Newspapers Without Profits
The future is going to contain lots of for-profit media enterprises. But the very rapid pace at which information can be disseminated these days makes it difficult for a media enterprise to internalize all the gains of reporting new information. Consequently, in the future news gathering is going to be a lot less profitable. And that means that more of it is going to have to be done by not-for-profit institutions. So I think it’s very good to see Steve Coll, a longtime veteran of the newspaper business now working for a non-profit, thinking along these lines:
Not to pick on any one institution, but, from a constitutional perspective, how did we end up in a society where Williams College has (or had, before September) an endowment well in excess of one billion dollars, while the Washington Post, a fountainhead of Watergate and so much other skeptical and investigative reporting critical to the republic’s health, is in jeopardy? I’m sure that Williams-generated nostalgia in the emotional lives of wealthy people is hard to overestimate, but still … [...] The typical spend rate for endowed nonprofits is in the five-percent range. If the Washington Post had a two billion dollar endowment, it would be able to fund a very healthy newsroom. And this is before revenue from continuing operations—advertising, circulation, etc., which could surely cover at least the cost of distribution and overhead, particularly if the form of delivery is increasingly digital. Two billion dollars, by the way, represents something in the neighborhood of five per cent of Warren Buffett’s net worth, the last I knew that figure.
One problem here is just that The Washington Post is no Williams. Elite American colleges, whether or not they actually do a good job of educating young people, do a VERY good job of producing nostalgic alumni and prestige for themselves. American newspapers have done a very good job of convincing professional journalists that they’re vital civic institutions, but journalists don’t seem to me to have a very good grasp of the fact that the public at large doesn’t like them very much (see here and here). And I have to say that when I worked at primarily journalistic institutions, one of the most aggravating aspects of my job was the need to deal with the self-righteousness of journalists about their work.
And beyond the fact that the Post does not, in practice, attract the kind of warm and fuzzy sentiments that newspaper nostalgics think it deserves to, it just wouldn’t make any sense to offer a $2 billion gift to an outfit like the Post for the simple reason that the vast majority of the Post’s activities aren’t the sort of hard news reporting for which there’s a need for a stepped-up non-profit sector. The world is not currently lacking for sports coverage. Nor is there some kind of critical shortfall in people offering opinions about politics. Business reporting actually seems to have a viable economic model behind it. Similarly, lifestyle journalism continues to be viable in a number of formats. And Warren Buffett doesn’t need to spend $2 billion so that people can find movie recommendations somewhere.
Part of what’s happening to newspapers is the specific issue with the digital era making it hard to make money doing reporting. But part of what’s happening to newspapers is that a newspaper is a gigantic bundle of paper covering miscellaneous topics. The rationale for lumping all those topics into a single geographically-bound institution has a lot to do with the economic logic of printing and distributing bundles of paper, and very little to do with the economic logic of producing and disseminating a digital media product. In other words, two different things are happening simultaneously. One is that as things migrate online, it’s making less and less sense to have a “newspaper” in the traditional sense.
Another is that as things migrate online, the economic foundation of news reporting is looking shaky. But these two things aren’t the same problem, and they’re not equally problematic. If a billionaire was asking me whether investing charitable giving in the media sector was a good idea, I would tell him “yes.” But I wouldn’t tell him to invest in a non-profit newspaper. The smart thing to do would be either to spend money so that existing non-profit media operations—ThinkProgress, the Center for Independent Media, ProPublica, The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, The Nation, etc.—can add capacity, or else to spend money to create a new non-profit media operation (my suggestion would be a focus on state and local reporting somewhere).
People should also recall that a catastrophic collapse of the newspaper industry would hardly be without precedent. The real heyday of American newspapering came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the United States features a literate population and no broadcast media. The rise of radio and television had a devastating impact on the industry and caused massive shrinkage in the volume of papers. This shrinkage then led to what journalists consider the heyday of American journalism when the industry had fallen so far that most papers faced little-to-no competition and could serve as authoritative “objective” sources of information. We’re now once again amidst and era in which technological change is going to kill off a lot of existing business models. But all this has happened before, and all this will happen again.
72 Responses to “Newspapers Without Profits”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 29th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Matt,
Well said.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Battlestar!!!
January 29th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Think of all the envi damage that newspapers do. Newsprint kills millions of trees. The ink is very toxic. All the emissions from the delivery mechanism.
We need news, but not newsPAPERS.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
MY’s channeling Lee Obin again. Looks like the robots have got their hooks into him.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
In a vague but important sense the democratization of information is a direct assault on capital, or should I say centralized capital. Also on centralized organizations, corporations.
My crackpot meta prediction has been that corporations would the winning human organizational model going forward, displacing states. Seen in that light the trillions in bailouts for corporations makes absolute sense and proves the trend. Still, now am now having little doubts.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
When I was a kid, there was a morning newspaper and an evening one. We got both. And the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Now I don’t get any newspaper at all. Yet I read more news than ever.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
This is possibly the best short summary of the current crisis of jounrlaism I’ve seen.
If the next Yglesias book is not on urban planning, it should be on this.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Occasionally, Yglesias earns his supper. This post was one of those times.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
“Two billion dollars, by the way, represents something in the neighborhood of five per cent of Warren Buffett’s net worth, the last I knew that figure.”
Buffett owns about 18% of the Washington Post Co. via Berkshire Hathaway and is also on its board of directors. Maybe he’d float WPO a little extra cash if it becomes necessary, via a preferred stock deal or something.
“MY’s channeling Lee Obin again”
The character’s name is spelled Leoben. And, btw, why did the humans let Starbuck and Leoben wander off by themselves in that first episode of this season? When she came back from the dead last year, everyone was suspicious; now they just let her go on nature walks with a cylon?
January 29th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
By and large, I agree with your argument, Matt. Still, the Washington Post — and many other top newspapers — do more than offer lifestyle coverage or “movie recommendations.” Forget Watergate, or even the Walter Reed scandal; think of the basic need this public has for information about what its government does everyday. That certainly qualifies as a public service in my book, deserving of a billionaire’s investment.
And you’re right; no billionaire should invest in a “newspaper.” But that’s not the point, since nearly all newspapers now have a bustling digital side-show, which is precisely the problem. Newspapers need support precisely because online ad revenues pale in comparison to those earned from the print edition. So, invest in an online news operation, because that’s precisely what current business models can’t support. In other words, put aside the Washington Post, and say hello to WashingtonPost.com.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
The Guardian is, of course, owned by the Scott Trust Ltd.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
The smart thing to do would be either to spend money so that existing non-profit media operations—ThinkProgress, the Center for Independent Media, ProPublica, The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, The Nation, etc.—can add capacity,
You left out all the conservative publications. Have to be balanced, you know.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I agree, excellent post by Matt here.
The Steve Coll article that Matt links to discusses the practicalities of creating a nonprofit newspaper model – but oddly, Coll does not mention the Poynter Institute’s ownership of the St. Petersburg Times, which is a real-world example of a nonprofit newspaper (or at least of a nonprofit organization owning all the stock of a newspaper company, which is very close to the same thing).
Some people have said the Poynter/St. Pete Times model isn’t viable on a larger scale or a national scope. Maybe so, but I would think it is a model worth examining if Steve Coll is serious about removing newspapers from commercial pressures.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
“You left out all the conservative publications. Have to be balanced, you know.”
Which conservative publications are non-profit, exactly? I honestly have no idea. That doesn’t seem too capitalist, you know.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Matt frequently cites distribution as the troublesome part of newpapers. But doesn’t distribution also guarantee the voice. After all, stopping the distribution of paper would be extremely difficult, but how much effort is needed to stop the transmission of digital information? Not much when you control the lines and airways.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Isn’t the National Review non-profit?
I think they have a cruise every year where they beg for $$
January 29th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I just want to point out that The Nation is a for-profit private company. The Nation Institute and Investigative Fund are non-profit entities. Not bashing The Nation, just pointing that out.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Probably a great post MY but the Wall O’ Text critted my eyes for vorpal damage. Pare it down a smidge for those of us scanning multiple windows? CONCISE, CONCISE, CONCISE!
I demand my media be as easily digestible as my Ramen noodles.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
A great prediction on this very topic (via Andrew Sullivan):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WCTn4FljUQ
Eerie how some predictions turn out to be head on.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Yeah, but the problem is the Think Progress model doesn’t scale down to where small towns and cities get any kind of news coverage. You simply can’t sell enough local online cheap ads to pay for even one decent reporter. Craigs List is wiping out newspapers left and right. Maybe some places will have a retired or laid off news person who decides to take up covering the local scene for no pay, but not many have it yet. Other places may get a rich benefactor that decides a news Web site is worth supporting. Our town is losing its newspaper and has no alternative online alternative, because it just doesn’t pay. Sure, we’ve got a bunch of snarky blogs offering personal opinions, often stupid, but nobody is actually doing the legwork of reporting online: calling people, attending meetings, looking stuff up, writing, editing, getting photos, etc. It all costs money, which has now gone away. For that matter, most online sites, like Think Progress, start stories based on the reporting from traditional news organizations. You can’t afford to have reporters in Los Angeles, Baghdad, London, and Rome who actually know the territory, yet can report from U.S. angle.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Papers are not profitable because they pay their writers way too much money for a sub-standard product. In the past, we could accept the sub-standard product because their were few other sources that we could consistently rely on for accurate information. Now that places like Talking Points Memo or Politico can provide more insightful articles on politics with little-to-no overhead (especially on stuff like lifestyle and sports) there’s simply no point to fund a non-profit newspaper. It would be better for a charitable foundation to fund thousands of new Talking Points Memos, with a particular focus on politics that would appeal to the group they want to inform, rather than waste resources on a mega-paper written for an eighth-grader.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I think this is too bad, because less effort will go into reporting in the end, which will erode its quality.
Two great resources. All the News That’s Fit to Sell by Jay Hamilton and also The State of the News Media
January 29th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Matt: interesting thoughts — don’t disagree with a word. Since you brought up Williams, I’ll go off topic a bit to say that non-profits in general — many of which which operate under similar economic incentives as for-profit firms — enjoy tremendous tax code advantages. I think it’s fine and acceptable to allow them to refrain from paying income taxes. But I think extending that favorable tax treatment all the way to removing the burden of property taxes is absurd. Universities, hospitals, churches — they should all be paying property taxes IMO.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
ZYXW—My thoughts exactly!
January 29th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Braden — thing is, newspapers are about more than the national-politics stuff that Politico or TPM focus on. I *do* want somebody to be going to all those local zoning board meetings and local school board meetings and keeping an eye on the city council and then writing up those boring stories of limited geographic interest that are nonetheless important to have out there.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
I don’t see how this follows. You need honking big printing presses and trucks to make and deliver paper. Controlling those has never been a problem for those with the power and inclination.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Papers are not profitable because they pay their writers way too much money for a sub-standard product.
How much do you think newspaper reporters make?
January 29th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
This seem appropriate to the discussion.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
the Washington Post had a two billion dollar endowment, it would be able to fund a very healthy newsroom
WPO has an ‘endowment’ in excess of 2 billion dollars – their market cap is $3.84 billion (but about half of what it was a year ago).
Besides your friend Dr Delong says the Washington Post Company should be eliminated from the face of the earth.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
jack123
My thoughts exactly! (see post 19)
January 29th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Maybe paint by numbers is needed here. Who controls the transmission of digital? One line, one regulator. Who controls the transmission of paper? Thousands of roads and highways, thousands of trucks for distribution, thousands of individuals willing to make the journey, none controlled by anybody. Ben Franklin was America’s first great publisher. Who will be the last?
January 29th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Matt, could universities – especially those with prestigious journalism schools – not share the burden of publishing and sustaining the nation’s current and best papers? Link NYU with the Times, or the Boston Globe with Harvard, or The Washington Post with Georgetown. Both newspapers and universities pride themselves on their intellectual prowess and objectivity, and it seems that one feeding the other could only really help both.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Excellent post. I think jcow’s post at #32 isn’t a terrible idea either, in principle, but it seems unlikely to happen. Journalistic objectivity and academic freedom are different things, and I’m afraid the mixture of the two might turn out to be politically combustible.
To put that another way: the wingnuts would have a cow. Constantly. They’d be birthing cows 24 hours a day.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Why does Matt sully his thoughtful arguments with a shameless pitch for wealthy benefactors to support his very own organization and ones like it? Matt may not have enjoyed working in newsrooms and may now feel much more at home in a straightforwardly strategic/advocacy-oriented think-tank environment, but that simply says more about his own priorities as a writer-intellectual than it does about the real questions of the state of journalism and journalistic institutions in a rapidly deteriorating market.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
I just want to mention that I have plenty of warm fuzzy feelings about the Washington Post (which I grew up reading and now read on-line) as do several members of my family. I’d be more willing to endow them than my graduate institution (Ohio State). Alas, Duke basketball gives me even more warm fuzzies than the Post.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
I can’t wait to see Times and Post perish. Imagining a world where deluded cocksuckers like Friedman are not chronicling their jerkoff sessions in print is thrilling.
FUCK THEM!
January 30th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Matt – you lost me on this posting. Why exactly would it be a good thing for the Post to survive? Williams College is not my favorite non-profit, but at last Williams does not advocate for invasion of other countries, does not defend torture, and does not argue against health care for poor kids. (At least as far as I know.)
There may be a good argument to be made for endowed newspapers, other than the current Post. Hope somebody will make it. And yes, the Post has some good reporting, but its overall net impact on society currently seems to be a negative one.
The other problem with the newspaper endowment approach is that it bundles reporting and packaging/distribution. If you want to support good journalism, a $200 million endowment to support journalism and investigative reporting outside the traditional newspaper setup might do more good than a $2 billion endowment for a complete newspaper operation.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:41 am
First off, I don’t think the American public is too fond of Williams professors either. I would guess they’re viewed as overpaid insular elitists.
Secondly, Matt is right that the newspaper itself is obsolete. No need to have Warren Buffet pay to preserve the Post’s style section. But there is something to be said for a theoretically nonpartisan news source surviving, not just in Washington but in every major city. I notice that blog discussion of the death of newspapers focuses on elite DC coverage. But the vast majority of laid off newspaper employees are fairly lowly paid ($30k is not unusual) local news reporters. No one is clamoring to replace them. This is where the gap will be most acutely felt. Someday it’d be nice if Matt acknowledged that ThinkProgress is not ever going to serve the same role in society that the Post does, but I think everyone will agree that it doesn’t have any interest in trying to fill the void left by, say, the Detroit newspapers.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:18 am
i believe if you want to see a glimpse into the future of journalism and newspapers you can simply look at the columbia missourian, a daily newspaper in columbia, mo staffed by professional editors (including pulitzer winners) and student reporters/designers/photographers from the university of missouri. the paper will soon be making a transition to an online only product, except for elite members of the university and the community who will continue to receive a paper edition (i believe at higher costs, not sure though) a few times a week…i can see the post or times or trib doing something like this within the next few years…it is a bit of a scary notion to think about however, as having a paper affordable to elitists only will only further divide the country (intellectually and socially) it may be the only way to survive because classifieds aint comin back to newspapers and advertising revenue will continue to drop as the economy continues to tumble (not to mention the young professional males advertisers desperately want to attract dont read print newspapers anymore and therefore advertising in print wouldnt be too efficient)
January 30th, 2009 at 1:42 am
nice post.
i like jcow’s idea. Universities already HAVE newspapers and magazines–a lot of them are pretty decent, too. i don’t know what’s stopping Harvard from dropping a couple hundred million dollars into the Crimson but if they did investigative reporting could come back in a big way. plus you got all these established journalism schools and shit… just attach a newspaper to the school and there ya go.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:21 am
Perhaps there are just too many providers of national and global news. In the old days there was limited direct competition. Now the Internet and cable have pushed them all in the same pond.
When this structural excess is gone, perhaps the remaining providers (the “best” by the harsh logic of the market) will be able to earn an adequate profit.
Sometimes the simple explanations give the best predictions.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:35 am
A reasonable overview of the situation, especially coming from a commentator who has shown little sympathy for “traditional” journalism.
Matt is correct in saying that many kinds of specialty and feature news are more than adequately covered now by media other than daily newspapers, although that coverage is fragmented among hundreds of print and electronic sources. How long does it take you to scan all the sites you’ve bookmarked? It’s more efficient to get it all summarized at one source, assuming you have access to one of the surviving quality newspapers.
“Hard” news and investigative reporting require an entity that can handle high overhead costs of staff, workspace, reference and research materials (Wikipedia gets you only so far), travel, legal counsel, etc., and maintain the necessary independence to properly do the job of information gathering. This is especially critical in gathering local and regional news outside major metro areas. (You can picture a quality online local news operation being financially viable in New York or Los Angeles; but how about Topeka or Boise?)
When I was a cub reporter at a newspaper 40-odd years ago, my fantasy was to have a wire-service news ticker at home. The Internet has now made that possible at an affordable price — say, comparable to the price of a cable-TV package. (I’m not talking about the news digests one gets from ISPs, but the full feed that goes to newsrooms.)
It’s quite possible to see a wire service or equivalent news agency developing a viable business model based on home delivery. I think that’s a more promising template for hard-news dissemination than finding sugar daddies willing to bankroll nonprofit newspapers.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:33 am
I want to agree with you on the frustration I’ve encountered with the self-righteousness of many (young) journalists I’ve known. I went to school at a private university north of Chicago with a renowned journalism school (take a wild guess). I think part of the problem may lie in the over-professionalization of the field whereby students spend 4 years in j-school exalting the merits of journalism, the fiction of objectivity, and the ability to right good, tight copy – but they don’t do a whole lot else. Obviously, there are a lot of great practical skills to be learned here, but I think sometimes when I read really thinly reported pieces lacking in perspective I wonder at what cost does this educational focus come? Not a universal problem, there are still a ton of talented people out there, but one that is prevalent enough to bother me.
For me, quality has to lie at the foundation of any news media business model. And that takes more than a fancy degree from a great school – it takes practical experience, apprenticeship, and the ability to be honest about your viewpoint. All things that are unimaginable in today’s hyper-business-minded newsroom. I think a non-profit model would also serve to address this issue nicely!
January 30th, 2009 at 8:46 am
The problem is the American way of doing journalism. American hacks seem to think that journalism is whatever Joseph Pulitzer said it was back in the day, and this means newspapers like the New York Times are unbelievably boring. I mean, they can print in colour, right? So why have all that text and only one picture on the front page? It makes no sense at all.
US newspapers are folding because they are staid, placid institutions which are unable to get rid of the baggage of 90 years bad practice.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:18 am
American hacks seem to think that journalism is whatever Joseph Pulitzer said it was back in the day
Just so you know, Mr. Pulitzer exemplified yellow journalism. The notion that the ideal of modern journalism derives his actual practice is, to say the least, a bit daft.
So why have all that text and only one picture on the front page? It makes no sense at all.
The Economist has usually only a 2″ x 3″ picture with a short article and a third-of-a-page one for a long article. It is still more wittily written and better reading than the NYTimes.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:32 am
As long as the net is useful for business, it will be used. As long as it’s used, it can be used for dissemination of publicly valued information. It is far easier to ban the importation and construction of printers, copiers, printing presses etc than it is to control the use of the internet.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:42 am
I’d like to second Jim (#43) and say that over-professionalization is an enormous problem. I was one of those j school grads, and I’d have to say that good writers are rarely trained through formal classes. They develop their skills while working for a student paper or for some political organization on campus.
I look at the impending collapse of the papers and I’m not nostalgic, but excited! Imagine a world where small publications focus on producing news content by hiring talented writers untrained in the art of mass-produced news copy. I admit, I can’t read a full article of the Times or the Washington Post anymore because the writing is frustratingly formulaic. In contrast, blog-writing appears refreshing, and unencumbered by a form imposed through corporate necessity.
I’d like to return to a time when you could pick up a copy of the paper and see the serialized fiction of Dostoeyvsky or Dickens. And, don’t tell me this isn’t possible! How many bloggers have turned daily posts into best-selling books? We are a diverse country, interested in multiple forms of creative and informative writing. Our newspapers are doing us a disservice.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Printed news media are useful as a guide to the community and the planet that is de-politicized (I will agree that objectivity is not very important) in content and manageable in scope. Broadcast and electronic media do have an advantage in headlines and specialized commentary, but as far as a guide to our world in general terms, newspapers and magazines are the best. This is a vital public service and problems with business models make it so that even if people are still using newspapers in large numbers, the newspapers are not making money.
This is where I would disagree with MY with his preference for non-profit partisan shill media organizations over non-profit newspapers. The scattered content of newspapers (like the serial novelizations of the Golden Age of Print Media that Braden #47 mentions) is more valuable than may actually be imagined.
GO EPHS!
January 30th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Imagine a world where small publications focus on producing news content by hiring talented writers untrained in the art of mass-produced news copy.
That would be an exciting world indeed! How exactly will the publications of such a world be funded, or will the talented writers untrained in the art of mass-produced news copy be willing to work for free?
It is true, by the way, that newspaper writing tends to suck. But my experience is that the dominant paradigm in “old media” is to provide the blandest, most innocuous content with an eye toward attracting advertisers, rather than providing interesting content with an eye toward attracting readers. The crappy writing is a feature, not a bug.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Well, imagine a world in which we all have more leisure, because workers and machines have become enormously more efficient, and some of those productivity gains have been distributed to the people. It certainly wouldn’t be that hard or expensive for us to cover the local beat with our digital cameras and wireless input devices.
I know- it’s hard. Because the papers you read are published by rich people who have no interest in reporting 36-hour work weeks and month-long vacations enjoyed by European workers. Nor do they have much interest in reporting the cost savings we’d gain if we set up universal health care.
Lucky for us these print dinosaurs, which have destroyed so many forests sending their propaganda into all of our homes, will fail. If that makes people anxious and concerned about what their government is doing, so much the better.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:42 am
NPR and PBS are already non-profit organizations, and they have a significant Web presence.
If we need nonprofit news on the Web, why not bulk up public broadcasting rather than taking newspapers nonprofit?
January 30th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
The current state of journalism in smaller cities is partially due to the low salaries paid. Take a look at jounalismjobs.com and you’ll see lots of jobs paying in the $20s, which just isn’t enough to live on. Every newspaper around here has a revolving door of young reporters just out of j school, who may or may not be great writers, but they just don’t know the beats. It takes many years to get to know a beat well enough to be able to write intelligently about it, and it takes a long time to find and nurture the right sources. Hence we see tons of formulaic and just plain bad writing. A lot of stories never get reported because the reporters don’t have the sources. The young writers do their best, but the minute they find something that pays a little better they move on, and the newspaper hires another newby at rock-bottom rates to fill space in between the few remaining ads. Most online news sources I see don’t even bother doing their own reporting–they just take stuff from someplace else or link to it. Someone is making money, but not journalists. We won’t get better journalism until we pay people better.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
So why have all that text and only one picture on the front page? It makes no sense at all.
Because a lot of us over 30s are still literate? If I wanted to read USA Today, I’d buy USA Today. I personally detest newspapers with lots of color and pictures – it’s distracting. Photographs without context usually don’t provide you with useful information.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
One thing that has always baffled me — everyone (and I mean everyone) turns to the dang funny page first.
So why is there only 1-2? Why not have 10 pages of funnies, with ads interspersed? And print ‘em bigger so we can read ‘em; you’re paying your cartoonists for content anyways.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
“Well, imagine a world in which we all have more leisure, because workers and machines have become enormously more efficient, and some of those productivity gains have been distributed to the people. It certainly wouldn’t be that hard or expensive for us to cover the local beat with our digital cameras and wireless input devices.”
That would be great in general, but what are we going to do in a world in which reporting costs a fair bit of actual money? Even in an online-only environment, you still need to pay reporters (ok, maybe they’re also getting some redistributed productivity gains, but we will probably still need to pay the guy covering the zoning beat something), you still need to pay the ad-sales people, you still have IT costs, you still probably need some physical office space (however reduced in size)……all this isn’t cheap.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
The Washington Post has done a great job at one thing. They’ve donea great job at transforming me from someone who though they were great and read their paper every day (even in the pre-internet days and even when I was living on the other side of the country) and would get into debates with New Yorkers about why the Post was better than the New York Times into someone who thinks the Washington Post is mainly good as a toilet paper substitute.
I fucking HATE the Washington Post now. They’ve done a fantastic rebranding job in my eyes from the default newspaper to something I only read if it is linked to on the internet.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
As allbetsareoff indicates, there needs to be a business model created for competitive wire services (rather than the AP monopoly), particularly for state & local reporting.
Newspaper subscriptions are absurdly low ($60 per year in Denver) because the newspaper want high circulations for advertisers (subscription prices really are just evidence to persuade advertisers that subscribers actually read the papers). Why shouldn’t newspaper subscriptions be comparable in price to basic cable ?
To make an analogy to the telecommunications industries, the newspapers bundled news reporting, advertising, classified ads, editorials, features, etc., like the Bell system bundled local and long distance services, with only one type of telephone. With divestiture and unbundling, there are numerous services and products, particularly new services (cellular, DSL) and products (phones, pagers). The prices are higher, especially for people who like the limited bundle of services, but the offerings and variety are much better.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Has your community lost it’s local paper? Want to preserve this antique art? DO IT YOURSELF. I’ve been publishing a quarterly newspaper on my own, for almost 14 years. I use a beige Mac G3 with early versions of page layout and photo editing software. Sell ads myself, gather the editorial copy, shoot the photos, compose the pages, upload the digital files to the printer, pick up the finished product and deliver it to homes and businesses in the area. The focus is on local history… the mere fact that it exists keeps the Establishment hereabouts on their toes. It’s not the power of the press, it’s the threat of the press. Check out samples of some of my front pages here… http://collinmckinneytexas.blogspot.com/
January 31st, 2009 at 1:08 am
Is something like Gaper’s Block or the ists (DCist, Chicagoist, Bostonist) what you had in mind?
January 31st, 2009 at 1:08 am
Re: Williams nostalgia –
“The mountains, the mountains, we greet them with a song….
… ’till hill and valley gaily, gaily ring!”
January 31st, 2009 at 1:11 am
Here’s the whole thing:
“The Mountains”
O, proudly rise the monarchs of our mountain land,
With their kingly forest robes, to the sky,
Where Alma Mater dwelleth with the chosen band,
And the peaceful river floweth gently by.
CHORUS
The mountains! the mountains! we greet them with a song,
Whose echoes rebounding their woodland heights along,
Shall mingle with anthems that winds and fountains sing.
’til hill and valley gaily, gaily ring.
Beneath their peaceful shadows may old Williams stand,
’til suns and mountains nevermore shall be,
The glory and the honor of our mountain land,
And the dwelling of the gallant and the free.
March 1st, 2009 at 4:13 am
tykr ifjgt izprklx pwxiusj dzlwyhvp ahpkd fxsno
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:41 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
I really enjoy blogs like this, since I am a blog addict I will visit again soon.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:22 am
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:05 am
Great site. Good info
xanax
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Does anyone else have any experience with this?
April 9th, 2009 at 5:06 am
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me. viagra