Skip to comments.Do Newspapers Have a Future? (Dinosaur Media DeathWatch™)
Posted on 09/25/2006 1:14:10 PM PDT by abb
It seems hopeless. How can the newspaper industry survive the Internet? On the one hand, newspapers are expected to supply their content free on the Web. On the other hand, their most profitable advertising--classifieds--is being lost to sites like Craigslist. And display advertising is close behind. Meanwhile, there is the blog terror: people are getting their understanding of the world from random lunatics riffing in their underwear, rather than professional journalists with standards and passports.
Ten years ago, it was a challenge for websites to get people to spend time for pleasure in front of a computer screen. "Your problem will be solved actuarially," a computer-sciences professor assured a group of Web pioneers, and sure enough, it was. Now the problem is to get people under 50 or so to pick up a newspaper. Damp or encased in plastic bags, or both, and planted in the bushes outside where it's cold, full of news that is cold too because it has been sitting around for hours, the home-delivered newspaper is an archaic object. Who needs it? You can sit down at your laptop and enjoy that same newspaper or any other newspaper in the world. Or you can skip the newspapers and go to some site that makes the news more entertaining or politically simpatico. And where do these wannabes get most of their information? From newspapers, of course. But that is mere irony. It doesn't pay the cost of a Baghdad bureau.
Newspaper angst is now focused on the Los Angeles Times, where I was editorial and opinion editor in 2004 and '05. Long the industry's leading example of needless excellence, the Times has had bureaus around the world, a huge Washington staff and so on.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Not unless they boot out the liberals.
Ummm .. but reporting the truth, the whole truth and not the liberal agends bs they've been shoving down our throats ??
Future? Only as "sales" advertising distributors...........
It seems he is saying that writing news wrap in opinion is good unless the news wrapped in opinion does not agree with his opinion. Shoosh, all that talk of standards of news reporting to arrive at the final summation, we should do like the Brits and that will save newspapers? I did notice he was kissing up to both the Guardian, Washington Post and NY Times. Methinks little Mikey wants a new job.
He's just trying to give an excuse for his own pitiful record at the LAT. Basically, he's assuming that the whole industry is going to hell, and therefore it's not his fault.
Of course, those two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
Yeah, I think you are right, but he does seem mightly smarmy towards the Guardian, WaPo, and NYT. Loved his analysis that the NYT and WaPo don't care about making money. I am sure the stockholders have realized this.
Ow, my brain-meats.
I grew up addicted to newspapers and gave up on them because I didn't have the time and because I started getting news from other sources. I haven't read one regularly for years. I recently bought a trial subscription to one of the Chicago papers, mainly to help out the kid who said he was in a competition for a scholarship and, just as this article says, I wind up seeing all kinds of news that I already knew about. That, plus the decidedly leftward slant (the front-page story on the arts section yesterday was "Where Are All the Butch Dykes?" in TV and movies) makes me question whether I'll continue the subscription past the trial period.
I do enjoy several small-town newpapers in my area for local news, and I do enjoy the feel and smell and relaxtion of sitting down with a newspaper. I like to read the Sunday paper straight through. I can't imagine doing that online.
I don't like seeing the decline of newspapers. But I don't see how it's avoidable considering the product many newpaper publishers put out.
Ow! My head! Again! Tell me, why should I give even a quarter of a damn about a Baghdad bureau if the journalists you put there are either beholden to the Saddam regime or dedicated to demoralizing the United States?
Not if they continue to lie to and insult their customer base on a daily basis, no, they cant survive.
Thanks for asking!
1) Stop Lying.
2) Stop pimping Socialism.
Bottom line is, if I have a choice of paying 50 cents every day and 2 bucks on Sunday to read opinions or 25 bucks a year as a contribution to FR to read opinions, I would rather be here.
Plus, it is more accurate than the MSM.
OMG, "standards and passports." "Standards"? What "standards"? I started laughing at this point and just couldn't stop.
Exactly right. They need to figure that out. One thing I've noticed is all kinds of stuff in the papers that I know for a fact aren't true. Of course, you run into that on other media too. Plus how poorly a lot of the articles are written.
It's amusing to hear the dinosaurs bellow of their excellence as the tar oozes squelchily up around their ankles...
Sandy Berger has a blog? Who knew?
Meanwhile, there is the blog terror: people are getting their understanding of the world from random lunatics riffing in their underwear, rather than a professional left wing neo-Communist lunatic journalist like myself with no standards, as I riff naked and count the tummy hairs around my naval.
There, fixed it.
(In my very best imitation of Judge Doom from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"): "Stop that laughing! Have you forgotten what happened last time? If you don't stop that laughing, you're going to end up dead..."
No doubt about FR being the place. It's more accurate, plus you'll find information here that gets buried by the MSM. Case in point -- the kid who blew himself up outside the stadium in Oklahoma last year. Outside intial mention of it, there was practically nothing about it that I could find about it in the MSM, except for the media in Oklahoma. My father, who spends hours a day reading the papers and watching the news, hadn't heard of it at all until I brought it up.
Being part of the MSM is somewhat of a trust. Violate it and you'll lose eventually. Dan Rather was the first serious casualty.
Fact is, they have proven they don't deserve our trust. In a world without options, the damage is minimal. But that is no longer the case.
It won't die though. It will just shrink - substantially.
AS IF that's a problem....sheesh.
Well, Kinsley did a lot to help destroy the LA Times, gotta give the little RAT credit for that!
Thanks for the ping.
Soooo....are we the skiviejahdeen now? Guess we don't wear pajamas anymore.
Their pulp will keep many a homeless man warm at night in the burning embers of a trash can blaze.
Does this screaming fool have any intact blood vessels left? I watched him on CNN for no other reason than to see if his eyeballs might pop out and roll across the floor.
It is good for them to fill their pain. I feel zero pain for this left wing whining bozo.
"Not if they continue to lie to and insult their customer base on a daily basis, no, they cant survive."
The corporate culture and religion of lying to their subscribers/custormers and advertisers is taking its toll.
"It's amusing to hear the dinosaurs bellow of their excellence as the tar oozes squelchily up around their ankles..."
The way this maggot is bellowing, the hot burning tar must be past his thighs.
Newspapers' future strongly linked to sales of bird cages.
This Marxist Homosexual Lunatic Maggot Infected Mediot should stick with what he does best. Writing/pimping articles which push the homosexual agendas and pose as news.
Baghdad Bureau ---- It sounds so efficient and powerful. Try this major newsgathering effort....
Given the tsunami of news coming out of Iraq in the papers and on television, it wouldn't be surprising to learn that the media organizations of the world must have a battalion or more of reporters assigned to cover the war. But if you guessed "one or two battalions," you'd be far off the mark. If you guessed "several squads" you'd still be wrong.
Pajamas Media, in the course of a casual conversation with a Marine Corps information officer who tracks the number of embedded reporters in Iraq, learned the real number of embedded reporters covering the Iraq story on September 19, 2006. It was, according to the officer, a fairly typical day. To illustrate his point, he provided Pajamas Media with the illustration he uses to brief with on the state of media embedding in Iraq.
What was that number? Take a guess and then see the truth. No peeking.
If you guessed 9 reporters, you guessed right.
Here's the chart http://pajamasmedia.com/upload/2006/09/media_activity_9_19__nw_b_2.php
showing who the nine embedded reporters were covering all of Iraq on 9/19/2006. You'll see that of those 9 reporters, 3 were from the Armed Forces' Stars & Stripes, 1 from AFN (Armed Force Network), 1 from the Charlotte Observer, 1 from the BBC, 1 from the AP, 1 from RAI, and 1 from Polish Radio. All the rest of the "coverage" of the Iraq war on that day came from reporters hunkered down in the hotels and other locations under the rubric "Baghdad News Bureaus."
So the next time you hear the phrase "reported first hand," you might well ask, "Whose hand and where was it?"
good for spittin' on.
Aww, I didn't mean to tick you off so badly by saying you sat "primly", lol!
"newspapers", not your .gif! I love your .gifs!
I like spittin' on them.
You are a nut!
Actually, Mr. Kinsley, we already get our "news" from the same source. The Chicago Tribune, The Daily Herald, and the Northwest Herald (the last two are Chicago suburban papers) all run international (and a lot of national) news from the AP. It's the same on the hard-copy version and the on-line version. It's probably true for the Chicago Sun-Times as well, but I don't follow that paper so I can't say for sure.
And everybody is entitled to his own opinion of who is writing for the AP.
Newspapers exist to deliver ads and coupons. The artistes on the payroll think it's about them. It's not.