Homeland Security Cuts Newspaper/Magazine Subscriptions; Says To Use The Web

from the seems-smart dept

Thu, Jul 30th 2009 5:49pm — Mike Masnick

BullJustin writes in to alert us to the news that the Department of Homeland Security is cutting subscriptions to paper newspapers and magazines, cutting $47,160 from the budget over the next two years. Of course, for Homeland Security that's a tiny drop in the bucket (hell, it's not even that big). But, the writeup (somewhat tongue in cheek) suggests that this is unfair to newspapers who are "hurting enough financially" already. Of course, on the flip side, I'd think most people agree that not wasting taxpayer money on content that people are probably reading for free online anyway, is a good thing...

Filed Under: federal government, homeland security, magazines, newspapers, subscriptions

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2009 @ 6:06pm

why the hell were they getting these in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kyle, 30 Jul 2009 @ 6:56pm

If the newspapers and magazines don't embrace technology, and use it to their advantage they are bound to fail. Rather than whine about it, EMBRACE it. If online news sources are cutting into your subscriptions profits, give people a REASON to pay (either for paper or online access), rather than the same stuff they can get for free.

Also, did you mean ".. drop in the bucket?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Jul 2009 @ 10:41pm
  
  Re:
  Also, did you mean ".. drop in the bucket?
  
  Indeed I did. Fixed. Thanks!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew Moffat (profile), 30 Jul 2009 @ 7:03pm

News sources should Ransom. The next week's news won't be released online unless a total of $X in pledges have been made. If the goal is raised, everyone's pledge is charged. If not, nobody pays anything...but the news isn't released. That way it hurts everyone to not cooperate, but everyone benefits from the cooperation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- washii (profile), 30 Jul 2009 @ 7:23pm
  
  Re:
  And then turn right around and sue them out of business for antitrust, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2009 @ 11:51pm
  
  Re:
  with the speed that the news travels at now the only news worth paying for is investigative work. Everything else is just shared common knowledge. Those that provide fast breaking news will still generate ad revenue. These two sides of the media need to branch apart and I think everyone would be happier.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2009 @ 8:15pm

I expect they monitor personals for encoded messages. Or did, anyhow. Easier ways to get things done, nowadays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2009 @ 8:44pm

bucket, not bucked Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Milian, 31 Jul 2009 @ 12:54am

Not taking one side or the other, but if the government is giving absurd bailouts to industries that self-inflicted their problems, does it follow logically for them to pull funds from another hurting industry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian, 31 Jul 2009 @ 7:57am

The bailouts were given to industries that were deemed to big/important to fail, due to the impact their failures would have on the economy. Whether you agree with that determination (I personally do not), individual newspapers or magazines are not in the same category.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2009 @ 11:35pm
  
  Re:
  The bailouts were given to industries that were deemed to big/important to fail, due to the impact their failures would have on the economy. Whether you agree with that determination (I personally do not), individual newspapers or magazines are not in the same category.
  
  I guess that all depends upon who's doing the deeming, doesn't it? The newspaper industry has been claiming that it is indeed vitally important for the country for it to be protected. In fact, they might even consider themselves to more important than some of those other industries so it would certainly be logical for them to get bailouts too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Juanita, 7 Aug 2009 @ 1:06pm

What about the thought that computers would save paper
Years ago people were all excited about computers saving us paper. Well if you go with that line of thought newspapers and magazines should have started to transition decades ago. We did not stop reading. A digital subscriber is still a countable number. We can still be shown ads. Obviously. So what seems to be the problem? I think that lack of understanding that real estate is not your visible measurement of the success of your business, a writer can write from home and readers could care less where the digital version is edited. So if you pay someone for 40 hours a week in an office and they can do the same thing in 5 hours at home telecommuting, then you just need to adjust your thinking. So save on rent and utilities. Hire MORE writers and produce more content for even more audience then you could have ever gotten via print. Pay for 40 hours a week but have set amounts of data instead of a clock-able time spent doing the work. You save on office space and the employee saves on transportation and gets an improved quality of life with more time after a productive few hours of work to spend time with family and friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]