What's up with newspapers?

In reply to 914Driver:

Hey, there was good stuff in that blah blah blah!

And thanks, Chuck. I understand this isn't really about us. It does scare me, though. People should demand better news, the same way they demand better repair work (or, in our case, better hobbyist info). In the case of news, however, it's crucial to a democracy. Like, the cornerstone. And we gave it up due to cheapness, along with a lot of other democratic ideals.

Okay, gettin' off my soapbox and going to do a bunch of work I have piled up in front of me. Thanks.

Margie

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: The cost of producing on paper and delivering is gone on the web, which was what the sub was covering (and not entirely at that).

That's not entirely accurate. There are still costs connectd with providing on-line content in a reliable and roubust way.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: The advertising is how every newspaper makes it's money and pays it's bills. That is still there so the "free" analogy isn't exactly correct.

That's grossly inaccurate. Revenue from on-line sales is a small fraction of the revenue that was generated with print sales.

Printed newspapers will be gone by the end of this decade. They will sink or swim based on an ability to make revenue via electronic medium going forward. Subscription based service might help - but if they cannot make revenue with advertising they are done. It might be a small part of a printed newspapers pipeline now - but that is only because they have no new model for a revenue stream. They are mostly berkeleyed.

Comparing the cost of an online website with a printing facility, production staff, equipment and delivery network is just silly. It is a trivial cost by comparison.

Marjorie Suddard wrote: ... Editorially, what we're left with is a mishmash of crap irresponsibly aimed at populist viewpoints (in a desperate bid to boost circ numbers) that approaches Soviet-era levels of propaganda. ... Margie

QFT.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Comparing the cost of an online website with a printing facility, production staff, equipment and delivery network is just silly. It is a trivial cost by comparison.

I understand that. The point is, comparing print ad revenue from a successful newspaper in the 1980s to revenue generated by banner ads on a newspaper web site in 2012 is far, far more silly. Guess I didn't make my point well.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

I really don't know what the answer is because people don't want to pay for online delivery for whatever reason (maybe because you can't use it to wrap fish?) It isn't the details of the demise I lament but the demise itself.

When they are all gone we will be sorry for the loss. Margie nailed the reason pretty succinctly. I don't think there will be too many more Mike Wallace style interviews with our future overlords.

For a bit of insight on the newspaper business, read a Carl Hiasson novel. He spent many years at the Miami Herald, and puts a lot of insight into his stories. Brutally.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: I really don't know what the answer is because people don't want to pay for online delivery for whatever reason (maybe because you can't use it to wrap fish?) It isn't the details of the demise I lament but the demise itself. When they are all gone we will be sorry for the loss. Margie nailed the reason pretty succinctly. I don't think there will be too many more Mike Wallace style interviews with our future overlords.

I'm with you 100%. You might get Mike Wallace (you might not, but that’s due to other factors not germane to this discussion). Mike and 60 Minutes are network programming and network programming is still very strong. The media crisis is in local coverage.

I work at a television station and I'll be the first to defend what the journalists here do. They do what they do very well. But what they do is about 90 seconds on a big story. Think about that: a minute and a half to explain something important. Edward R Murrow couldn't do it justice. And even at that, when we do research, people zone out at the end of a longer package. As I said, this is for-profit business. No one is doing anything wrong. If the journalists are not respondent to market demands they’re not doing their share-holders justice. As a share-holder, I want them to be successful. But make no mistake- television is a business, not a community service. It never pretended to be anything else and anything else would be irresponsible. And time and again, faster pace, higher story count and less in-depth coverage wins the day. Even nationally, in-depth reporting (actual reporting- uncovering facts, getting to the bottom of things, working sources, digging through public records) is dying in favor of much cheaper to produce opinion that appeals to viewers on an emotional level rather than an intellectual one. And people are rewarding that move with more viewership.

It’s very frustrating to hear people complain about “the media” when good, hardworking journalists want so much to provide exactly what people say they want. Yet the ever dwindling outlets that provide exactly that are failing. Unfortunately, I know exactly why they complain and exactly who the miss-information campaign benefits. But I’ll leave it at that rather than stir that pot.

Marjorie Suddard wrote: In reply to 914Driver: Hey, there was good stuff in that blah blah blah!

Trying to save reading time for folks. (that should be working)

I don't watch TV news, nor do I read any newspapers. I really have zero interest in the dramatized stories they present.

However, we do have a local free "placemat" paper www.justthefacts.net. Although she doesn't cover the town we live in(much), she highlights the major local issues, offers reasonably priced advertising, and doesn't put a spin on every story.

To me, this will be the future of journalism. Someone more passionate about the truth than profits or power, producing the news people really want to read about, in a low-cost/small-scale production. Grassroots Journalism - isn't that how newspapers started???

Just to point out, GRM (since I started subscribing) HAS started to go the way most magazines do. The new mustang coverage is getting nauseating, and having reviews of every car go "yes, it's good! insert one or two small complaints here" is starting to get borderline motortrend. Not even pointing out the fact about NEW cars in GRM (not that that is an inherently bad thing)...

It's still the only mag I'll subscribe to (may eventually start getting Car Craft again).

Also, I'd like to point out that the newspaper, back in the good ol' days, was a way to get the daily news neatly bundled into a package that you could read in bits and pieces.

Nowadays, that IS what the internet is for, daily news bites. How you can make that turn a profit via the internet, I don't know. If I want in depth, sourced material on big topics, I'll grab a weekly newstand magazine ala' Macleans or Times or The Economist (my fave newstand magazine EVER). Ok, Macleans sucks nowadays, but my point remains. I still have a way to get my well thought out, deeply reflective, logical news, and I don't think it's going away anytime soon.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Marjorie Suddard wrote: ... Editorially, what we're left with is a mishmash of crap irresponsibly aimed at populist viewpoints (in a desperate bid to boost circ numbers) that approaches Soviet-era levels of propaganda. ... Margie

QFT.

And again.

But I will add this observation: there are a couple of big organizations that own several newspapers (McClatchy owns the local scandal rag, The State) and when I compare The State to the Charleston, SC Post and Courier it's laughable. (The P&C owns six other newspapers in the US and one in Argentina, along with TV stations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evening_Post_Publishing_Company)

The P&C survives and does well because they get in depth into local and national news. That makes people WANT to read it, thus they can sell subscriptions and advertising.

The State regurgitates the McClatchy line of populist viewpoints and thus no one really wants to read it, that means advertisers look elsewhere. It's a shame, because 25 years ago The State was the P&C's equal in every way.

In reply to HiTempguy:

There have ALWAYS been new car reviews in GRM. I wrote the one for the Miata when it came out.

But otherwise, you're completely right, we're total sellouts. Also, all Green Day from Dookie on has sucked.

Margie

Marjorie Suddard wrote: In reply to HiTempguy: There have ALWAYS been new car reviews in GRM. I wrote the one for the Miata when it came out. But otherwise, you're completely right, we're total sellouts. Also, all Green Day from Dookie on has sucked. Margie

Green Day, pft. They're fine. But don't get me started on the Red Hot Chilli Peppers. I remember when they did songs that weren't the same ballad over and over again. If I see them on TV one more time jumping around like some kind of punk band and singing the punk equivilant of Kenny G I'll have to smack somebody. They were awesome at one time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfrjCNg5XVs

Somebody get Carguy123, stat! I need a sarcasm font!

Marjorie Suddard wrote: Somebody get Carguy123, stat! I need a sarcasm font!

Calm down, I got it. Just kind of a stream of consciousness thing.

I liked your post! Just wanted to take a gratuitous swipe at the whole sarcasm font silliness.

Don't make me break out another LOLcat to prove my whimsical lightheartedness.

Margie

edit: Thanks for the link. Excellent.

You can usually hit a fast food joint or Dennys or something like that and some one leaves a paper to read . You can also stock up on free napkins , sugars , ketchups,mustards , forks , sporks ,and they leave these nice salt and pepper shakers and tabascos ect

I don't mind paying for good journalism when you can find it. The Dallas Morning News has been laying off Journalists and cramming more ads into the paper for years and they don't do much investigative journalism because it tends to piss off the real estate interests who advertise heavily in the paper. I will pay two bucks for a New York Times (yeah, I know - left wing propaganda blah blah blah) rather that waste a buck on the Dallas Morning Snooze. I will even pay my cable provider extra to get the Bloomberg Channel, but dang, at least give us a little journalism for our money.

As for car mags, I have given up on Road and Track and Car and Driver because I can't afford most of the cars on their cover and that they road test despite being a single guy with an above average professional salary. Most mainstream cycle magazines are the same way. When I keep reading the words "affordable 40K sports car" or "reasonably priced 18K motorcycle" again and again, I KNOW I am reading the wrong magazine. Don't even get me started on articles about which hedge fund millionaire just bought one of only 24 Ferrari GTOs ever made at Barrett Jackson for enough money to pay off the national debt of a small third world country.

I do spend money on car and motorsports stuff. The Miata is getting a new top, I am ordering a couple of hundred dollars worth of stuff at Pelican Parts to get the 914 ready for autocross and track days this year, In December I stimulated the economy with a new purchase at the two wheeled Honda dealer. Last summer the Miata got a new set of tires from the Tire Rack. But damn. Who are all these rich people who are buying all this stuff on the cover of Road & Track and Cycle World. They must all be Romney voters.

Marjorie Suddard wrote: Somebody get Carguy123, stat! I need a sarcasm font!

It seems to me that you guys are the ones controlling whether we get a sarcasm font, but I'm with you.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune recently changed access to their website; it used to be totally free but now they allow a certain amount of visits before you have to sign up. I don't recall the amount but I think it's 20 or 30 in a month. You can always get to their main page, and I think access to obituaries is not affected.

I still subscribe to the print version, and plan on continuing it in the future.

HiTempguy wrote: Just to point out, GRM (since I started subscribing) HAS started to go the way most magazines do. The new mustang coverage is getting nauseating, and having reviews of every car go "yes, it's good! *insert one or two small complaints here*" is starting to get borderline motortrend. Not even pointing out the fact about NEW cars in GRM (not that that is an inherently bad thing)...

While we don't often publish new car reviews with varied opinions in GRM, our online reviews can be downright scathing. Some of the counterpoints have been very negative and brutally honest.

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/new-cars/2012-honda-civic-si-coupe/

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/new-cars/2012-mini-cooper-s-coupe/

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/new-cars/2011-mini-cooper-s-countryman-all4/

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: I really don't know what the answer is because people don't want to pay for online delivery for whatever reason (maybe because you can't use it to wrap fish?)

People don't want to start paying for something they've been getting for free for a decade.

I was getting the newspaper for $1 a week, 7 day delivery. I don't know how they can people for delivery at that price (presumably others are paying a lot more). Even then, we'd throw away the paper without opening pretty much every day. Our newspaper is pretty much just reprinted wire stories that I saw on the internet two days prior and stories about local football teams. Even for free, I don't really want the paper. It fills up my recycle bin too fast.

z31maniac wrote: People don't want to start paying for something they've been getting for free for a decade.

But they don't mind complaining about how bad it is...

Marjorie Suddard wrote: edit: Thanks for the link. Excellent.

One of my first jobs out of school was the over night shift in master control at the Cincinnati CBS station. Night Music was my favorite! I saw some absolutely amazing performances. I used to get so caught up in it, with the studio monitors blasting I'd almost forget to roll the commercials!

If you want to see something kinda mind blowing, take yourself back to the early 90s and imagine seeing this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEPi5EQjEpw

That performance really rocked my world. I told everyone I saw the next day that I'd just seen the best band ever. Be sure to watch the whole thing. Money Gone to Heaven is great, but Tame... wow. Kurt Cobain used to say he stole it all from the Pixies. I think he was watching that night too.