Ha! I told people when we started this whole "writing" nonsense that it was just a fad. Now we can go back to reciting epic poems from memory.

Well, the rest of the world can continue to enjoy serious newspapers and leave the US to its online equivalent of "USA Today" I suppose.

Still though, the US still has quite a few serious newspapers going, like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, which is roughly equivalent to the several competiting national-level papers of other countries.

Either way, it's not so much the format, but the resources for gathering first-hand news. The trend is NOT simply a "put the news online," no, it's a gutting of the news content because they're firing all the reporters too. The content of the new online Seattle paper is just not even close to a good print edition.

And before anyone starts it, no, blogging is not the same thing as reporting.

It's green to get rid of the black and white with the red all over the balance sheet

I caught Andy Rooney railing against the death of the newspaper on 60 Minutes and I couldn't help but imagine some old coot hundreds of years ago bemoaning the death of papyrus scrolls.

wanago bob: It's green to get rid of the black and white with the red all over the balance sheet

Financial Blender Nun disapproves of your shenanigans.

I asked a friend of mine who is in the news business why U.S. newspapers are failing while newspapers in Europe and Asia are thriving.

His two short answers:

1) Europe and Asia have commuting cultures where people need something to read on the way to work. The U.S. has a car culture that doesn't permit that.

2) Foreign newspapers are willing to be gossipy, celebrity-driven tabloids with a lot of sex and nudity. The U.S. news business would be willing to go that way, but the news reporters would all have a serious meltdown over it.

Now that Obama is president, I don't need to read the news. I trust the guy.

Haha.. grandpas newspapers!

itazurakko: Either way, it's not so much the format, but the resources for gathering first-hand news. The trend is NOT simply a "put the news online," no, it's a gutting of the news content because they're firing all the reporters too. The content of the new online Seattle paper is just not even close to a good print edition.

I agree. What worries me about this trend the most is that it's going to lead to more people getting their "news" from TELEVISION, rather than just shifting people to online formats. And I think that for a wide variety of reasons, TV news does a much poorer job of informing people than do newspapers.

The loss of print media will be devastating. In the short term, online news is more convenient. But in a historical context, who will be looking at online content in 200 years? Print is the one thing that has proven its endurance over the passage of time.

and yet, Horse and buggies have not died off

itazurakko: Either way, it's not so much the format, but the resources for gathering first-hand news. The trend is NOT simply a "put the news online," no, it's a gutting of the news content because they're firing all the reporters too.

Insightful commentary on my Fark?

You're exactly right. 70 years ago, this article would have been about how video killed the radio star. There will continue to be a viable market for print media (albeit a smaller one).

The evisceration of our failed national news media in the age of corporate greed is the bigger story.

/works for a small paper

The horse and buggy were being replaced by something better.

So far, local newspapers are being replaced by nothing... or worse - bloggers.

itazurakko: Well, the rest of the world can continue to enjoy serious newspapers and leave the US to its online equivalent of "USA Today" I suppose.

Still though, the US still has quite a few serious newspapers going, like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, which is roughly equivalent to the several competiting national-level papers of other countries.

Either way, it's not so much the format, but the resources for gathering first-hand news. The trend is NOT simply a "put the news online," no, it's a gutting of the news content because they're firing all the reporters too. The content of the new online Seattle paper is just not even close to a good print edition.

And before anyone starts it, no, blogging is not the same thing as reporting.


To add to your very good points:
When news morphed into entertainment and into a profit center in the electronic media that, I believe, spelled the end of print news. I am in my forties and I remember when electronic and print news complemented each other by giving the news consumer a two-pronged access to information. The TV news provided the headlines and print provided the in-depth reporting. With the emergence of the Internet and 24 hour cable news, there simply is no room in the market for (paper)print news.

Perhaps a few of the papers like the ones you mentioned will survive in paper form. The market will decide that in the future.

itazurakko: Well, the rest of the world can continue to enjoy serious newspapers and leave the US to its online equivalent of "USA Today" I suppose.

Still though, the US still has quite a few serious newspapers going, like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, which is roughly equivalent to the several competiting national-level papers of other countries.

Either way, it's not so much the format, but the resources for gathering first-hand news. The trend is NOT simply a "put the news online," no, it's a gutting of the news content because they're firing all the reporters too. The content of the new online Seattle paper is just not even close to a good print edition.

And before anyone starts it, no, blogging is not the same thing as reporting.

I don't usually say "This," but THIS.
About 30 years ago, every paper had a composing room. Before that, there were linotypists and typesetters. All those jobs went away with the advent of new technology. Newspapers didn't say, "Let's take this money and invest in new technology, since people might someday read news online." They didn't say, "Let's hire more reporters, so we can put out a product that is indispensible." They pocketed the profits, and now the chickens have come home to roost.
And because the publicly-traded companies got used to being monopolies with double-digit profit margins, they got so ridiculously debt-leveraged that they needed those 20 percent profits. Which is why they're slashing and burning now.

/If ExxonMobil made the profit margins Gannett does, people would be rioting in the streets.

Aexia: The horse and buggy were being replaced by something better.

So far, local newspapers are being replaced by nothing... or worse - bloggers.

Mechanized News Reprinters

100x this. This also goes for books, CDs, DVDs, fax machines, landline phones, some stores and probably many more I'm forgetting. I find the people arguing for keeping these antiques in existence is because they either work in the industry of producing/selling said items, or they have a large collection. I'm excited about getting a Kindle this summer and don't have one friend or family member who likes the idea of owning one.

Also, halfway through this article the woman seems to confuse elimination of old tech (paper) with elimination of the industry. Aren't they two separate issues?

Mnemia: itazurakko: Either way, it's not so much the format, but the resources for gathering first-hand news. The trend is NOT simply a "put the news online," no, it's a gutting of the news content because they're firing all the reporters too. The content of the new online Seattle paper is just not even close to a good print edition.

I agree. What worries me about this trend the most is that it's going to lead to more people getting their "news" from TELEVISION, rather than just shifting people to online formats. And I think that for a wide variety of reasons, TV news does a much poorer job of informing people than do newspapers.

Heh. I get my news from a news aggregator and wikileaks with proven documents.

Besides, with internet - you can actually get more information than you can ever will from a newspaper on a specific incident, especially if you can get the locals from a story to check out the specifics.

Even newspapers can get the facts wrong. I know this since my sister's rape trial was grossly misinformed with inaccurate details on the articles.

I've never been able to use a horse as emergency toilet paper. Well, once but it was very bothersome for both me and the horse.

SherKhan: I've never been able to use a horse as emergency toilet paper. Well, once but it was very bothersome for both me and the horse.

Could not be worse than using a laptop in the not too distant future.

VelcroFez: I asked a friend of mine who is in the news business why U.S. newspapers are failing while newspapers in Europe and Asia are thriving.

His two short answers:

1) Europe and Asia have commuting cultures where people need something to read on the way to work. The U.S. has a car culture that doesn't permit that.

2) Foreign newspapers are willing to be gossipy, celebrity-driven tabloids with a lot of sex and nudity. The U.S. news business would be willing to go that way, but the news reporters would all have a serious meltdown over it.

That first reason is why I read the paper almost every day... I have an hour long bus/subway ride downtown and back. A newspaper just happens to take a little under an hour to read cover to cover, with just enough time left to finish the sudoku and crossword before I hop off.

America needs a government subsidized paper so we can still get original reporting from somewhere once the other newspapers die off.

SherKhan: I've never been able to use a horse as emergency toilet paper. Well, once but it was very bothersome for both me and the horse.

I reccomend a rabbit next time

Why it's not okay for newspapers to die:

"Click to skip this advert"
"Article continues after advert"

any others?

jiaxiaobo: I'm excited about getting a Kindle this summer and don't have one friend or family member who likes the idea of owning one.

And in 5, 10, 15 years when the current Kindle platform is obsolete, what happens to all of those "books" you've just purchased?

The digital copy is never better than a physical copy. The same can be said for Vinyl/CDs/Cassette Tapes/8-tracks vs. MP3/AAC/etc.

CrispFlows: Heh. I get my news from a news aggregator and wikileaks with proven documents.

Besides, with internet - you can actually get more information than you can ever will from a newspaper on a specific incident, especially if you can get the locals from a story to check out the specifics.

Even newspapers can get the facts wrong. I know this since my sister's rape trial was grossly misinformed with inaccurate details on the articles.

I don't really disagree that online media offers some advantages that newspapers don't. But my point is that it's not "online or newspapers" for lots of people. It's "online or TV". And at this point even online sources don't have the breadth of reporting that good newspapers do. There are plenty of stories that only get mentioned online because some newspaper reported them (especially local stories). I shudder to think of a future where all the local papers are dead, only national papers survive, and TV outlets dominate online and off. I bet that would lead to local officials acting with impunity.

jiaxiaobo: 100x this. This also goes for books, CDs, DVDs, fax machines, landline phones, some stores and probably many more I'm forgetting. I find the people arguing for keeping these antiques in existence is because they either work in the industry of producing/selling said items, or they have a large collection. I'm excited about getting a Kindle this summer and don't have one friend or family member who likes the idea of owning one.

Just a shot in the dark, but maybe your relatives don't see the point of spending $300 for a new toy that downloads books that are just as costly as the print versions? True, a Kindle is a nifty toy, but there should at least be some discount on the books as an incentive.

timefishblue: America needs a government subsidized paper so we can still get original reporting from somewhere once the other newspapers die off.

Like Pravda. No thank you.

fizzygillespie: And in 5, 10, 15 years when the current Kindle platform is obsolete, what happens to all of those "books" you've just purchased?

The digital copy is never better than a physical copy. The same can be said for Vinyl/CDs/Cassette Tapes/8-tracks vs. MP3/AAC/etc.

That's total garbage. Digital copies are much MORE safe and secure for the future assuming that they are replicated and not stored in a proprietary formats. Proprietary formats are a problem, but digital media is not in and of itself.

Amen, all of you.
As a print journalist and as a newspaper fan ... I'm happy that you guys see what's bad about online journalism.
Of course there are upsides to it. Of course. It can be more up-to-date ... I call newspapers "yesterday's news, tomorrow." But! All the good reporters are print reporters.

Aexia: The horse and buggy were being replaced by something better.

So far, local newspapers are being replaced by nothing... or worse - bloggers.

Mixed, really.

Everyone needs to recall the Media's grotesque complicity in parroting neocon lies in the run up to the Iraq war (see thread and TFA for links).

There is bad reporting on print media. Its nice for people to be more skeptical of what they read, and it seems that people are more skeptical on internet sources.

Recently, in the Chas Freeman fight, the 'newspapers' started covering this subject after the action was over. Reporters like Dreyfuss, M.J. Rosenberg, Glen Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, Greg Sargeant, were all covering it in detail as it happened.

This is just the most recent example. Fishwrap might die - but good reporting is here without it, right now. Considering recent events in the Iraq war re: our press, its really important to keep a healthy skepticism, even if they are from fishwrap sources.

What is this "Mac news" that Nicastro mentions?

savage819: As a print journalist and as a newspaper fan ... I'm happy that you guys see what's bad about online journalism.
Of course there are upsides to it. Of course. It can be more up-to-date ... I call newspapers "yesterday's news, tomorrow." But! All the good reporters are print reporters.

The hell I say.

I've worked in newspapers all my life, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies ...

Yep, just let your LOCAL newspaper under and just watch your taxes and local government go wild. Funny thing about most newspapers, they cover these boring-ass things called city council and school board -- which is something in a million years you'd never see a blogger (i.e. news rehasher) cover. But folks, that's where the decisions that impact you the most are made if you own property or have kids.

I'm not saying newspapers are perfect, but they're still the best method of getting LOCAL news to you. And that's the news that matters most.

If people want to read yesterdays' local news on paper, then small, local newspapers WHO KNOW HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESSES PROFITABLY will survive.

This is beyond a non-issue. It's evolution, baby.

fizzygillespie: The loss of print media will be devastating. In the short term, online news is more convenient. But in a historical context, who will be looking at online content in 200 years? Print is the one thing that has proven its endurance over the passage of time.

"DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" ? Yeah, we'll miss stuff like that.

And because the publicly-traded companies got used to being monopolies with double-digit profit margins, they got so ridiculously debt-leveraged that they needed those 20 percent profits. Which is why they're slashing and burning now.

/If ExxonMobil made the profit margins Gannett does, people would be rioting in the streets.

Exactly. Papers, especially small town papers still make profits. Just not the obscene ones they have grown to expect.
However one of the major revenue sources for papers has always been the classified section. Craigslist etc. have pretty much killed that.
/sold a 6 year old iMac in 2 hours this week.

One Bad Apple:

I reccomend a rabbit next time

That's what the bear told me and let me tell you from experience, do not use a gerbil. Their instinct to hide in times of stress makes them hard to keep a hold of.

One Bad Apple: "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" ? Yeah, we'll miss stuff like that.

US Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts

Aluminum tube goodness badness.

lhinds: timefishblue: America needs a government subsidized paper so we can still get original reporting from somewhere once the other newspapers die off.

Like Pravda. No thank you.

I was thinking of something more like the CBC in Canada or the BBC in Britain, but a newspaper. CBC and BBC are both great.

But but but....how am I going to paper train my puppies?

timefishblue: I was thinking of something more like the CBC in Canada or the BBC in Britain, but a newspaper. CBC and BBC are both great.

Some of the U.S. best reporting - now no longer in print (electronic only).

hogans: maybe your relatives don't see the point of spending $300 for a new toy that downloads books that are just as costly as the print versions?

Latest purchase via Amazon - Fool by Christopher Moore. Print edition is $17.19. Kindle version is $9.99.

/owns a Kindle
//still supports print journalism

A good analogy is the Mississippi riverboats.

They thrived for only a short time, until the railroads took their customers away.

Mark Twain writes about it in his autobiography, "Life on the Mississippi."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_the_Mississippi (new window)

Party Boy: One Bad Apple: "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" ? Yeah, we'll miss stuff like that.

US Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts

Aluminum tube goodness badness.

I wasn't gonna' go there because of the inevitable WHAARRGARBLE it invokes. I was trying to show that it's hardly a new thing.

One Bad Apple: fizzygillespie: The loss of print media will be devastating. In the short term, online news is more convenient. But in a historical context, who will be looking at online content in 200 years? Print is the one thing that has proven its endurance over the passage of time.

"DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" ? Yeah, we'll miss stuff like that.

I love how you cited one example where Truman was HOLDING the newspaper in his hand. Sixty years later, you could probably walk into the archives of the Chicago Tribune, and look at a copy of that same paper.

Now, you'll probably say, "You can look at that same newspaper from the comfort of your own home." Yes...but I also see a future littered with 404s, looking like a digital graveyard.

This is all just a plot by that menace, Spider-man! But J. Jonah Jameson won't stand by and let the slackjawed idiots ruin HIS paper!
Robbie, find that Parker kid.

I'm a journalism major, I'm getting a real kick out of these replies.

Party Boy: Aexia: The horse and buggy were being replaced by something better.

So far, local newspapers are being replaced by nothing... or worse - bloggers.

Mixed, really.

Everyone needs to recall the Media's grotesque complicity in parroting neocon lies in the run up to the Iraq war (see thread and TFA for links).

There is bad reporting on print media. Its nice for people to be more skeptical of what they read, and it seems that people are more skeptical on internet sources.

Recently, in the Chas Freeman fight, the 'newspapers' started covering this subject after the action was over. Reporters like Dreyfuss, M.J. Rosenberg, Glen Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, Greg Sargeant, were all covering it in detail as it happened.

This is just the most recent example. Fishwrap might die - but good reporting is here without it, right now. Considering recent events in the Iraq war re: our press, its really important to keep a healthy skepticism, even if they are from fishwrap sources.

Party Boy, really...we are talking about newspapers and their futures. Do you really want to travel down the road of media bias? 'Cause if you do then you have alot of explaining to do about how a rookie senator with no real world experience in anything and certainly no executive experience became president with no vetting and no real challenge by the media.