The scarier number would be the percentage of wire stories in the average paper.

It's why no one cares that the guy in charge of safety at Turkey Point nuclear power plant quit in protest but everyone is freaking out about devil pistachios.

staplermofo: The scarier number would be the percentage of wire stories in the average paper.


You're not the lone voice in the wilderness on this issue. Metro USA, a smaller media co., canceled its AP contracts effective April 1st. On the other side of the coin, it was a Gannett newspaper that fought the Bush Administration's Iraqi WMOD claims from the start. There's good and bad here.

Unfortunately, the scales are grossly tilted towards one those ends.

The problem is for-profit news as the norm. Hopefully as more and more people turn to the 'net for information, you'll see more of the kind of reporting we lack today. Actual local news, in-depth topical, pertinent serial, and not the constant din of sensationalist "infotainment" that passes as news today.

Occam's Chainsaw: and not the constant din of sensationalist "infotainment" that passes as news today.

Why do you hate Bennifer?

Occam's Chainsaw: The problem is for-profit news as the norm. Hopefully as more and more people turn to the 'net for information, you'll see more of the kind of reporting we lack today.

You just figure out how the hell we can make money at it, and we'll do it. Newsgathering is shockingly expensive. (new window) Plus, it's you people who are asking for this celebrity crap, it's not like wouldn't rather be doing other stuff.

Etchy333: Why do you hate Bennifer?

because i love brangelina, duh.

I don't care much if one company owns a newspaper in every market to serve us Obama's propaganda or whatever.

The number I'm interested in is the number of distinct local papers in my area, which I'll arbitrarily define as the area from Brockton, Mass. north and Worcester, Mass. east.

There are 50+ names around Boston. Look at ownership and you get:

1. New York Times gang: Boston Globe, Worcester Telegram. (There is limited coverage my city's local stories in the Globe.)

2. Boston Herald (on its own again, I think; there is limited coverage of my city's local stories)

3. CNC/Gatehouse: 50+ tiny to medium size papers, one per town in the region. They amalgamated in the 1990s, partnered with the Herald for a while, and were resold a year or two ago. (A city weekly and a regional daily with some coverage of my city's news.)

4. Media News: Two medium size papers in nearby cities, not really cooperating much as far as I can see. I'm out of their region.

5. Community Newspaper Holdings: Four tightly coupled newspapers north of Boston. I'm out of their region.

For my city in particular, 80,000 population, the two locals merged in the 1990s and the paper is now weekly. The Boston daily papers have limited local coverage. There are two West-of-Boston regional dailies affiliated with the city weekly; one covers a smaller area.

And when you put on special sunglasses, all the papers just say "OBEY" and "CONSUME".

/all outta bubble gum

I know this, the Charlotte Observer isn't fit to be fish wrap. Local reporters are ok. The national media we have now, print and tv, can go to hell. Until they learn to be journalist again I don't care if they all go under.

40below: Plus, it's you people who are asking for this celebrity crap, it's not like wouldn't rather be doing other stuff.

People rise to the level that is set for them. If you set the lowest common denominator higher, people will expect themselves to rise to meet it.

(This will, however, require a vast left-wing conspiracy to prevent the idiot brigade from turning all TV into EW.)

FunkOut: And when you put on special sunglasses, all the papers just say "OBEY" and "CONSUME".

/all outta bubble gum

If you read the online versions in FF, AdBlocker Plus will filter these out.

That's one of the problems. Another is the fact newspapers print yesterday's news, news that has already been reported online by dozens of other sources. There are reasons for me to buy a newspaper, say as historic purposes like 9/11, but other than that I can't find a reason to.

/Now that I think about it, 9/11 was the last time I bought one.

If you read the online versions in FF, AdBlocker Plus will filter these out.

Works for now. I don't use addons; I turn off javascript and image loading from third party sites.

Eventually you may get the choice of paying money or seeing unavoidable inline ads. Being able to suppress ads is partly an accident of current technology.

Has anyone read Neil Postman? (new window)

Zagloba: 40below: Plus, it's you people who are asking for this celebrity crap, it's not like wouldn't rather be doing other stuff.

People rise to the level that is set for them. If you set the lowest common denominator higher, people will expect themselves to rise to meet it.

(This will, however, require a vast left-wing conspiracy to prevent the idiot brigade from turning all TV into EW.)

You are both right. On top of that, as tv news and major media continues to degrade, it continues to lose customers that seek quality journalism. Each and every aspect of the news media has the option of trying to get back the intelligent customer, or to expand their business in the opposite direction and try to get more of the lowest common denominator.

I would love to be able to turn my tv and find intelligent news available. I was really hoping that a big cable news station would be capable of meeting that goal.

But how else would right-wing billionaires be able to convince everyone that the media was biased to the left.

I really don't know how newspapers will make a profit if they go 100% web based. I ran a blog with decent numbers, equivalent to a small towns newspaper circulation, and the number of people who click the ad-links is pretty pathetic. The whole system, where I present an ad to 100,000 people and I get not one cent, may work for the advertiser - who gets some name recognition kudos, but I got zilch unless there's a click, sucks the big one.

The pay-per-view paradigm has never worked either. I guess at some point, if it hasn't happened already, there will be calls to nationalize the newspapers.

Bill Clinton!

It's not so much that a few companies own all the papers as it is that those companies have been successfully bleeding the papers dry for the past thirty years, rather than investing profits in new technologies and newgathering.

flannelled fool: The pay-per-view paradigm has never worked either. I guess at some point, if it hasn't happened already, there will be calls to nationalize the newspapers.

It never ceases to amaze me how farking stupid you are. Once again I'd like to point out that I'm embarrassed to share a state with you.

The newspaper industry is far too small and unimportant to seek (or receive) any sort of gov't support.

Obviously, they're too big to fail!

Dwight_Yeast: It never ceases to amaze me how farking stupid you are. Once again I'd like to point out that I'm embarrassed to share a state with you.

Likewise.

The newspaper industry is far too small and unimportant to seek (or receive) any sort of gov't support.

Is there a (D) behind this knuckleheads name?

Falling sales and advertising revenues are causing many of the countries' newspapers to lay off employees or even to go out of business.

One bill, proposed last week by U.S. Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., would work to stem this tide.

The bill would allow newspapers to become non-profit organizations by claiming status as an organization with an educational purpose. This means newspapers that qualify would be exempt from taxes and any advertisements or contributions made to them could be written off as charitable donations.

As a non-profit organization, a newspaper would be under some government restrictions that would not allow the paper to endorse any political candidate.

Not nationalization, but the slippery slope begins.

Or maybe they just suck in general.

The pay-per-view paradigm has never worked either.

It may be more attractive once most local newspapers go under. I think a subscription model is more likely. I would pay to subscribe to an online local newspaper if there were no other source.

For national news, you may get more partisan quasi-news blogs supported by donations from like-minded true believers. And news will look more like the news of a century ago. Except the lower barrier to entry means for every Hearst there will be a Kos.

Dwight_Yeast: It's not so much that a few companies own all the papers as it is that those companies have been successfully bleeding the papers dry for the past thirty years, rather than investing profits in new technologies and newgathering.

THIS THIS THIS THIS and this some more.

I'm not going to dig in to it, but I bet you at least 7 or 8 of those 9 companies are publicly traded firms. The result is that, just like in so many other industries, they have no concept of what lies beyond the end of their next quarterly earnings statement, nor do they really care.

I mean, who the hell wants to do things like 'plan for a post-newsprint world' or 'figure out ways to make our content profitable online' when if they don't hit their next earnings target, the stock might - OMG - drop by 5% and make the corporate board's golden parachutes take a hit?

That's why print journalism is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Anyone with half a functioning brain could see that the Internet was going to completely turn the newspaper world on its head, even more than TV and radio had in the past. And about 7-10 years ago, the executives of most of the large media chains in this country had a choice. They could either figure out how to deal with the future, or they could start scaling back their products and thinning their editorial staffs, so their bottom line would continue to look good in the short term.

One guess which way they went.

/print journalist
//bitter

schief2: Anyone with half a functioning brain could see that the Internet was going to completely turn the newspaper world on its head, even more than TV and radio had in the past. And about 7-10 years ago, the executives of most of the large media chains in this country had a choice. They could either figure out how to deal with the future, or they could start scaling back their products and thinning their editorial staffs, so their bottom line would continue to look good in the short term.

One guess which way they went.

/print journalist
//bitter

Gotta keep up those 30% quarterly ROIs somehow. My company laid off 25 percent of the staff because it only made $50 million profit in Q3.

/ print journalist
// more bitter

40below: Plus, it's you people who are asking for this celebrity crap, it's not like wouldn't rather be doing other stuff.

Are most newspapers written to an 8th grade level? When you do that, guess what audience you get. And the internet serves that audience better.

i love this site, and reference it all the time. great for not only finding some amusing small-town stories, but an interesting resource for reading the local take on national news

/no point

schief2: Anyone with half a functioning brain could see that the Internet was going to completely turn the newspaper world on its head, even more than TV and radio had in the past. And about 7-10 years ago, the executives of most of the large media chains in this country had a choice. They could either figure out how to deal with the future, or they could start scaling back their products and thinning their editorial staffs, so their bottom line would continue to look good in the short term.

One guess which way they went.

/print journalist
//bitter

First off, I'm sorry for you. No snark involved. I was on the production/management side of a very similar industry. The problems? Invest in new technology, multi-million dollar printing presses, with a life expectancy/write off/pay off of 25 years, to pick up another 100 feet per minute and reduce cost slightly while revenues are declining? Forget it. Use environmentally friendly (and cheaper) printing inks? Forget it. They might smug someones sofa. Push for cheaper newsprint prices by favoring intelligent foresting and harvesting? Forget it. The things that could be quickly and fairly inexpensively improved through technology were improved. I doubt you can deny that. With the writing on the wall, what else could you expect? They kept the businesses running, paychecks flowing, a hell of a lot longer than I would ever have expected.

40below: schief2: Anyone with half a functioning brain could see that the Internet was going to completely turn the newspaper world on its head, even more than TV and radio had in the past. And about 7-10 years ago, the executives of most of the large media chains in this country had a choice. They could either figure out how to deal with the future, or they could start scaling back their products and thinning their editorial staffs, so their bottom line would continue to look good in the short term.

One guess which way they went.

/print journalist
//bitter

Gotta keep up those 30% quarterly ROIs somehow. My company laid off 25 percent of the staff because it only made $50 million profit in Q3.

/ print journalist
// more bitter

Remember when USA Today came out? Everyone laughed at it. It looked more like a coloring book than a newspaper. The problem is thanks to AP, PC editors and lack of foresight, all newspapers read like the USA Today now. The key to a print newspaper is to use less AP, more local stories and get rid of that stupid smug left-leaning that most papers have. (This does not apply the NYT and LA Times as they are catering to their target market with that voice.)

The 9 companies are owned by Rupert Murdoch, and Rupert Murdoch is owned by Satan. Satan is a staunch Republican.

Nemo's Brother: get rid of that stupid smug left-leaning that most papers have.

Sorry, but my local paper's "left" column is Cal Thomas. Their editorial page is often two pastors and the editor, all trying to out-hate the others.

They aren't exactly doing well, either.

It's part of the problem.

The other part is whom they hire to be "journalists".

flannelled fool: First off, I'm sorry for you. No snark involved. I was on the production/management side of a very similar industry. The problems? Invest in new technology, multi-million dollar printing presses, with a life expectancy/write off/pay off of 25 years, to pick up another 100 feet per minute and reduce cost slightly while revenues are declining? Forget it. Use environmentally friendly (and cheaper) printing inks? Forget it. They might smug someones sofa. Push for cheaper newsprint prices by favoring intelligent foresting and harvesting? Forget it. The things that could be quickly and fairly inexpensively improved through technology were improved. I doubt you can deny that. With the writing on the wall, what else could you expect? They kept the businesses running, paychecks flowing, a hell of a lot longer than I would ever have expected.

Heh, I remember that was the excuse for one of the first rounds of belt-tightening, before the Internet really took off - "newsprint costs are through the roof!" (And they really did spike suddenly over just a couple of years or so.)

But it was the same don't-look-beyond-the-end-of-your-nose mentality then. Did the large media chains do anything in advance to help ensure an inexpensive, sustainable source of newsprint? Nope, they just took it for granted that things would always be the same, and got caught with their pants down when suddenly it wasn't. Even then, the answer wasn't "let's find a long term solution", it was "let's shrink the page size and reduce the number of pages". Because that's what customers want, less product for the same money. Brilliant.

Replace "newsprint" with "the Internet" and it's almost exactly the same scenario.

/sigh

Is the submitter trying to say that these papers would be faring better/producing better content if they were each owned by a separate owner?

Wrong, they would be dead.

Regulate the media any further in today's world and it will die.

peart2112: Has anyone read Neil Postman? (new window)

Marshall McLuhan and I both approve wholeheartedly. The quote on that page about Aldous Huxley just makes me love Huxley even more.

Local news will inevitably be handled like in Snow Crash, random guys with web access uploading data(textual, audio, video) to a centralized server for dissemination to the public.

And guess who wanted to protect his timber holdings from pesky hemp competitors so he could supply his vast newspaper empire with paper a century ago?

bhcompy: Local news will inevitably be handled like in Snow Crash, random guys with web access uploading data(textual, audio, video) to a centralized server for dissemination to the public.

Nope..can't control the information that way.

schief2: /sigh

I've never been one to cheer the downfall of newspapers. I pay a nice chunk of change every month for internet access so that I have the benefits of the reporting, editorial writing, and even access to political cartoons that print publishing makes possible. I can't see how the same sources will be available in the future.

/ crystal ball broken

1. Start news gathering agency
2. Sell news to sources: newspapers, TV, Internet
3. Gather underpants
4. ????
5. Profit

Newspapers have to realize that they are in the business of gathering news, not the business of printing words on paper.

Who really cares, unless it affects our Brittany Spears or Michelle Obama earth shattering news stories.

Is it a coincidence that 341 is also the section of the bankruptcy code for the first meeting of creditors???? Me thinks not.

It is scary when you learn that mega monopolies exist that take aim at controlling the media. They own numerous newspapers, TV cable companies, TV Networks, theaters, movie production companies, stadiums for concerts. They control the content. They can nix a story because it adversely effects them or does not support their agenda. Musicians lose, real newsmakers lose, society loses. But we are all so wrapped up in the fast paced life we don't pay attention to the money we pour into our cable tv bills to pay for the brainwashing. We never question the laws they are violating and the lack of regulation from the regulating entities which are now merely shells no longer performing their functions. We are being sucked dry by a handful of multi billionaires and we just keep on doing nothing about it. If Obama has not yet been bought off, he soon will be. Hey Obama, here's your $100,000,000 mega yacht and island in the Caribbean. Now look the other way while we continue to rape the sheeple.

I'm a print media journalist, albeit pretty far off from newspaper dailies, and... print media's been in trouble for some time, and I fear the current economic climate could be the death knell for a lot of them.

The Philadelphia Inquirer? Bankrupt with a shaky future. Cincinnatti Post? Gone. Rocky Mountain News? Closed. Seattle Post-Intelligencer? Entirely online. And without naming the outlet at which I am employed, let's just say I don't know if I'll still have a job next month.

New media dealt a painful blow to print, and the economic collapse might just finish the job.

modestlivinglegend: It is scary when you learn that mega monopolies exist that take aim at controlling the media. They own numerous newspapers, TV cable companies, TV Networks, theaters, movie production companies, stadiums for concerts. They control the content. They can nix a story because it adversely effects them or does not support their agenda. Musicians lose, real newsmakers lose, society loses. But we are all so wrapped up in the fast paced life we don't pay attention to the money we pour into our cable tv bills to pay for the brainwashing. We never question the laws they are violating and the lack of regulation from the regulating entities which are now merely shells no longer performing their functions. We are being sucked dry by a handful of multi billionaires and we just keep on doing nothing about it. If Obama has not yet been bought off, he soon will be. Hey Obama, here's your $100,000,000 mega yacht and island in the Caribbean. Now look the other way while we continue to rape the sheeple.

Do you have any idea how much personal information on untold millions of people flows through Google's bottleneck?

/Nevermind, you really don't want to know.

Zagloba: People rise to the level that is set for them. If you set the lowest common denominator higher, people will expect themselves to rise to meet it.

I find the credit you give people somewhat scary.

Take a look at the U.S. congress. Now take a closer look at the worst nutcases you can find. These screwballs were elected by the people.

When it comes to the people and politics, they are expected to vote for a president every four years, and even then half of the people are unable to navigate the dire straits between an astonishing two candidates, or bother turning up for one reason or the other.

If someone took a truly absurd idea out for a general referendum, something like "Should we abandon the Constitution and rather let the President decide everything?" you would probably get 90%+ votes saying "Nay" of the total voting population, and yet, I would guess that one third of the people would go "Meh, this doesn't concern me. Why should I vote? Beside, there's a queue over there at that polling place."

I have absolutely no faith in the people.

Nemo's Brother: The key to a print newspaper is to use less AP, more local stories and get rid of that stupid smug left-leaning that most papers have

Dunno about the left-leaning thing, that's certainly not been an issue with me, but I'll agree about AP. That said, a smallish newspaper can get an unendless well of AP copy for a year for less than it costs to hire a three-year-rate reporter who might write a story or two a day. You do the math - the publishers sure as hell have.

flannelled fool: Not nationalization, but the slippery slope begins.

It's not nationalization at all, and any company could reorganize itself into a nonprofit without a special law. It just involves the owners giving away the assets to the nonprofit.

And you do understand that a bill is not a law, right? I mean, suppose I were a congressman (or suppose I were an idiot, but I repeat myself...): I could introduce a bill declaring that every man in this country is now gay and has to have teh buttsects twice a week and every woman gets a free Rita's water ice.

That doesn't mean it's going to get very far.

GaryPDX: Nope..can't control the information that way.

Man, Gary, I'm actually starting to feel a little sorry for you: in the case of the plane crash in Japan and the plane crash in Buffalo, there was video unloaded to YouTube before the wire services had the story. In the case of the plane in the Hudson, the networks were actually running a still photo a guy on one of the ferries uploaded to Tweeter less than ten minutes after the crash happened.

Dwight_Yeast: Man, Gary, I'm actually starting to feel a little sorry for you: in the case of the plane crash in Japan and the plane crash in Buffalo, there was video unloaded to YouTube before the wire services had the story. In the case of the plane in the Hudson, the networks were actually running a still photo a guy on one of the ferries uploaded to Tweeter less than ten minutes after the crash happened.

Just send tin foil, mang.