Posted on 05/24/2015 3:45:34 PM PDT by Zakeet
The demise of big city print media, displayed in full by the painfully slow sale of the mammoth New York Daily News, is going nationwide as ad sales decline 50 percent and circulation plummets, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis
According to their report, "The Declining Value Of U.S. Newspapers," just three different media companies in 2014 alone decided to dump more than 100 newspaper properties. Pew said the companies spun off the money-losing properties "in large part to protect their still-robust broadcast or digital divisions."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Well, I use newspapers as fuel for fire after I have read them.
And not a tear was shed.
Have the bird sign up for mailings from the RNC or DNC. He can do his business on letters from Boehner or Pelosi. Kind of what they do to us in their day jobs.
TV is much worse than newspapers for the public. Before TV people could choose to read in depth. Now they are spoon fed at most two paragraphs of a 10 paragraph news story on TV. They learn nothing and the bias seeps in more deeply, not to mention all the crappy ads. There are no good TV channels despite all the “competition” because they all have to answer to the advertisers.
Like William Randolph Heast, I believe I could run a newspaper and make it a hit. How you ask? I will give you a list: 1. Newspapers are NOT a trust—they are a business and one that needs to give people what they want. people don’t want to be force fed a diet of “What they need to believe and know” Watch what happens to Tomorrowland Movie that preaches Global Warming—it will fail even with all the special effects in the world. Give people what they want! A Conservative paper—Look at Fox News—why are they so popular? 2. Why buy a paper for 2 bucks when all the same stuff is on the net? Newspapers must have things that can only be seen IN THE PAPER! They need celebrity Reporters who get the scoops—and if tiy want to read what they have found—you got to buy the paper. 3. All real news is Local! Cut the boilerplate from the AP—go after local stories—local corruption, local events and happening—or how locals look at international events. 4. Cut the huge number of advertizements—would you watch a TV show that was 50% commercials? No! Why put up with this from the papers! 5. Put new things in—why not have a page writen by the DNC? (as if most isn’t) but with it a page from the RNC—heck have a page from the Communist Party, the Nazis, the Libertarians—posted as such.
6. Stop with the Peanuts cartoons—they are dated—get new cartoons—what happened to Flash Gordon? Dick Tracy? mary Worth?— No politics in the cartoons! Or if they are they should be parodies. Al Capp was good at that. 7. Newspapers can be made to pay—but they must give the masses what they want and need—not Preaching some political gospel.
“The liberalism is what really does it for them.”
Yes, you are right. I used to read fashion mags too (not that I’m so fashionable, but I do like to read) and one by one I dropped them because it was vive l’abortion tous les jours.
We dropped the local rag last year and they call begging us to re-subscribe every 3 months or so.
The last time they called I asked the gal why would I want to subscribe to news that I read online yesterday? Her reply was, “It gives people jobs”.
No thank-you, click.
Who wants to pay to read the Atlanta Journal/Const?
Even Humblegunner can’t prop up the legacy press any more.
Aww. That’s areal shame.
No. Anyone flushing money into this is making a performance art of a fool and his money.
I stopped using newspapers when Bill Roggio started The Long War Journal.
I sold my old H&K 91, built a PC (I built them for other people anyway) and moved my news consumption online. I think it was around 1998.
That’s funny.
Even with the internet, newspapers in other countries don’t seem to be having the same problems staying in business as ours do.
Maybe that’s because it’s easier to attract readers in countries where, unlike the U.S., most children have been taught to read beyond the third-grade level.
I can’t understand why newspapers like the Wall Street Journal continue to charge huge amounts to read their content on-line. Why can’t they separate their print and digital offerings and then charge reasonable amounts for internet-only access? They’d attract many more on-line subscribers and could therefore charge higher revenues for their ads, and everyone would be happy.
I will never pay online to read lies, either.
That’s like other mags who ALWAYS have “gay” couple profiled...ie..Country Living..Sunset
Not sure, but their parent company, Cox Enterprises, seems to be doing relatively well in spite of the decline.
Same goes for TV shows and movies. They want to shove gays in your face, so I refuse to watch any that do so. Instant loss of revenue for them.
What am I going to crap on?
*******************************
We spray the tray under the metal grid floor of our parrot cage with generic PAM ,, just hose it off.
The funny thing is that the “journalism schools” in universities all agree on one thing, and pound it into all of their students: newspaper can *only* be done the way they are done right now; and there can be *no* other way of doing a newspaper.
It is like a religious credo with them, which makes it hilarious to debate them on the subject. The rowboat is sinking because there are holes in the hull. “Quick, make more holes so the water can drain out!!!”
“Plug the holes? Are you insane! That cannot be done!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.