird cages in St. Louis if this paper goes out of business.
Irish

Good point.

I was just wondering what I'm going to lay under my fish when I clean them.

Think of all those poor puppies looking for "housebreaking" material....

First, I agree that the daily newspaper is clearly going away except for the locally focused papers that provide value to their readers (TVDS for example) Local papers are able to focus their staff on things that are of interest to the local community, while getting their national and international news from Associated Press and other news organizations that sell copy.

The major newspapers such as the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times and Chicago Tribune have long believed that if a story was not reported by one of their reporters it had not occurred. They also have made their primary coverage the national and international news, not the news that interests the average reader in their cities. In other words, they provided little that was perceived as value to their readers. The single major exception was the Wall Street Journal. In the last three years here is how circulation has fared at these five papers: Numbers is ‘000’s.

The WSJ - 2006 Circ 2,058 - 2009 Circ. 2,082 Change - +1%
The Wash Post – 2006 Circ 961 – 2009 Circ 665 Change – (31%)
NY Times – 2006 Circ 1.684 – 2009 Circ 1,039 Change – (38%)
LA Times – 2006 Circ 1,231 – 2009 Circ 723 Change – (41%)
Chicago Trib – 2006 Circ 957 – 2009 Circ 501 – Change - (48%)

These papers were not selected because of their loss in circulation, but rather since they were perceived as important papers with their 2006 volume reflecting that. The two biggest losers among large circulation dailies were The Detroit Free Press (57%) and The Philadelphia Inquirer (59%)

Big national dailies losses in circulation have been compounded by loss of advertising revenue. As circulation declines, so does the amount an advertiser is willing to pay. Classified ads, one of the most reliable revenue streams has dried up as Craig’s List, an on-line version replaces it. Craig’s List is now in Ocala and Orlando. It will not be long until it comes to The Villages.

If major papers are to survive they must do three things:

1. Cut the national and international reporting staff. There are now well over sixty print reporters in the White House Press Corps alone. A multitude of reporters adds little to the story value. Use another source. Close your London and Paris office’. Contract with papers there to provide your information.
2. Focus on your local circulation area. If you are the NY Times, you can focus on NYC and Albany and have more investigative reporting to do than can be done by organizations many times your size. The opportunities in Chicago and Illinois boggle the mind.
3. Develop a salable product of the net. I have been a reader of the WSJ for years. Today I still get it, although it is no longer delivered in paper form. The Daily Brief shows up on my computer every morning and the full journal shows up on my Kindle at the same time. I have to pay for both and do so willingly. The WSJ has taken the time and effort required to make a good, salable digital paper. The NY Times has put forth an effort and is easily the second best Kindle paper. The rest are doing simple ‘cut and paste’, giving no thought to the potential value of the digital customer.

but they will not survive. As was discussed earlier they are on the path of technological obsolescence. Cutting expenses won't allow them to survive.
They have been on this slope for the at least last 25 years. Their current demise has nothing to do with the current economic climate. Their destiny was cast long , long before.
Read some of the prior posts that point out the succession of communications from the town crier to today...move over buggy whips here comes the printed newspapers!!!!

BTK

Originally Posted by BBQMan

3. Develop a salable product of the net. I have been a reader of the WSJ for years. Today I still get it, although it is no longer delivered in paper form. The Daily Brief shows up on my computer every morning and the full journal shows up on my Kindle at the same time. I have to pay for both and do so willingly. The WSJ has taken the time and effort required to make a good, salable digital paper. The NY Times has put forth an effort and is easily the second best Kindle paper. The rest are doing simple ‘cut and paste’, giving no thought to the potential value of the digital customer.

I agree that WSJ has and can continue to derive profit this way BUT their product is very different than the NY Times or other large city papers. WSJ almost stands alone in their content and loyal readers will pay for it.