60% loss of newspaper jobs
- Thread starter Obliviax
- Start date
This makes the song Fred Jones Part 2 go through my head. It's a sad song about a guy that is being laid off after 25 years of working at the paper, although the song is almost 20 years old and predates the Internet killing of newspapers.
The only reason I get the Sunday paper at this point is for the coupons. Yeah, I read some of it too, but if they stopped putting coupons in the Sunday paper I'd stop getting it.
I think the papers need to re-think their mission and focus much more on local stories, which aren't reported all over the place like national and international stories. Who is getting their info on the events in Orlando or on Brexit or on Trump v Hillary from their local newspaper at this point? Not many.
The only reason I get the Sunday paper at this point is for the coupons. Yeah, I read some of it too, but if they stopped putting coupons in the Sunday paper I'd stop getting it.
I think the papers need to re-think their mission and focus much more on local stories, which aren't reported all over the place like national and international stories. Who is getting their info on the events in Orlando or on Brexit or on Trump v Hillary from their local newspaper at this point? Not many.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
clearly technology related, but have to add that it is no wonder that nobody good works for the paper rags anymore:
Yup.... probably why supposedly non biased/independent reporting stopped years ago when the hand writing was on the walls. They are all fighting to maintain their small bases now. Whether that be liberal or conservative they are all trying to hang on so they feed the masses whatever they want to hear. As long as they keep renewing subscriptions and buying papers and damn getting it right or reporting news in a non biased format. To me also represents why reporters are so lazy any more. Most know their story will get edited to fit the narrative regardless of facts and research.
The Sunday newspaper is good for starting fires in the wood burning season. We have the option to go digital, but then I would have to find something else to burn. Maybe junk mail, but that seems to be tailing off, too.
Yeah....the online companies know they get ad money from clicks...so they've become click bait central. Even the main stream electronic media is no different from TMZ, Entertainment Tonight, Comedy Channel and national Enquirer.
Hyper local newspapers, especially ones that focus on real local news and depth reporting, are actually doing well.
It's the rags like Patriot-News, USA Today, etc. that are struggling because they try to cover a very wide region.
Kind of like Bonfatto's Restaurant in Bellefonte--so much crap on the menu that they can't possibly do any one thing well.
It's the rags like Patriot-News, USA Today, etc. that are struggling because they try to cover a very wide region.
Kind of like Bonfatto's Restaurant in Bellefonte--so much crap on the menu that they can't possibly do any one thing well.
You are correct. Local may not be as good as it once was but is still ok if you know what you are doing.
clearly technology related, but have to add that it is no wonder that nobody good works for the paper rags anymore:
Yeah. I stopped my subscription years ago. Just simply don't read the paper anymore UNLESS it's the National Enquirer. lol
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/
yep, there is no real journalism anymore- it's all advocacy now - the print media is still better than the internet, but it's all bad and getting worse
I got out just in time after 40 years. The final two years they wanted stories posted online immediately, thus giving reporters less time to write longer versions for the print edition. Two weeks after I retired, there were massive layoffs. Then two more rounds of layoffs. Finally, they began printing the paper two states away, cutting the deadline from 11:45 p.m. to 9 p.m. They can't even get East Coast baseball scores in the next day now.
I spent 22 years working for newspapers and left about 10 years ago when the handwriting was on the wall. Basically newpapers lost their business model when advertising went to the web. It's amazing to me how long they have survived without a business model.
I totally disagree with this notion that good journalism (or objective journalism) no longer exists. You don't see it if you just watch Fox News and frequent Gawker-type news sites, but there is good journalism still produced by old dying print publications -- in fact most of the news we talk about comes from real journalists. Most of what you're going to find out about Trump and Clinton came from real journalists. That may not be true in 20 years or even 10 years from now but it's true now.
There is still some really good journalism being done -- the only really good BIG papers left are the Times and the Post now that Murdoch has neutered the Wall Street Journal, but there are still good journalists hanging on and surviving in places like Philadelphia, Portland, Seattle, Boston and even smaller towns where the ownership still cares about serving a community.
Example -- the Reading Eagle where my Dad lives is still plugging away. Almost nothing happens in Berks County that the Reading Eagle doesn't find out about. They aren't fancy, they aren't elegant but they cover the news and they know their readers. By contrast, the chain owned newspapers owned by Gannett, who bought them expecting a 30 percent return to last forever, are withering away pretty fast because they aren't by and large very connected to their communities.
In a lot of places the only place journalism will survive will be as a nonprofit foundation -- which is what is happening to the Inquirer and Daily News in Philadelphia. They won't be anything like they were but they will survive in some form, probably with one-tenth of the staff they used to have, but they still have some really good people writing for them.
I totally disagree with this notion that good journalism (or objective journalism) no longer exists. You don't see it if you just watch Fox News and frequent Gawker-type news sites, but there is good journalism still produced by old dying print publications -- in fact most of the news we talk about comes from real journalists. Most of what you're going to find out about Trump and Clinton came from real journalists. That may not be true in 20 years or even 10 years from now but it's true now.
There is still some really good journalism being done -- the only really good BIG papers left are the Times and the Post now that Murdoch has neutered the Wall Street Journal, but there are still good journalists hanging on and surviving in places like Philadelphia, Portland, Seattle, Boston and even smaller towns where the ownership still cares about serving a community.
Example -- the Reading Eagle where my Dad lives is still plugging away. Almost nothing happens in Berks County that the Reading Eagle doesn't find out about. They aren't fancy, they aren't elegant but they cover the news and they know their readers. By contrast, the chain owned newspapers owned by Gannett, who bought them expecting a 30 percent return to last forever, are withering away pretty fast because they aren't by and large very connected to their communities.
In a lot of places the only place journalism will survive will be as a nonprofit foundation -- which is what is happening to the Inquirer and Daily News in Philadelphia. They won't be anything like they were but they will survive in some form, probably with one-tenth of the staff they used to have, but they still have some really good people writing for them.
I think that was true five years ago. Today, they are all full of BS spoon fed to them large entities (public and private sector). i simply DO NOT believe it is true today.
My company, with our PR firm, can get anything we want printed in 24 hours. It doesn't matter if we call people names, they'll print it. I was recently in the office of an executive when the Post Gazette called him with 12, a dozen, tickets for the semi finals against the Caps. He turned them down and said he gets that call for every major sports event in Pitt the day before or the day of. He said he can call the paper and get a positive article printed and would rather do that than get the 12 tickets and that's how he runs his biz with the local paper.
I'm 33 years old and a majority of you guys are probably older, enough to be my father or in some cases grandfathe. A big part of the issue is that a majority people who are 5 years and younger than me simply don't want to read print. They want immediate access and analyzing a newspaper simply does not do it for them.
The problem with not reading is that while you may get some information fast, you don't get any depth.
So lots of people have a very minimal understanding of the issues and make decisions (like voting) based on not a whole lot.
So lots of people have a very minimal understanding of the issues and make decisions (like voting) based on not a whole lot.
All due respect to you and those younger, but what you posted is the most succinct description of "the dumbing down" of America. Quicker does not equate to better (just ask your wife/girlfriend).
Ha! Perhaps I deserved that. My apologies...did not mean to intimate that "you" personally are part of the dumbing down of America. You basically posted that younger generations are intellectually lazy when it comes to more cumbersome text, and it was in response to that idea that I made my post. Also, my comment about asking your girlfriend/wife was not intended to be personal...merely pointing out that most women could easily suggest another aspect of life where quicker isn't always better.
Again, my humblest apologies.
My parents get the CDT and often case it's 2 days behind the stuff posted on this board. By the time my parents read it at 8am, the story has changed, especially if the "media" is driving the story. Such is usually the case if eunuchs like Garban are driving the story. "Honorable man" my ass.
I know where you're going here, but bottom line is it depends on who is doing the "research" and "writing." So-called depth is all too often in short supply.. it amazes me how alleged reporters can do zero research, say something that sounds half intelligent, and it gets a pass.... even as typos abound.
do your own research. when an internet article claims a or b or c.. for god's sake, check out a, b, and c. independently. check the damned date of print. so many articles spout off as if published minutes ago when the date of pub was 2012. check first, analyze first, think think think... then draw conclusions.
most cannot.
which explains much.
The media has gotten so bad it's hard to even call them "the media" any longer. "The media" was supposed to deliver news in an un-baised way, without trying to set a narrative.
In past history we've seen societies being controlled by political parties who took over control of the media. When a political party takes control of the media, and the media becomes a propaganda machine for a political party, the society usually goes down a very bad road.
In past history we've seen societies being controlled by political parties who took over control of the media. When a political party takes control of the media, and the media becomes a propaganda machine for a political party, the society usually goes down a very bad road.
You are still reading it but you don't know it. People don't realize that to a large degree, the news that they're reading still originates with an old fashioned reporter working for a print publication. Plus the commentary sites and the twitter/facebook sphere -- they don't report news so they're all rehashing the news that gets produced by the old media.
Almost any major story out there -- chances are the essential facts of it have been reported out by some "lamestream media" journalist. When that media is gone, especially if there is no trustworth source of news to replace it, things will get interesting. I picture the witch trial in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. That is how things look today as it is -- large sections of the population are so ill informed they might as well be illiterate -- they live in a world of rumor and superstition. But at least now if you WANT to know facts and truth, at least it's available.
Almost any major story out there -- chances are the essential facts of it have been reported out by some "lamestream media" journalist. When that media is gone, especially if there is no trustworth source of news to replace it, things will get interesting. I picture the witch trial in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. That is how things look today as it is -- large sections of the population are so ill informed they might as well be illiterate -- they live in a world of rumor and superstition. But at least now if you WANT to know facts and truth, at least it's available.
Unfortunately not really true. There are a half dozen examples of hyper local around the country that have been a commercial success, but easily 90% of the hyper-local ventures out there either failed or never made a measurable amount of money. For the most part hyper local has to be a labor of love for journalists who have another source of income. You have as much chance of earning a significant amount of money as you do making silly youtube videos -- and making silly youtube videos might be more fun.
1) Business executives have always misunderstood how newspapers work and to overestimate their influence -- hence the anger and disillusionment when an unflattering story appears.
2) Newspapers in the old days had space to fill and generally welcomed press releases to help them fill it. The dynamic still works that way.
3) A lot of times press releases actually contain real news. Just becuase it's a press release doenst mean it isn't news.
2) Newspapers in the old days had space to fill and generally welcomed press releases to help them fill it. The dynamic still works that way.
3) A lot of times press releases actually contain real news. Just becuase it's a press release doenst mean it isn't news.
Would be interested to hear thoughts from those in the industry on computers taking over print/written journalism. Per the linked article the AP is using a computer system to write over 3,000 financial stories per quarter, and that is likely to increase going forward. http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7939067/ap-journalism-automation-robots-financial-reporting
Those are the daily market stories a la "Gold was up on the Nymex this morning while silver was down." .... They are so formulaic that really nothing is lost by having them machine written. In fact machine writing should mean more accuracy due to less human error.
You can't automate asking questions or news judgment though. Until artificial intelligence can read a press release and see the bad news buried in the 17th paragraph at the bottom of the second page, there will still be a need for trained journalists. That's the good news. The bad news is, the business model that used to underwrite journalism has collapsed.
BTW here is my favorite take on the whole subject of automated journalism. Maybe it's easier to auto-generate opinion than news?
http://thomasfriedmanopedgenerator.com/This+is+a+Big+Deal+f75797
