| Submit your comments on this article | |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- | |
| Newspaper Death Spiral Blamed on Internet | |
| 2008-07-21 | |
I had prepared the edited version, with lots of snarky comments, when - looking for the appropriate photo - backed up and lost the whole thing. Such are the trials of journalism!
| |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #16 We missed the MSM Babe Wars [AGAIN] earlier this month, e.g. MSNBC-CNBC showing a little leg, didn't we??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-07-21 18:57 |
| #15 The New York Post, Washington Times, and Wall Street Journal aren't in a "death spiral". So this isn't something that is generic to all newspapers. People still read newspapers ... when the content is worth reading. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-07-21 17:43 |
| #14 I don't know how the weekly news magazines are staying in business. Doctors' offices. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2008-07-21 15:00 |
| #13 This election will be a referendum on the media-industrial complex. The public has already voted with its wallets, however, as seen in the catastrophic decline of the alphabet news audience (20% in barely a year) and the continuing cycle of layoffs and cutbacks in the dead tree branch. Obama could pull it out for them, but it is not the foregone conclusion his media shills claim it to be. In any case, an Obama win would only slow, not arrest, the decline. If he loses, if the most media-favored candidate in history cannot defeat the enfeebled GOP and its 72 year old candidate, it will be a blazing asteroid in the media heavens and the harbinger of imminent extinction. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2008-07-21 14:53 |
| #12 Day old news, unobjective, elitist agenda. I'll get mine from somewhere else, thanks. I don't know how the weekly news magazines are staying in business. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-07-21 13:49 |
| #11 Why would anyone assume that mashing black pigment on ground up tree pulp would be an eternal practice? I would think that the pro-Gore MSM would be delighted to reduce their carbon footprint. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-07-21 13:28 |
| #10 No, no, no... y'all just don't get it! The results show that papers carry fewer stories on foreign and national news and devote less space to business, science and arts reporting, and many have reduced the crossword puzzle and eliminated television and stock listings. If it bleeds, it leads - maybe that don't sell too good? Many editors said they must ask reporters to cover more beats, reducing their ability to produce authoritative stories. Others said, in what may create a vicious circle, that staff cutbacks reduce their ability to shape coverage to fit their communities' needs, and Ureneck said that coverage is shrinking. So now they can invent stuff, which is easier and faster. Still, 56 percent of the editors surveyed said their news product is better than it was three years ago because coverage is more targeted. It's more of what we think they should like, so it's better. The newsroom is much younger than three years ago, and reporters are more technology savvy and able to meet the demands of print and online stories, according to the study. Also much better at crafting fiction, better able to fauxtoshop, and have musch less perspective than most living people. But, other than that, it's a fine article. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2008-07-21 13:09 |
| #9 And same reasons Fox is number one and the networks are down the tubes. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2008-07-21 11:07 |
| #8 Pinch, McClatchy & Co.: "It's that damned new technology that's doing us in! That's the problem! Our decline has NOTHING to do with people disliking our incessant efforts to shove our biased, lying lefty-lib viewpoints down their stupid throats! Our complete disregard for the truth has NOTHING to do with our dropping circulation. NOTHING, I SAY! IT'S THE TECHNOLOGY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?" |
| Posted by: Jomosing Bluetooth8431 2008-07-21 11:01 |
| #7 I know it's hard to believe, but maybe people are tired of: 1)George Bush is the devil 2)We're gonna die from 3)We are losing in Iraq, but shouldn't be there anyway cause we were tricked so Bush/Cheney could make money on it somehow. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-07-21 10:34 |
| #6 That is why Queen Nancy gets so hot on the 'fairness doctrine' (to which the MSM will probably be largely exempt). So that you are forced to have a certain amount of lies in your diet. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-07-21 10:27 |
| #5 When you don't deliver what your customers want (i.e. the truth), expect your business to fail as people stop paying you for your product. I love free markets. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-07-21 09:39 |
| #4 If you were in a line of work where your employer moved you every two to three years, you'd be aware that moving packers already were using 'newspaper' quality paper to wrap household belongings in. I'm sure they'd have no problems setting up supplies for your local merchants to take up the slack in the absence of |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-21 09:23 |
| #3 Great idea JFM. You can add 1) training the dog 2) starting your charcoal fire (chimney starter) 3) starting your fireplace fire 4) lining your birdcage 5) etc. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-07-21 09:07 |
| #2 Yes it is due to the Internet but the reason is that thanks to Internet peoople now notice that they are being lied to. In the times of the seige of Kesang and the Tet offensive people took at face value what papers said because there was no channel to learn the truth. BTW: I have the ultimate business model: sell unprinter newspaper paper to people who need to wrap fish, protect floors when painting or kill a a mosquito, things all who can't be done with computers and who until now require to buy newspapers. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-07-21 08:25 |
| #1 The two 'major' dailies in Chicago have become campaign handouts for Obama, corrupt local Pols, and leftie causes trashing what little credibility they had left; And blowing off over 25% of their readership NOT BECAUSE OF THE INTERNET. Readers are staying away in droves. |
| Posted by: Shusorong White1099 2008-07-21 07:51 |