News Worth Buying On Paper 106
theodp writes " Last night,' confesses Business Insider's Henry Blodget, 'I did something I very rarely do: I bought a newspaper. Why? 'Because there was some news in the newspaper that I wanted that wasn't available online for free [a hyperlocal zoning story].' The problem in the news industry, suggests Blodget, is there is way too much commodity news coverage of the same stories, so it has to be given away for free. To be able to charge for news, Blodget suggests, you need more news that can't be found anywhere else. So, is there any type of news that you're still willing to pay for these days?" I've recently discovered that a newspaper in The Villages, Florida publishes a monthly list of "Golf Cart Crashes (With Injuries)," googling for which only seems to bring up ads for lawyers specializing in that area, so paper will have to do.
We still read the local paper ... (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife and I still read the local rag (The Press Democrat) because, although we've read most of the national and international news online 1 or 2 (or sometimes even 3) days before, there are stories in Sonoma County (and parts north) that simply don't show up anywhere else. It used to be owned by the NY Times organization, but it was recently bought by a group of local investors who are emphasizing the Local News aspect.
We might switch to the electronic version of it, but we will not lose our need to know what's happening in our own community.
I'd pay for... (Score:5, Interesting)
An online paper with a set of sliders. That way I can choose to receive 70% hard news articles 20% book reviews and 10% human interest. On the human interest I can dial 0% celebrity gossip, 60% cat pictures and 40% heart warming stories of strangers helping old ladies.
Someone else can dial 70% showbiz, 20% financial and 10% international news.
OK so I may have made up these percentages and categories, but I think a tailor made paper like that could be successful.
I would pay. But newspapers do it wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
The development in news is kinda disheartening. I can't talk about your country, obviously, in mine we get more and more of low quality papers, some being pushed onto you for free (literally. You open your door and there's a newspaper hanging on your doorknob, not that you ever signed up for one). You can pick up newspapers on your way to work in the subway or at the train station. For free.
Quality-wise you're dealing with the worst kind of bull that you could possibly think of. 99% opinion, 1% weather forecast and quiz page. Of course, you cannot SELL a newspaper like this. Never. Not only do I get that kind of crap pushed in my face (literally...), I can get the same kind of "quality" (and even better) online.
I think if you want to SELL your news, you have to deliver quality. Give me information. Not opinion, not yellow press nonsense, not articles that were copy/pasted from some online news source or some news agency, i.e. the same crap I can get for free (and often get whether I want to have it or not). Give me well researched articles that go beyond the surface, on topics that actually matter. Do an exclusive interview with an interesting person, a politician with a vision (who doesn't just repeat whatever bull his party wants to spew), report about stuff that matters, send a reporter there and ask the people around for their view. Ignore the "official" bull and dig deeper.
THAT is what journalism is about. For everything else, I already have more than I could possibly want, and I will most certainly not pay for it. If anything, you'd have to pay me to be better than the rest of the crap.
Re:I'm still reading the paper on... paper (Score:4, Interesting)
Not owning a TV the internet is my primary news source. The most valuable publications on the internet to me are The Guardian and DER SPIEGEL. And even though those two have an excellent and supposedly selfsufficient online presence I can tell the journalistic difference. The online stuff reports mere news. The kind of stuff you can buy off Reuters, AP and other newsbrokers. They focus on speed. The print editions focus on analysis and are a bit more thorough as they can obviously spend more time in the archives. The Guardian gets pumped onto my Kindle via Amazon and even if the legendary lack of editing on The Grauniard sometimes is more than a bit aggravating it does make my daily commute a little bit retarded. DER SPIEGEL on the other hand is a weekly periodical and comes with very lengthy reports. I do not know of an equal to it worldwide. I also try to read Die Zeit and have been known to do so for the last 20 years but it is a pure opinion piece front to back and it is as thick as your average phone book.
I've given up on Le Monde and the NZZ due to lack of time.
If you compare these newspapers to their online presence or even worse news on TV there is no better way to keep yourself informed. And there is no alternative to reading a lot of newspapers from as many countries you can do. Otherwise you might be lead to the misconception that there is such a thing as a simple truth
I still read paper papers (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm as hardcore geek as they come and I still prefer to read the weekend paper as paper because:
1) I like to read it with my saturday breakfast. A laptop, tablet or phone just is a pain for this and I'd smudge it up with my greasy paws anyway.
2) The natural flow and visual arrangement of a newspaper just works better in an absolutely defined space than it does in the maleability of an HTML document.
3) Computers distract you with a million things and constantly shine bright lights in your eyes. Paper is much better for reading any works of even moderate length because it does one thing and is gentle on the eyes.
Papers will still be around for a long time, mainly because of point #3. Certainly not in the numbers they once were, but technology natrually has a way of forcing once-ubiqutous things into niches. Think of cars vs. horses, movies vs. live theatre and now computers vs. paper.