Yet Another Misguided Idea For Saving Newspapers
from the here-we-go-again dept
There are no easy answers to the problems facing the newspaper industry, but before we can begin to talk about solutions, it's important to properly identify the problems. Oddly, a number of people seem to think that the problems facing the industry don't have to do with declining subscriber rolls and a failure to to adapt to the internet. Instead, they see a problem with the current ownership structure, whereby owners actually have to answer to shareholders and demonstrate growth. In light of News Corp.'s bid for Dow Jones, this concern has become more pronounced (particularly among journalism school types that are worried about the influence of Rupert Murdoch). One solution, proposed by journalism professor Chris Daly, is to get newspapers to pitch their readers on the company's stock (via Romenesko), sort of the way public television stations raise money through fundraising drives. The thinking is that if the readers were also the owners, their main priority would be good journalism. The most obvious problem here is that this idea doesn't strike at the root of the industry's real issues. There's no shortage of "good journalism" in the New York Times, but the company obviously needs more than that to reverse its fortunes. Another problem is that the two papers he's most concerned about, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, have ownership structures that are highly unfavorable to shareholders that aren't part of the founding family. So, unless that were changed, the new class of reader/owners wouldn't have much influence. Ultimate, any proposal that calls for newspapers to exist in some state where where profit isn't the primary focus is a white flag, an admission that the problems can't be fixed so they should just be swept under the rug. In the end, there's no getting past the economics. You can put newspapers in a charitable trust or under the ownership of some civic-minded individual who doesn't mind losing money, but if people keep canceling their subscriptions in droves, in the end it won't do much good.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspapers?
I keep telling them I don't want it.
"But it's free, you don't have to do anything. We'll deliver it. To your doorstep. Everyday." they reply.
To which I say, please don't do that. And if you do, I will call the police and say you are littering.
They hang up baffled.
So my question is--if you are willing to GIVE your product away for free, bring it right to my door each morning to hand it to me, and expect nothing in return--and I STILL DON'T WANT IT---is it really worth saving?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Newspapers?
I find 1 use for the newspaper and my wife another. I like to use it for cleaning glass. She likes it for receiving coupons.
Neither of us read it and if the extra copies wern't free we would only get the Sunday edition with the coupons.
We could eliminate it entirely if we could get coupons on line and not get spammed in the process. I can find something else to clean the windows with.
Anyone nieave enough to think that local news is unbiased, honest reporting has not been paying attention. I can site specific examples where the local news misrepresented the facts to make the point that they wanted to make and never set the stor streight.
I believe we would all be better off without newspapers or mainstream TV news. For the most part they both harp on the negitave and bring society down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Newspapers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Newspapers?
You would think that when people won't take the paper for free, it might be worthless. That's not true, in my opinion, it's one of the rare times the product actually has a negative value. It takes up trash space, it looks bad when a few pile up, and they are waisting large amounts of paper to have me just throw it away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What rock have you been living under?!!? The NYT is the most biased and seditious rag to reach print!! It ranks with the "Star" and the Globe" in content and quality. It comes as no surprise that their subscriptions are falling like a meteor headed for burn-out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Newspapers?
Good point. I still read the paper from time to time but there's nothing there that I don't get from other sources. It's just handy if I'm on the bus.
I would never dream of getting a subscription, and I know I'm not everyone, but isn't that one of the great things about a Free Market; if people stop buying it it goes away?
I know some people will argue that we don't have a free market economy, but honestly, if newspapes aren't selling thats because people don't WANT them.
If enough people don't want them that it's no longer earning a profit maybe their time is just done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The content crisis
It is awfully easy to just blame the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've got birds, so.... yeah....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've got birds, so.... yeah....
...better get an extra back of bird seed, pal, Tweety is gonna need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've got birds, so.... yeah....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
honestly, with the amount of desktop computers in the world, laptops and cell phones, its amazing that newspaper make enough money to survive.
lets not get over analytical here... not every company or business survives the test of times. cave drawings and newspapers are no exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When I look at how parts of society support bills targeted against themselves (e.g. surveillance laws), I wonder which news sources thes people consider.
And I tend to assume, they're not educated by the net but informed by some paper still living in the mid-1980s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
typo. I meant individual digital _medium_/gadget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where does the news come from?
The basic newspaper problem is that the news they generate at a price is disseminated by everyone else for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The quality of information
Useful information and analysis have to be bought today separately and tailored to your needs.
The main thing we get from the papers is what the NYT is thinking and what it thinks we should know and think.Since I already know that - why should i buy it?
Yeah - cleaning the windows. but for that, one issue in every few months is enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think circulation numbers are even worse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. It has a specific, targeted audience
2. It is published monthly and features in depth articles that are not time sensitive
3. It is free and you can get it in dead tree or digital format
4. Our ad rates are reasonable
5. We actually pay attention to who advertises. If you suck, we wont put your ad in our paper.
6. We know where our money comes from, so we actually listen to our advertisers.
7. We don't just regurgitate stuff anyone with a room temperature IQ can find on the net. (My local daily rag keeps printing things I read on Yahoo 4 days after I see it on the net. Gee....I wonder why they aren't thriving?)
Here's a radical idea...if you are a local paper, how about some local news about local people and local places? Oh yeah...you can't buy those stories all written for you and you might actually have to do some reporting. /sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspapers
Twenty years ago a newspaper editor would have considered his job to be a chronicaller of the news, however the main reason today behind writing a story is how many copies it will sell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspapers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspapers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspapers by dave on May 27th, 2007 @ 7:47pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phil's comment ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Phil's comment ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phil proposes subsidized propaganda
I have an opening for a chief editor/producer, with your name on it.
Call me. We'll do lunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Phil proposes subsidized propaganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would buy newspapers but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACK! I would buy newspapers but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phil's comment ...
Editors & Publishers largely decide the tone of a Newspapers content, and to a much lesser extent the field reporters. So whether or not Bush has actually bribed reporters as you assert is immaterial. However, I'd LOVE to see that video. Please reply w/ link... I won't hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]