Print News Fading, Still Source of Much News 140
CNet's Dan Farber took a look, not only at the popular news of how print media is dying a slow death, but also what contribution to the news print journalists are still making. According to research quoted, while the physical publications are quickly becoming a thing of the past much of the news that makes its way into circulation via blogs and other means still originates from the hard work of those print journalists. (We discussed a similar perspective on the news a week back.) "While the Internet is growing as the place where people go for news, the revenue simply isn't catching up fast enough. The less obvious part of the Internet overtaking newspapers as the main source for national and international news is that much of the seed content--the original reporting that breaks national and international news and is subsequently refactored by legions of bloggers--comes from the reporters and editors working at the financially strapped newspapers and national and local television outlets. [...] As the financial pressures mount--the outlook for 2009 is dismal--and the cost cutting continues, we can only hope that the original news reporting by top-flight journalists is not a major casualty."
It's the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
How do you make what you do pay when the distribution medium changes? While we like to celebrate the Internet for it's ability to disseminate information, the fact is that gathering that information has to be done by someone. Bloggers have done quite a bit in terms of gathering news, or breaking it, but the problem is that most of it is scattered, and tends to be narrowly focused. The other stories, coverage, and news is still done by the traditional media. It's going to be that way for quite a while - we need people who have expertise (and get paid for that) to dig into the complex stories, we need organizations who are going to aggregate it and check it. The actual functions of newspapers and television reporting are needed, but the distribution channel changed. The question for them is can they hold on long enough to make what they do pay in a new medium.
In the good old days... (Score:5, Interesting)
Way before TV, radio, film and even the internet, the most efficient means to distribute news was for each population area to have its own publisher of news print. Cities, towns, burroughs etc. all had their own news papers. Larger areas, such as states, did not. It was not efficient to print a newspaper and deliver it through out the entire state all on the same day.
However, things changed and soon publishers adapted and you could buy the New York times throughout the State and throughout the country. Theater owners started showing news reels, radio started giving out news, and so did TV stations. But newspapers survived all of those because newspapers offered more stories with more depth.
However, the internet has changed the efficiencies for news distribution. Nowadays the internet offers more depth and is updated immediately, plus it offers video and audio, and yet another plus, it offers up to the minute commentary. It's simply asinine for each city/population center to physically publish news on paper and then deliver those papers via gas burning trucks to individuals, to read news articles that were published the day before on the net.
The answer is not to shut down news on the net, it's to accept the fate that newsprint is dead.
Re:What a sad world (Score:5, Interesting)
The quick and the easy = AP, Reuters
The long and difficult = Local Reportage
When the metro newspapers finally figure out that a lot of folks actually like non-national stories again, they may be able to save themselves. Uniqueness and specialization are the drivers of everything online. Just running AP feeds will NOT bring in quality revenue.
If that's true, then do you have a theory for why newspapers, which have been racking their brains non-stop regarding this crisis, haven't latched onto the local-coverage solution?
If you're theory is correct, then I would expect a few newspapers to have tried it, made lots more money (or lost much less) then the others, and then every other paper would flock to the local-coverage approach.
Even if poor local coverage is an area where newspapers can get better, it may not be enough. Papers are also hurting baldy from the loss of classified ads, real estate listings, and car ads, all of which are migrating to the web (i.e., craigslist). The truth is, the web is just a better advertising medium than printed paper for most/all of those items and services. And newspapers really need ad revenue as well as subscription revenue.
AP and UPI get much of their news from subscribers (Score:5, Interesting)
both services have in their contract a "republish" clause on all of their clients' content. with The AP, it means a little more, as The AP is a cooperative owned by the newspapers and broadcasters itself (broadcasters are a subclass of ownership.)
any local stories you have on AP and UPI come from local news outlets, unless there is major statewide interest. the wire services have already been stripped down heavily, and fee cuts The AP will be making for the 2009 and 2010 years, as reported, mean the service has to cut its size AGAIN, by about a third.
and since 90-plus percent of their income comes from local outfits' budgets, you can see the fallacy of the argument by phorest.
As the locals go bust, the whole infrastructure is going to go down with them.
Re:What a sad world (Score:2, Interesting)
When the metro newspapers finally figure out that a lot of folks actually like non-national stories again, they may be able to save themselves. Uniqueness and specialization are the drivers of everything online.
My website is basically an aggregation of local news sources from all over our area and encompasses some 15 different local news sources. These newspapers have relatively small distribution areas and a lot of fluff. Very little of what comes out of them are "news" by any means and while they may break their news stories before the metro newspapers do, they are usually limited in scope and depth. Just because you have a paragraph blurb about some local happening doesn't mean it was worth beating the Pioneer Press or Star Tribune to the punch.
While I don't have print readership (one of the local papers sends out a weekly copy free of charge to your doorstep) I do have more regular reader than these papers do and I more or less just print blurbs of what they already covered and give my own opinion. While I have plans to do a little more than that, it really gives people something other than the fluffy horseshit that these papers provide (they are usually the "official newspaper of foo city" which is apparently mandated for public notices and thus their stories are fucking bullshit and always pro-city). People seem to want that and while I wish I wasn't leeching I just don't have the budget, time or staff (I'm one person doing this in 1.5 hours a day) to "report" on stuff.
Traditional media needs to get around to doing more editorial that's obviously non-biased. People don't give a shit if the official newspaper of the local school district believes that the renewal of the superintendent's contract was a great idea [lazylightning.org], in fact, most people disagree with the decision but here in Minnesota are too "nice" to admit it publicly.
Some of these local papers are trying to reach out the modern age with RSS support but refuse to move to full feeds because it would impact their measly ad revenue (of which anyone with an RSS reader probably isn't going to click anyway). I guarantee that I make 10x what they do in their online ads but trying to explain that to them is like speaking to the wall. These people have no idea how to function in the modern news world and I doubt that they ever will.
It's truly unfortunate because, as you said, they are doing a lot of legwork (even if it's more or less pointless) to get a blurb and beat out the bigger outlets to the punch.
an online alternative (Score:2, Interesting)
In my city, like many others, the major newspaper has made serious cuts to the news department and some top reporters were let go. Some of those reporters have moved to an online only newspaper which has become an excellent source of news.
Our newspaper, again like many others, has always had an agenda and an involvement in local politics that prevented honest reporting on certain topics. The reporters that moved now have more freedom to tell it like it is.
For the first time ordinary citizens have the opportunity to learn what goes on behind the scenes in local government. We learn about the conflicts between developers and the need for city services- water, sewer, traffic management, schools, etc. We also learn about the conflicts between officials who would cut labor costs and union workers who need a living wage. We are finally aware of personal conflicts between government officials and others who hold our future in their hands.
I have no idea how these reporters get paid. The new online newspaper is a non-profit, dependent upon donations. I hope it is getting the support that has been earned, but I suspect this may not be a sustainable model.
Emperor Murdoch is still making huge profit... (Score:3, Interesting)
By the time Fallujah came around, many media reports would make you believe that the Marines (that were effectively squashing all enemy resistance) had met their match against hardened "militants" (I love that catchphrase), and it was doubtful they would be successful. For those of us who have dug a little deeper into military history and engagements, we realize that Fallujah turned out to literally rewrite the book on the effectiveness of operations in an urban environment amongst an enemy established for ambush... the last historical example being Hue city in Vietnam. While we were out there doing our jobs with what we had available at the time (as the military has always done, in every war of our nation), that wonderful, benevolent, caring media reporting on us and using us for their purposes, could only talk about how thin we were stretched, how poor our supplies were, how ridiculous it was to expect us to do our missions with the numbers and supplies we had. When the political pressure mounted and twenty thousand additional pairs of boots were sent to help, along with massive increases in logistics, it was immediately spun as "putting more troops in harm's way" or "the war's not working so we're throwing more resources down a hole." In reality, having extra boots on the ground and rifles pointed downrange meant greater safety for everyone. Units could take more time off between combat patrols because there were more units to cycle in. Assaults could be handled with more fire support and faster evacuations for the wounded. As much as the mainstream media hates to admit it, "the surge" worked.
Lastly, I want to talk about the thing I hate talking about the most: friends who never made it home. While the moonbats at CBS, ABC, and (MS)NBC typically would have a segment at the end of their evening broadcasts showing the photographs of those killed in Iraq, with little other explanation than to senselessly display the fallen on television to stir animosity toward the war effort, Fox sends real men like LtCol North into the field to report on our units on the ground, how they are adapting and overcoming adversity, how they are still keeping their morale high in the face of a long and costly war.
These are the kinds of things that we veterans of this war will remember. We will also remember when bloggers use that "hard reporting" provided by the "big guys," and put it through basic smell tests to see if it passes. Reuters can thank Little Green Footballs for showing what a bunch of Hamas-friendly tools they were during the Israel-Lebanon war by doctoring
Subscription = Revenue (Score:2, Interesting)
This gives them the same revenue from me they would be getting if I actually read the paper. If they embrace this business model for techies and sell the dead trees to everyone else(there are still people not on the internet) they will be fine.
I also get some other extras for subscribing vs. free registration like the actual paper in PDF format and advanced data search capabilities in their archives.
Part of the problem is it is cheaper to subscribe to the paper then just pay for an account online. This points towards draconian thinking. Once setup the cost for the online service approaches zero. So they should charge less not more.
Re:In the good old days... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think in minds of many, reliable newpaper reporting is already dead. Bush and co. should have been absolutely battered bloody over the torture scandals, but largely they escaped it unscathed. Once the news is no longer a tool of the people, and instead a tool of the government, it loses its broad appeal to the masses. They will never get it back. It's over.
death of print or reading? (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that I'm not convinced that this is a replacement of traditional print media by Internet sources so much as it is simply a decline in news readership. As a librarian, I've found that I don't really compete with bookstores. The more people read from the library, the more they also tend to buy from the bookstore. It tends to be a synergistic relationship.
On a related note, Central Connecticut State University President Jack Miller put out his annual Most Literate Cities study, which looks at what literary resources are available and used.
From a USA Today article on this year's study: [usatoday.com]
The findings come at a time when newspaper circulations across the USA are declining, and online newspaper reading is increasing. Miller's analysis suggests that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the availability of free online news is not to blame for the decline in newspapers' print circulation -- and that neither is the decline in bookstores across the country caused by the rise in online book buying.
Cities that ranked higher for having more bookstores also have a higher proportion of people buying books online, the analysis found, and cities with newspapers that have high per-capita circulation rates also have more people reading newspapers online. Likewise, cities that ranked higher for having well-used libraries also have more booksellers.
So I don't think it's necessarily that people are actually choosing to read their news online instead of subscribe to a traditional newspaper. I think more people are just not reading in general and may happen across news online as they do other things--but that isn't the point of their Internet usage.
And if we aren't reading, will that leave us with just television reporters? :O
Pure Bull (Score:3, Interesting)
CNET is owned by CBS, one of the major networks who's prejudiced "coverage" of the news is prompting people to cancel subscriptions and tune out. The obviously, grossly biased news on CBS even cost Dan Rather his job for the simple sake of appearances (even though he's just the talking head that reads what the producer puts on the teleprompter). Despite this, the lesson still isn't learned. So CNET has a strong interest in putting this kind of "analysis" out.
In truth, most old-media outlets get their news from the same source: The Associated Press. Watching almost any local or national newscast, or picking up nearly any newspaper in America, shows a near-perfect reprint of the AP feed. And the AP feed is exactly what people are getting from the syndicated news site of their choice, whether it has a Yahoo, MSN, Google or some other banner at the top of the page. Why watch some overpaid talking-head and suffer through bad advertising if you can just go online, read the source of the copy?
Local and insightful reporting is a dead art, and THAT is what people are turning to the internet for, because it's hard to get from anywhere but a blog in the US.
In the end, it's Bloomberg and the weeklies (Score:4, Interesting)
The journalistic institution with the most reporters is Bloomberg. They have more reporters than the Washington Post and The New York Times together.
Hard news is becoming the province of the weeklies. Time, Newsweek, and The Economist have real reporters out gathering news. The story quality is usually better than what's in the dailies; they're not as rushed. So nationally, we're doing OK.
As for local news, newspapers shot themselves in the foot with "fluff" sections - Food, Wine, Cars, Lifestyle, etc. that didn't require real reporting. On the advertising side, they ended up surviving on classifieds, real estate ads, car ads, and ads for local sales. The Internet does all those things better.
It's not clear who, if anybody, will pick up the slack with local news.
Journalists will find a way (Score:4, Interesting)
Some people devote their lives to a career because it's who they are, not what they do. As the newspapers die, a large pool of talent will be freed. Those who never really had the passion will find other jobs.
But, those who view journalism as their essence will somehow find a way to get paid while practicing their craft. They will invent the next journalism business. They will not quit.
Believing that the end of newspapers equals the end of journalists is like believing that once the record companies all die, there will be no more music.
Re:Subscription = Revenue (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually you are missing something. Classifieds and ads constituted of the majority of newspaper revenue, not subscriptions.
Re:"Top-flight journalists??" (Score:3, Interesting)
It's worse than that. Whereas you or I writing about some topic will have our own opinions, the Mass media have so-called gatekeepers to make sure stories conform to the company's (and lets not forget they are companies) "guidelines". In other words with the mainstream media you have mass organised bias. For example, a story condemning Russian troops as brutal would go through BBC gatekeeping but a similar one condemning troops of an ally (e.g. the US) would not. Such a story would be marked as biased or even "anti-American" (sadly quite a buzzword that BBC reporters like to throw around these days).
The whole of the media is really biased in favour of power. Journalist Pepe Escobar coined the term "Embedded With Power" to describe this. You don't get to be a reporter at a major outlet by rocking the boat to much. The system filters out troublesome journalists who are really critical of those in power.
If you're interesting in the systematic bias and other problems with the mass media, it's well worth watching the documentary "Manufacturing Consent". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sirvWxLHNo8&feature=related [youtube.com]
Re:Subscription = Revenue (Score:5, Interesting)
The editor in chief of one of the large Dutch newspapers (de Volkskrant) told me recently that this is actually shifting: as the demographics are changing (ie newspaper readers are becoming older) they are less interesting for advertisers and more able/willing to pay subscription fees. The ratio is now >50% subscription fees.
This is a quality newspaper, I can imagine that more popular/tabloid newspapers are more dependent on advertising, and the new free dailies obviously are, but I was surprised by the fact that it isn't the case for paid-for quality newspapers in the Netherlands.
Notwithstanding, the problem of free news sources freeriding on the work of the paid-for sources will have to be solved one way or another, as I have little doubt that print newspapers will only decline the coming decades and (exceptions excepted) blogs will not become professional investigative journalists overnight.
Since our democracy depends on independent, critical, and well-researched news, this is an important question for the coming time.
Re:death of print or reading? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, you read the source of my quote and chose to focus on that rather than on what I'd actually said. Should you care to look, the study's results are published a number of other places, but I admit that USA Today had the pertinent bit I needed all in one place for me to quote.
The point is that in many places, literacy begets literacy. Print newspapers aren't losing readers to online newspapers so much as newspapers are losing dedicated readers overall.
As to the guy reading through the four-day-old USA Today on your plane flight (I've done that flight--my butt is still recovering), people read at different speeds and levels. While I could wish that everyone would pick up certain books that I think are fantastic and read them, I've come to realize that so long as someone is reading something, you haven't lost the battle. (I'd rather he was reading an old USA Today than flipping through some of the POS magazines that are all glossy ads, but that's my personal bias.) Besides, who knows what sort of week he'd had? I'm a librarian and a bibliophile, and I've had a week or two in my life where I couldn't read a book to save my life. I just didn't have the energy or attention span. Usually those weeks involved long periods in hospital waiting rooms flipping a quarter with my brother over who got first pick of the crossword puzzles in the various newspapers we'd managed to scrounge.
I've certainly had certain parents treat the Harry Potter books with the sort of contempt you've just shown USA Today. Apparently if it wasn't considered a classic novel by 1950 for some people, it isn't something anyone should waste their time reading.
So no, I do not think of USA Today as a great journalistic newspaper. I don't believe I ever made that claim or probably ever will. My argument was with the premise that print newspaper readers are replacing their newspapers with online newspapers.
Does Anyone Trust the Media? (Score:2, Interesting)
Whoa is the press and their loss of financial recompense. Still, the perfect storm here is that the internet is taking over at the same rate that professional news is getting useless.
I see the newspapers, and the media in general, as shallow. They parrot news at the same level of understanding as an immature, uninformed citizen. (And they get praise from immature, uninformed citizens for doing this.) I'd like to think they are pandering, but I bet, as a whole, they've done it so long that true immaturity fills their ranks. I get talking heads presenting undue fear or bravado at every turn. I never feel I get a balanced set of facts. And frankly, I feel at times that it is malicious.
If anybody is the keeper of language, shouldn't it be the press? I barely know what "recession" or "bail-out" (or "liberal") mean anymore.
I expect the press to make us feel a little bit bad for attacking the wrong source of a problem or for slinging mud at persons who are making the best decisions possible. Instead, they encourage and indulge in childish behavior.
The presidential campaign was a travesty. The economic crisis is well on its was as one. I'd like to see news outlets sued for breach of contract to inform, but they never actually had a contract! It was implied. And I think they take advantage of this.
When they go after companies for jets, I think about the pot calling the kettle black.
The problem with the auto industry is that no one trusts they will turn the corner because they lived with their heads in the sand for 20 years. (And BTW, how can such a long-standing, high revenue industry turn upside down in just one month?) I think the media has the same implied problem. I think they've been digging this hole for 20 years. It's not just the internet. And not everyone wants to see them survive as is. Its time for some gut-wrenching change in quality.
Well, I ramble. You get the idea...
Re:Future (Score:2, Interesting)
Just because the web model doesn't generate any cash is not the reason to disagree with it.
That's like saying people shouldn't drive faster than 55mph/100kph because it's more dangerous. People are going to drive faster simply because they want to. People are going to use the web because they want to.
The web model does make sense and it makes a ton of money. The reason it makes money is the input cost is radically smaller. No infrastructure cost for distribution. Far fewer staff involved in the delivery of content. Physical cost like office and production space are slashed to a fraction. Simple advertising on a web site can be great source of cash. So your input cash stream may be smaller. But your outgoing cash stream is almost zip.
The key challenges with this new medium is that the format of the paper is now turned on it's head. The individual sections of the paper have become industries in their own right. Classifieds are probably the best example. Not only have classifieds become another industry they have further fractured in sub industries. Case in point job adds.
In general the sections of the paper that operated as a middle man between the supply of the information and consumer have now moved directly to the supplier. For example: TV listings.
So basically the portions of the news paper that can be seen as operating as a middle man should be discarded. As these are going to be money pits. The "News Paper" is then basically left with "News". Consider this as a core value product of the industry. This is what print news needs to wrap their head around.
Lets look at a wildly successful on line news source, CNN. What does the site offer? Just News, ( Not the most accurate, but it's news ). That's it. Does it make money. Sure does.
----
As for wireless access to news everyday. It's here. Just the format is not paper like. I currently read the news on the way to work every day on my phone. Nice big screen, no worries about shoving my elbow into the guy next to me as I flip the page. And it's already 100% customized to the stuff I want to read. Around me I see people using EEPC's, Macbook air's, Even some of them subscribe to audio streaming news and listen to that on the way to work. As you see people are choosing the format they like. You may want/like a paper like analogue. But it will come down to personal choice and as such market demand.
Re:What a sad world (Score:1, Interesting)
So you're a thief...I'm looking at the front page of your site right now and it's about beer and stories ripped out of the local police blotter, hardly incisive journalism there.
So you're an idiot, just like the moderators who modded you up w/o even reading his site -- much like what you didn't do very much of, eh? Because if you had his site (more than just what's on the front page), you would have seen that he links to the original content and seems to quote the content more or less in a proper fashion where it is due. Thus, while it's not the best I've ever seen, he's not just reposting the entire print article like your typical Slashdot story.
Nice way to get a couple of mod points, by rambling like your typical slashbotting jackass. WTG.