NationStates Jolt Archive

So I hear that newspapers are facing extinction.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/27/rocky.mountain/index.html

Anyone else notice that every article seems to be from the AP? Or that the idea of reporting is to go to an official source and accept their statement as proof enough. For me if I am gonna read cheap reporting it might as well be on the web. After all a Yahoo news story from the AP has the same info as a Chicago Tribue AP story, because they are the same story.

So maybe instead of the newspapers whining they should get back to their roots. Start with reducing news on things already found online. Sports scores...online, AP news....online, classifieds...online. How about some local investigative reporting. Maybe then I will deign to spend 50 cents on a paper.

As a Journalism student I can verify that sales of newspapers is decreasing:

Source 1 (http://www.allmediascotland.com/spike/3500/13012009/Year-on-Year_Newspaper_Sales_Figures_in_Scotland_Almost_all_Down)

Source 2 (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641312664)

Souce 3 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/27/trinity-mirror-dividend-advertising)

Now why is this happening?

A mix of advertisers and free press. I mean why pay for news when you can get more up to date stories on the same subject for free on the Internet or TV 24/7. Advertisers are seeing this, as newspapers make the majority of their money thorough advertising and not sales as the cover price of a newspaper is less than that of how much it takes to create that one paper.

With advertisers jumping ship to the internet and television the newspapers need to secure any advertisers they can but the advertisers need to know the demographic the paper appeals to. After all Rolls Royce are not going to advertise their cars to Sun readers and will instead target the Financial Times, who though are the most expensive to advertise in are going to reach the demographic Rolls Royce need.

At the end of the day its about money and newspapers are not attracting enough of it. We won't see the complete extinction of newspapers but they will eventually the minority news sources.

As a Journalism student I can verify that sales of newspapers is decreasing:

Source 1 (http://www.allmediascotland.com/spike/3500/13012009/Year-on-Year_Newspaper_Sales_Figures_in_Scotland_Almost_all_Down)

Source 2 (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641312664)

Souce 3 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/27/trinity-mirror-dividend-advertising)

Now why is this happening?

A mix of advertisers and free press. I mean why pay for news when you can get more up to date stories on the same subject for free on the Internet or TV 24/7. Advertisers are seeing this, as newspapers make the majority of their money thorough advertising and not sales as the cover price of a newspaper is less than that of how much it takes to create that one paper.

With advertisers jumping ship to the internet and television the newspapers need to secure any advertisers they can but the advertisers need to know the demographic the paper appeals to. After all Rolls Royce are not going to advertise their cars to Sun readers and will instead target the Financial Times, who though are the most expensive to advertise in are going to reach the demographic Rolls Royce need.

At the end of the day its about money and newspapers are not attracting enough of it. We won't see the complete extinction of newspapers but they will eventually the minority news sources.

And then internet news sites will start charging $0.50 a day.

And then internet news sites will start charging $0.50 a day.

Some already do have a subscription service however they still have some news stories that you can view for free as a sample just so you know the type of journalism you would get should you pay for subscription but that would not be in the best interests for all news sites. The BBC for example is not a commercial company and is already funded for by the public. It would not make sense for the BBC to charge for use of its website as it will anger the taxpayer and there could be a boycott of people not paying the TV License which means they lose billions in funding. It wouldn't be worth the hassle.

As a former sports reporter for a county paper, I can tell you that even shifting the majority of content from national to local did not stop the free-fall of subscribers. Newspapers are dying. My friends back at the paper just enjoyed week-long furloughs, and there are doubtless more ahead. Sad, but true.

As a Journalism student I can verify that sales of newspapers is decreasing:

Source 1 (http://www.allmediascotland.com/spike/3500/13012009/Year-on-Year_Newspaper_Sales_Figures_in_Scotland_Almost_all_Down)

Source 2 (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641312664)

Souce 3 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/27/trinity-mirror-dividend-advertising)

Now why is this happening?

A mix of advertisers and free press. I mean why pay for news when you can get more up to date stories on the same subject for free on the Internet or TV 24/7. Advertisers are seeing this, as newspapers make the majority of their money thorough advertising and not sales as the cover price of a newspaper is less than that of how much it takes to create that one paper.

With advertisers jumping ship to the internet and television the newspapers need to secure any advertisers they can but the advertisers need to know the demographic the paper appeals to. After all Rolls Royce are not going to advertise their cars to Sun readers and will instead target the Financial Times, who though are the most expensive to advertise in are going to reach the demographic Rolls Royce need.

At the end of the day its about money and newspapers are not attracting enough of it. We won't see the complete extinction of newspapers but they will eventually the minority news sources.

That's pretty much how I feel -- why pay for something when you can get something BETTER for FREE?

Can't see it, really. If TV didn't kill newspapers, why will the Internet?

Can't see it, really. If TV didn't kill newspapers, why will the Internet?

Easier to read using this:http://www.ab5k.net/Images%5CDualMonitors%5CDellMonitor.jpg
Than this:http://kobnet.net/misc/www.cedmagic.com/history/rca-first-color-ct-100.jpg

Internet and TV aren't free, btw. In fact, where I live, internet access and buying a newspaper every day come out to about the same amount -- $30-40 a month. Someone who owns a TV in addition to a modem could be paying $70 or $80 a month. Internet access is more worthwhile because it offers more than just news stories and the like that you'd get from a paper, not because it's necessarily cheaper.

Easier to read using this:http://www.ab5k.net/Images%5CDualMonitors%5CDellMonitor.jpg
Than this:http://kobnet.net/misc/www.cedmagic.com/history/rca-first-color-ct-100.jpg

Yeah, because TVs haven't gotten any better at all in the last fifty years.

Yeah, because TVs haven't gotten any better at all in the last fifty years.

That doesn't sound right. I don't think you're correct.

So I hear that newspapers are facing extinction.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/27/rocky.mountain/index.html


Well, that'll be one less pesky right that we have to worry about. Did you know that freedom of the press doesn't apply to electronic reporting?

Maybe this will be the return of pamphlets passed around the coffee house which will lead to the revolution.

I still buy the Daily Mail every morning. Not only does that mean that I'm helping to keep newspapers alive, it also means that I'm a posh middle-class racist twat. :D

I work at a newspaper and yes, subscriptions are declining. In addition, papers have to deal with widespread theft on the newspaper racks and less advertising. We've had recent layoffs and we've been told to watch our hours. Yeah, not a good time to go into traditional journalism...

Well, that'll be one less pesky right that we have to worry about. Did you know that freedom of the press doesn't apply to electronic reporting?

How do you come to that conclusion?

How do you come to that conclusion?
Mainly because of the way non print media is regulated, discussion about 'public' airwaves, Fairness doctrine, etc... If I'm wrong, great.

Can't see it, really. If TV didn't kill newspapers, why will the Internet?

I would argue that TV killed off the evening papers; here in New Zealand, we once had two evening papers, the Auckland Star and Wellington's Evening Post. Both have passed into history.

a billion trees breath a sigh of relief. but i'd rather not see so many REAL journalists being put out of work, and only corporate ass kissers kept on, as seem to be so often the case.

(the difference between tv and internet is tv is "them", internet is "you"!)

Mainly because of the way non print media is regulated, discussion about 'public' airwaves, Fairness doctrine, etc... If I'm wrong, great.

How does the (revoked since 1987 and now banned) Fairness Doctrine factor in?

There are ways in which broadcast media are treated differently than print because, as you mention, the airwaves are a public good of limited size, analogous to navigable waters. I can't create a new broadcast frequency if I don't like the TV stations in my area, whereas I can in theory print another newspaper. AFAIK this doesn't apply to the Internet, or satellite TV.

I work at a newspaper and yes, subscriptions are declining. In addition, papers have to deal with widespread theft on the newspaper racks and less advertising. We've had recent layoffs and we've been told to watch our hours. Yeah, not a good time to go into traditional journalism...

Fuck. I was planning on that being one of my majors. :eek2:

I like newspapers because if you miss the tv news programs, you're out of luck and there's no regulation of the internet. Anyone could post any story they pulled out of their ass on the internet.

Plus, newspaper is versatile. You can use it in arts and crafts. Nothing says "surprisingly enjoyable" like attempting to build a glider out of newspaper, glue, and popcicle sticks that have been sanded thin to reduce weight.

I'd make an airplane, but radio-control and building electric motors light and strong enough to allow lift aren't my specialties.

I think I'll start a newspaper. Just to be contrary.

I still buy the Daily Mail every morning. Not only does that mean that I'm helping to keep newspapers alive, it also means that I'm a posh middle-class racist twat. :D

I rather thought genuine "middle-class" literature was one of the Tomes, Telegraph, Grauniad, Independant, or FT. The Mail is neither a posh, nor middle-class, paper, in as much as choice of newspaper bearsany great relation to political and social identity.

Fuck. I was planning on that being one of my majors. :eek2:

Don't worry about it. If possible try and get into radio journalism. Apparently its starting to take off again.

Newspapers are awesome. Can you make arts and crafts with television news programs or websites? No. Plus, newspaper paper is nice and thin, which reduces weight. Get rid of newspapers and we're left with a world filled with yellow internet journalism and news that you'll never find out about if you miss the evening news. And a world where your paper and popcicle stick gliders are too heavy. Where will that lead us? Chaos. Everything breaks down. Cars vaporise as you drive them. Californian hippies vote Republican. Not Govonator donkry-in-elephant's-clothing Republican. Republican Republican. Do you want the liberals voting Republican? Do you?

I like newspapers because if you miss the tv news programs, you're out of luck and there's no regulation of the internet. Anyone could post any story they pulled out of their ass on the internet.

The other thing is that you can still read newspapers in a variety of settings; I read the Herald over breakfast, I see people on the train reading the Herald. I can cut out some of the more interesting articles and keep them (especially ones with complicated diagrams that aren't placed on the net).

Computer people have been predicting the end of paper/print media for decades. Hasn't happened yet. We have not yet discovered a more convenient and more durable way of saving data for the long term or of carrying data around with us without needing power to do it. What is really failing is the business model of newspapers, and that may have a lot to do with the business model of media corporations. I think if a new business model can be devised, print news will come back. It will be up to those in the news/journalism business to figure that out. *returns to drawing board to figure out a good way to start a newspaper in the 21st century*