New York Times CEO: Print journalism has maybe another 10 years

CNBC.com ^ | 2-12-18 | Kellie Ell

[outpostinmass2]

None of her crime partners will testify against her. They all willingly went to prison instead of turning on them.

[hardspunned]

We’ve been watching true journalism at it’s finest the last month or so. Print has nothing to do with it. Other than the some coordinating from Fox News television has nothing to do with it. Today there are a very few investigative reporters (discounting the propaganda hacks of old media). The leads they generate are released though Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and hundreds of sites like FreeRepublic. We are the editors and the ones who determine what direction an investigation will take. The new journalism is responsible for the greatest scoop in history, the Clinton/Obama/Intell plot. Old journalism is dead and it’s dying gasps were feeble attempts to protect its old masters.

[oincobx]

>>>Today there are a very few investigative reporters (discounting the propaganda hacks of old media). The leads they generate are released though Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and hundreds of sites like FreeRepublic. We are the editors and the ones who determine what direction an investigation will take

Do you think that is as effective at the state and local government levels?

[Grampa Dave]

They will last until President Trump wins his second term.

Then, the Deep State Elites will stop funding any fish wraps.

Expect conservative owners of stock in companies that advertise in left wing fish wraps to start suing those companies for wasting hard earned corporate $’s supporting Democrat losers in their fish wraps.

[Natty Bumppo@frontier.net]

...absorbs every word written by Paul Krugman.

Self-inflicted brain damage?

[cymbeline]

I like getting my weekend newspapers. After going through them I pick up my iPad.

Paper is the ultimate flat screen. Also, reading the words, looking at the pictures, and flipping the pages connects me with history, as it’s been done for centuries.

[Grampa Dave]

Close to two decades ago, I posted comments about how our younger relatives, then in their late twenties/early thirties and friends/neighbors didn’t subscribe to any newspapers or fake news magazines.

Now, they are in their late 40’s and early 50’s. They still don’t subscribe to any newspapers or fake news magazines. Their children in their late teens or early 20’s have zero need of any printed news or fake news.

In the past year many of our relatives in the above age brackets have cut their tv cables. Many are opting for no local tv channels or ABCNNBCBS. That is having a devastating impact on tv at all levels. They are saving a minimum of $100/month and more by cutting their tv cables. Most of them are tech savy and had zero problems nor guidance to successfully cut their cables.

[nwrep]

I think other than on politics (on which it is hopelessly biased), it may be the best paper in America.

[Ancesthntr]

“New York Times print products may last another 10 years, says the company’s CEO, Mark Thompson.”

---

Note to Mr. Thompson: your digital products will have a similar or shorter lifespan if the quality of the reporting is similar to the crap that your paper has been spewing out for the last couple of decades (or longer). When “reporting” consistently becomes advocacy for one particular political P.O.V., and it is obvious that the truth is NOT being reported (or very little of it is), then people stop subscribing. This applies to the print product...AND to the digital one, too.

Here’s my advice: Thompson, you’d better make your company into a reporter and honest analyzer of the news, or it is doomed.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Newspapers will not die—but they will change into a different form. The old paper we grew up with is dead—even now. But they will come back in a new way. News is changing. Focus must be local, it must have news that one can not get on the networks, cable, radio etc... I see the papers going more nitch publications—more tabloid-like. It must have things people want to read—not what editors think people should read. Its a product and must think of Market. A good Conservative paper could work “Trump News” or a paper called “The Tower?” But, it should be linked to a cable news network. Maybe A Fox National Newspaper? Maybe call it the Herald or the Call, or The Torch of Freedom.??? Would you subscribe?

[Dr. Sivana]

Young people would learn about the new (old) way of reading newspapers.

I am a former heavy newspaper reader. I grew up with a morning and evening paper, and sometimes bought the New York Times for coverage of the '76 primaries. I also subscribed or read weekly papers like The Wanderer and Human Events.

No more. It is not just that the newspapers have gotten more liberal, but they are pretty much obsolete. The three most read parts of the newspaper in the '70s were the front page, comics, weather and stocks. Internet coverage of weather and stocks is up to the minute, and far more filterable. Looking at stocks in the few papers that still have them is pretty much a nostalgic turn, and nothing more.

The front page is old news between Internet and constant cable news streams. The comics continue to shrink, and most are of lower quality. Dilbert and Get Fuzzy are still solid, not a whole lot else, and both Dilbert and Get Fuzzy have an easily used on-line presence.

The weekly papers and news magazines are old news, and their in-depth coverage is easily matched at sites like Free Republic, which is an effective aggregator.

Being comparatively conservative didn't help the Boston Herald, and the Washington Times never made money, and the Washington Star before that failed a long time ago.

The New York Times will still exist for the same reason the Washington Times does: its value as an established promoter of a point of view compensates for the fact that it is a money loser. Newsweek may fail completely because it no longer has the prestige it used to have, so rich folks may no longer be willing to subsidize it.

[redfreedom]

“And of course, no word about how many paper subscriptions the company has lost.”

Those were my first thoughts too. I mean, if the net balance of subscriptions are up, why would they be giving paper just 10 years?

[Buckeye McFrog]

Young people would learn about the new (old) way of reading newspapers.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there. Young people want their news spoon-fed to them on Twitter and Facebook feeds. That's why they are so thoroughly brainwashed.

[Libloather]

...it might face an expiration date.

It's WAY past that, and the stank is nauseating.

[GOPJ]

I hate the non-stop liberal crap in the print version of the New York Times...

AND

I hate the non-stop liberal crap in the 'digital version.

The biggest advantage for New York Times going 'digital only' would be if they could 'do a NewsWeek' and manipulate the numbers. I'm sure George Soros would be willing to buy a few thousand new digital subscribers... for ads that human eyes will never see.

[GOPJ]

I hate the non-stop liberal crap in the print version of the New York Times...

AND

I hate the non-stop liberal crap in the 'digital version.

The biggest advantage for New York Times going 'digital only' would be if they could 'do a NewsWeek' and manipulate the numbers. I'm sure George Soros would be willing to buy a few thousand new digital subscribers... for ads that human eyes will never see. Mark Thompson doesn't 'get it'. Drudge was successful BECAUSE he offered both sides... NOT because he was 'on a computer'.

[Grampa Dave]