Posted on 02/19/2007 5:00:03 AM PST by Zakeet
The news about newspapers could hardly be more dismal: falling circulation, repeated rounds of layoffs, disappearing ads and a chain of bad earning reports. It's an unsavory stew of ills, one that shows little prospect of becoming more appetizing.
Many journalists--and having spent the first slice of my career reporting for the New York Times, I still regard myself as one--would prefer to blame the nasty folks in their corporate offices. By this reckoning, it was the layoffs that degraded the quality that cost the readers that led the advertisers to flee that caused more layoffs and so forth.
That smacks of a vicious circle, or perhaps more of a perfect storm that began with the loss of readership. The Washington Post, a model of journalistic excellence, has lost 14% of its circulation since 2000. Across the industry, circulation has been dropping for 20 years, and worse, the pace of decline seems to be accelerating. In the 12 months ending in September of last year, the 50 largest papers lost 3.2% of their daily circulation. Only two newspapers in the top 25--the two New York tabloids--grew circulation during this period, a statement in itself.
Perhaps most worrisome is the loss of young readers, who have drifted away steadily since the early 1970s, long before there was an Internet, when more than 70% of 18- to 34-year-old Americans read a daily newspaper. Last year that figure stood at 35%.
No doubt, the Internet has tempted some, particularly the young, with a free and timelier product. In September, a record 58 million Americans visited a newspaper Web site, and many newspapers are fighting hard for more with interesting new products, such as by emphasizing local news and providing easier ways for readers to share stories and ideas, a version of viral marketing.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
The conclusion from a perspective of a modern journalist is inevitable.
The author first suggests that maybe some nice liberal billionaire (or his foundation) can underwrite their continued claptrap. Recognizing that this may have its limitations, he then proposes that, "We could create a pool of money (possibly from a license fee similar to how the BBC is funded). News organizations with an expensive but important project in mind could apply for funding, much the way producers in the public television world have for the last 40 years."
Last, but not least, "It's time to apply some creative thinking to newspapers and, for that matter, to serious journalism in other media. Then we need to convince Americans that they should pay attention to it--and pay for it."
Enjoy.
ANINE MELNITZ:
I bet you like to read a lot, too.
DR EGON SPENGLER:
Print is dead.
JANINE MELNITZ:
Oh, that's very interesting to me, I read a lot myself. Some people think I'm too intellectual but I think it's a fabulous way to spend your spare time. I also play racketball. Do you have any hobbies?
DR EGON SPENGLER:
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Instead of having billionaire moguls as proprietors, we could try to turn them into philanthropists who found nonprofit organizations to buy and operate their local papers. At least one such example exists: the St. Petersburg Times, owned by the Poynter Foundation as a result of a bequest by Nelson Poynter.
The SPT is a remarkably left-wing paper, perhaps to some extent because it is partially insulated from market pressures due to its ownership.
nobody buys the paper anymore because it's all online free and easier to find what you're looking for.
They are great for washing windows. Nothing cleans a windshield better than windex,vinegar and an old piece of newspaper.
Same - it's the only reason I ever buy a newspaper. I have 5 cages to line, after all ! Maybe the newsprint manufacturers could just make cage paper liners without the ink ...
I think there is something in the media that eats brain cells because most of the people who work there are dumb beyond belief. If you write something people want to read, they will read it. If you write the truth, people will read it whether they like it or not. However the truth must be the REAL truth, not some hippy-dippy version that can only be seen by the uber-liberals.
35%? No EFF'N way. I'v worked in Mobil/Gas/convience stores. It's like maybe one out of ten newspaper buyer is under 40. Mostly it's old, old people.
Hey, I used to love, I mean love to read the papers. My idea of a great morning was nasty weather, an arm full of papers( we are talking like eight ), fresh donuts and coffee. Now, I buy a couple a week. That's it. News, opinions are on the internet, days or weeks before the paper. Further, now that I am off, for good, the paper jones, I've realized how expensive $5 a day for papers is. $10 on Sunday.
I only buy to read the local classified. When my area get's a local Cragis List, for-ghed-abou-it.
Oh, did I mention liberalism kills papers? Someone will.
Just like most idiot journalist, this guy thinks the MSM is essential for "speaking truth to power", they have never done so and will never recover from their lies and bias until they do. May they continue to reap what they have sown....no public bail-outs should ever be allowed.
The only halfway conservative paper in the NY area is the Post which for the most part is for droolers...
.....I get my news from the net and the Fox news channel and I take any and all of it with more than a grain of salt.
The funding/regulations for broadcast TV--and the "need" for public television--have been based on the limited public resource of bandwith.
The newspaper industry doesn't have that excuse.
IMO, CNN, the first 24 hour cable news channel, is the single biggest contributor to the decline of hard copy. Why wait 6-12 hours to catch up on the latest news, when you can do it instantly?
I know people who only buy the local newspaper to get the coupons and sales fliers. They figure the savings using those balances out the cost of the newspaper.
which is why I stuck in the caveat 'for the most part'.
I dont want republicans to get elected...I want CONSERVATIVES to get elected....I would rather have a majority of Zell Miller Democrats than a Majority of Olympia Snowe Republicans any day of the week........
(you can fill in any number or despicable RINO's in the Snowe spot......)
Anyways, the country will have to go through a somewhat RINO phase before it ever becomes conservative. New England Republicans were always elitist do-gooders. Very much in the tradition of English manor lords looking after the rural peasantry. Snow however is just plain syphilitic dumb and not much can be extrapolated from that stoop shoulder, seven foot tall Lurch-woman.
Liberal bias only irritates the minority of people who can detect it. Most of the decline can probably be attributed to short attention spans of TV addicted masses. People simply do not like read anything longer than a street sign. Most college grads I know have not read a nonfiction book since graduation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.