Newspapers are Dying Off

StyleOverShow · #1 02-28-2009, 10:45 AM

In the sense of full disclosure, I spent a decade with the LA Times in Marketing Research, and chuckled when Ted Turner in the mid-90's predicted the end of newspapers. The LA Times was grossing one billion dollars a year in advertising and sales with a 15-18% profit margin.

The guys from Google came to the Times and pitched the idea of placing their search engine on top of the large database of articles and launching it in conjunction with the search engine. The Times didn't bite. They truly saw the internet as a threat that it didn't know how to respond to.

The earliest and clearest erosion came in the classifieds as Monster/Craig's List just ate away at the jobs and car sales ads. The response was an on-line subscription newspaper (the walled garden). But things were changing so fast it really didn't get a chance to launch as the free Internet was bursting on the scene (with open source this and that, search engines were popping up everywhere, etc).

Then came the Chicago Tribue, who bought the paper and demanded higher returns (20-22%). The results was devastating as layoff after layoff, decreases in resources and increases in workloads made professional life increasingly difficult and all the while we were bombarded with the '(Wall) street's expectations' for our stocks performance.

I left in 2004 and have watched a steady decline in the volume of news (the paper is smaller) and the increase in 'wire' stories (e.g. AP, and other Tribune holdings).

Several national papers are on the ropes and they will survive only as long as the older generation, and perhaps some of the younger who like to read a portable source that doesn't require wireless connection or batteries. But they are definitely giving way to the internet where one can respond or comment on an article or blog themselves.

The problem is that most bloggers take their information from investigative reporting done by newspapers. Few of them have the resources to be in Washington, Riyad, and Moscow simultaneously following events. So we get single source reporting that plays by different rules, particularly without editorial review or background research, etc.

So with the switch in where you get your news to broadcast and the internet we enter another age of information. The weakest part of these new environments are: if it bleeds it leads in broadcast (Suleman is still news as she looks for her reality show for instance); and the IMO/IME of the internet as we see here every day (on TB) without facts or critical analysis, etc.

"I weep for the future" - Ferris Bueller's Day off.

-richard

**Eric Perry** · #2 02-28-2009, 10:54 AM

One of Denver's main newspapers just died two days ago.

GeneralElectric · #3 02-28-2009, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric618

One of Denver's main newspapers just died two days ago.

The Rocky Mountain Times correct?

**Eric Perry** · #4 02-28-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneralElectric

The Rocky Mountain Times correct?

You got it. Rocky Mountain News, actually.

GeneralElectric · #5 02-28-2009, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric618

You got it. Rocky Mountain News, actually.

I was close.

hbarcat · #6 02-28-2009, 11:10 AM

Of course competition from the internet means less revenue for newspapers but I think a significant part of the problem has to do with the erosion of journalistic standards overall and the consuming public is increasingly distrustful of the integrity of reporting.

It's too bad, because city papers tend to have the highest standards among news sources (compared to broadcast media in particular) but I've watched the quality of the journalism industry as a whole decline over the past few decades since I learned it in school and practiced it in local newspapers.

I'm not worried about it, though - journalism isn't going anywhere as a profession. The best reporting will just be more spread out and diversified and the consumer will actually have more variety and more choice. The burden of accountability has always fallen on the consumer of news and if the majority of people want to get their information from the watered down drivel on the evening news programs or from "Fred's House O' Conspiracy" website then that's what they'll get. Genuine news of the highest quality will still be available and those who care enough will always know where to find it.

jumbosilverette · #7 02-28-2009, 11:36 AM

No more city papers will mean the end of city hall coverage -- of course the L.A. Times did very little of that anyway, the Daily News and L.A. Weekly took up that challenge.

RWP · #8 02-28-2009, 01:58 PM

I think it's because most of the 'news' papers are more propaganda than news.

mothmonsterman · #9 02-28-2009, 02:01 PM

Paper is for old people.
Everything should be digital end of story, save the trees.

bobba66 · #10 02-28-2009, 02:07 PM

I've been in newspaper production for 25 years. Seemed like a pretty safe bet back in 1984. Closing our plant at the end of March. Kind of sad to the people in the business....

BassChuck · #11 02-28-2009, 02:43 PM

The economic downturn is going to bring a change to many aspects of our lives. The downfall of the newspaper is something that has been slowly going on for some time now. Economic situation is just making the changes come faster.

Joe Gress · #12 02-28-2009, 03:04 PM

We get the paper on sunday's for the comics. Thats it.

MJ5150 · #13 02-28-2009, 07:44 PM

The oldest newspaper in Seattle, the Seattle Post Intelligencer, is about to close it's doors. It started in 1863. Only a couple months left. They are hoping someone will step up and buy it from Hearst Corporation, but that is not likely.

-Mike

Bob Lee (QSC) · #14 02-28-2009, 08:14 PM

It's sad to see newspapers going out of business. In general, good capable news organizations are the public's best bulwark against corruption, abuse, and tyranny.

In recent years, though, a lot of them have put themselves in a death spiral: cutting back their reporting to reduce staff, and as a resut putting out a lesser product.

tplyons · #15 02-28-2009, 08:18 PM

You might be interested in reading The Cult of the Amateur by Andrew Keen.

It's about how Web 2.0 is killing traditional media, very fascinating.

**Eric Perry** · #16 02-28-2009, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ5150

The oldest newspaper in Seattle, the Seattle Post Intelligencer, is about to close it's doors. It started in 1863. Only a couple months left. They are hoping someone will step up and buy it from Hearst Corporation, but that is not likely.

-Mike

Yeah, the owner of Rocky Mountain tried for some time to get a buyer, and no luck. It's a shame.

Ground Pounder · #17 02-28-2009, 08:38 PM

Aside from their inability to make the transition to digital, their half-assed attempts at a cross-platform of paper and digital are horrible.

The Detroit Free Press and Detroit News have two of the most atrocious websites I've seen.

Spector_Ray · #18 02-28-2009, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee (QSC)

It's sad to see newspapers going out of business. In general, good capable news organizations are the public's best bulwark against corruption, abuse, and tyranny.

In recent years, though, a lot of them have put themselves in a death spiral: cutting back their reporting to reduce staff, and as a resut putting out a lesser product.

I agree, but the press itself isn't immune to corruption, abuse and tyranny. People are fed up with editorial pieces disguised as journalism.

steve21 · #19 02-28-2009, 09:29 PM

good riddance. let's see my computer get that weird-ass ink **** on my fingertips!

Araillac · #20 02-28-2009, 09:33 PM

It's kind of sad to see any business close really. I've been out of work for close to 6 months now and it's a shame to see that our economy keeps going lower and lower. Hopefully it'll pick back up but when I drive down the road, I see signs that say, Going out of business. come in for huge savings. What's even sadder is that despite the huge savings, lots of people still can't afford anything.