[lainie]

'The industry's revenue model is crumbling away. The readers followed the newspapers online, but the advertisers did not. What we saw in the past year was that the newspapers were no longer just slicing away some operations or staff, but have been amputating entire limbs.

[lainie]

[Past Your Eyes]

Ain’t that an awful, cryin shame?

[mom-7]

Just wondering. Seems like it is just the liberal rags that are in trouble.

[Carl LaFong]

Softening up folks for the bailout.

[Pantera]

Let’s bail them out! Why not?

[Gondring]

The readers followed the newspapers online, but the advertisers did not.

A tactical victory for conservatism.

A strategic victory for liberalism.

America is becoming more and more illiterate, and the stories now have to be told in two paragraphs or less. Conservative papers are losing readership faster than liberal ones (e.g., The Washington Times vs. The Washington Post), and voters turned to sound bites and faux-news (e.g., The Daily Show) for their information.

With newspapers declining, the republic will follow.

[hinckley buzzard]

In one obvious sign of distress, the paper breached its own code earlier this month when it began accepting advertisements on its front page for the first time in its 157-year-old history

The old grey whore reveals her true colors.

[Lancey Howard]

I want the New York Times and the rest of the Democrat newsrooms to suffer and die, and I want everybody associated with them to lose their jobs, their homes, and their families. For the damage they have done to this nation they deserve nothing less.

[frithguild]

schadenfreud ping

[SumProVita]

Conservatives ought to buy them and bring REAL change!

;-))

[jimbo123]

The NY Times is running out of cash and will have to cut 40-50% of their staff by April-May to forestall bankruptcy.

Even Obama The Kenyan knows that the NY Times is going to have a bloodbath in the Spring and is distancing himself from the situation.

The tidal wave of NYT pinkslips are coming soon.

[fleagle]

BoofreakingHoo.

[rwfromkansas]

I am a newspaper reporter right now, and while I like it, I certainly did not intend to stay in it permanently.

Papers are just really struggling. Hopefully that will lead to less liberal bias, but don't count on it.

Mine is better than many, but we still have a meeting next week to discuss the finances. Layoffs aren't coming yet, but from what I overheard the editor saying, we are cutting back wherever we can.

Needless to say, my decision to look for a higher-paying and less stressful job has been bumped up. I don't intend to be here much into the summer as much as I love journalism and feel we need some good ones out there.

It will only get worse before it gets better, and bigger papers are suffering more (already done layoffs etc.) simply because not being as local, they really are struggling more because of the decline. Until they find a way to make the Internet profitable, papers will only get worse.

Yes, online advertising has increased. But, you know what the bread and butter of a paper still is? PRINT. Online revenue just can't make up the difference right now. Frankly, I don't see it as numerically possible for online to make up the difference for a long time. Even then, that will only happen if radical changes are made.

Perhaps dailies only print a once-a-week edition and go online the rest of the time. They will probably have to be free without registration online since people won't pay or register, even if for free. If I run into any newspaper site that makes you pay to view content, I run away. I will NOT subscribe, and I am a journalist myself. If a site makes me register, I use bugmenot.com to use another person's login. Also, again.......we have the double-edged sword here. The paper's main source of revenue is PRINT. You can't take away print and expect revenue to stay the same. Thus, going online may not be a solution, but FURTHER LEAD TO DESTRUCTION.

Many will go out of business entirely. I just hope my job is safe for five months. Until yesterday's announcement of the meeting, we were all under the impression at least this paper was doing okay “enough.”

Something radical needs to be done for papers to survive. However, exactly what that is questionable. I hope this “inside” perspective gives you more insight.

Frankly, it is hard for me to envision a way that the industry will survive, for there is nothing in my mind that would stave off disaster for sure and turn things around. If anything, the most obvious cure (going online almost exclusively) could be worse than the problem.

Good news for those who want to see newspapers die.

I think they serve an important purpose, but I do hate the bias in many papers. Perhaps this will lead to change.

Oh, for those of you who say a liberal bias is the problem behind declining revenue....I write for a medium-size daily paper with a conservative/libertarian bent. It is not liberal.

[dirtboy]

including some of its biggest and most trusted names

Biggest, yes. Most trusted, hell no.

[Parley Baer]

“including some of its biggest and most trusted names, is fighting for survival. Troubles at The New York Times, Chicago Tribune”

Now that is hilarious. Most trusted names. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[hermgem]

Go, join and help these distressed business models out of their self imposed liberal partiality:
Go email, call, write to advertisers in these papers that you will not buy a product advertised in, for reason of... and then do it.
You have tremendous power to reign in partisan reporting.

[gakrak]

Don’t ya just love payback? This couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of left wing nuts. Amen.