the decline and fall of US newspapers

[Jon Abbey]

we all know this is an ongoing story, but this little fact I read today amazed me:

"In a research report Tuesday, Barclays Capital pegged the Boston Globe’s value at just $20 million - far below the $1.1 billion the Times paid for the Globe in 1993, and the $550-600 million calculated by Connors and former General Electric CEO Jack Welch when they made an unsuccessful attempt to buy the paper two years ago."

http://www.bostonherald.com/business..._in_the_rough/

[GoodSpeak]

Quite frankly, the internet has had more influence upon the decline of newspapers than anything else in this country.

[kedoane]

My husband still wanted me to continue the subscription to our local paper even though he leaves before the paper arrives at our door step. I'm the one that usually reads it when I get the chance. I have been reading most of my news online. Not sure how much longer we will have a newspaper in the Silicon Valley. San Jose Mercury News has shrunk down quite a bit.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Quite frankly

Stop it, you're getting me wet.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

we all know this is an ongoing story, but this little fact I read today amazed me:

"In a research report Tuesday, Barclays Capital pegged the Boston Globe’s value at just $20 million - far below the $1.1 billion the Times paid for the Globe in 1993, and the $550-600 million calculated by Connors and former General Electric CEO Jack Welch when they made an unsuccessful attempt to buy the paper two years ago."

Wow!

That is amazing. They're making the tech stock bust look like a long, slow death.

[Jon Abbey]

yep, good call by the NY Times to pass on that offer two years ago, I'm sure their shareholders are thrilled with this turn of events.

[Scott Dolan]

Looks as though more and more papers are going to go the way of the CSM.

Or go the way of sensationalistic tabloid trash like the two main papers here in Mizzou have.

Either way, necrosis has already set in.

[jesus marion joseph]

Can't remember the last time I purchased a copy of a newspaper. I do, however, religiously read two papers online pretty much every morning. One of them is the local fishwrap and the other because I don't have to "join" their website to read.

[Jon Abbey]

it seems to me that newspapers should band together and charge at least something for access to their online editions if they have any hope of saving themselves.

[Brian Olewnick]

Dan Okrent, in an address from 2000 or so to the Columbia School of Journalism

[Monte Smith]

What we as readers need to do is to bring back the practice of serving fish and chips in newspaper. It is the only way that journalism can be saved. Yes, Rupert Murdoch is a problem, and so is the internet, but this downturn really began with plates.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

it seems to me that newspapers should band together and charge at least something for access to their online editions if they have any hope of saving themselves.

I've always wondered about that. You charge to have a paper delivered to someone's house, yet offer the exact same thing online where people can view it from...their house.

It would make as much sense for you to charge for Erst discs while offering everything as a free download online.

[clinthopson]

For me, a lifelong (at least since teenhood) ritual has been reading the morning paper in bed before I get going. I need to know who won, what Dagwood put on his sandwich, how badly my investments did, what part of the world is going into the toilet, the latest exciting news from Lompoc and the the paper's editors and letter writers think about the state of civilization.

Yep, you can get all of that on the net, except maybe Dagwood and the tearing out of the crossword and Sudoku for Donna. Laptops aren't all that great when used in semi-reclining position.

[Gary Sisco]

I'm afraid they're going the way of major music labels, unable to adapt to changing circumstance.

I only read one in print, now -- The Economist.

I used to read two majors and one or two locals every day, but I can't see paying every day for what's online anyway.

[Jon Abbey]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I've always wondered about that. You charge to have a paper delivered to someone's house, yet offer the exact same thing online where people can view it from...their house.

It would make as much sense for you to charge for Erst discs while offering everything as a free download online.

well, the idea is to make it up via advertising, but clearly that model isn't going to really work.

Clint, with all due respect, you're a disappearing demographic. I was right there with you until recently, buying three papers a day (two on Sundays), but I recently stopped the NY Times which is way way too expensive and not even close to worth it IMO, same with USA Today (OK sports section, not worth the 75 cents a day), now I'm down to just the 50 cent NY Post.

anyway, all of these are long-time trends, but the recession is going to speed them up as advertising money disappears and customers look to save money.

[clinthopson]

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

Clint, with all due respect, you're a disappearing demographic.

Jon, no question about it. Those of us who grew up when the newspaper was our only reliable source of detailed information are a dwindling crowd. I get the greatly diminished LA Times daily and the NY Times on Sunday. Our local paper, the Register has always been mediocre and has sunken even further.

I used to get the WSJ but got sick of their party line parroting of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

I have subscribed to The Economist for years and consider it my only trustworthy source of financial information, plus the writing is superior to just about any other news publication.

I hope to be around for another decade or so and I am sure during that time the daily newspaper wil become as common as the passenger pigeon.

[Gary Sisco]

The papers were costing me about a couple bucks plus a day when I stopped buying them (the nationals were more expensive in VT than in their local areas). More on Sundays. An Economist subscription was inexpensive by comparison and often has better and wider coverage as well, along with better writing. And its international coverage is superior to that of the American press. I read it for content and scan the others online for daily developments in particular interests.

[Chris D]

I've had five friends lose their jobs in this crisis. My brother got canned after 30 years at his family-owned paper -- they went through and chopped the senior person in every department.

I know journalists come under a lot of fire, but when done well, it's tough, honorable work. These folks deserve a better fate.

[Gary Sisco]

They often go after longtimers when it's time to shed workers. That's what loyalty gets you today.

IBM did it to thousands of guys in VT, many of them right on the edge of pension time, coincidentally enough. What you can see now is a lot of white-haired busboys, delivery people, grocery baggers ....

[stonemonkts]

Until a few years ago I read the print edition of the NYT religiously. I grew up in a house where reading (newspapers, magazines, and books) was a family ritual. We subscribed to at least seven mags, and never went a day without the NYT, New York Post, and The Daily News.

I still read the print edition of the NYT, but only perhaps once during the week, and always on Sunday (the Sunday tradition will end only when the newspaper dies). I once believed I would never stop reading the daily version in print, but alas the time has arrived.

I do however read the online version almost continuously, and in some respects actually prefer it (the little videos and photo slide shows, the blogs, etc...).

The only magazine I read is the New Yorker (ok, I also get EW...it started as a gift sub from emusic, and now I find myself addicted to this little piece of fluff which I can read from cover to cover over a single meal).

I'll miss the NYT print edition if they do die out. The New Yorker will deserve a street procession funeral if they ever go bye bye.

[Gary Sisco]

I have a friend who won't live anywhere NYT can't be purchased. Once he and another friend drove 12 hours to check out a place he was thinking of moving to. When he found out NYT wasn't for sale there, they got back in the car and drove 12 hours back again.

[Brian Olewnick]

I still get the NYT daily (the only paper I buy). Especially since moving to Jersey City and taking two trains into work, it's decent morning reading and, of course, I do the crossword.

[Jon Abbey]

the Times is now $13 a week if you buy it each day, that's $676 a year. I can get a HD TV in probably 18 months of savings by not buying the paper. it's the recent price increases that were the final straw for me.

I've subscribed to the Economist off and on for years, but my new goal is to spend that time reading books instead, which I don't do nearly enough of.

[Mike Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I've always wondered about that. You charge to have a paper delivered to someone's house, yet offer the exact same thing online where people can view it from...their house.

It would make as much sense for you to charge for Erst discs while offering everything as a free download online.

Wasn't there limited access years back to many newspaper websites?

If I remember correctly, they had limited amount of articles, kind of a tease to perhaps buy the paper.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

the Times is now $13 a week if you buy it each day, that's $676 a year. I can get a HD TV in probably 18 months of savings by not buying the paper. it's the recent price increases that were the final straw for me.

I've subscribed to the Economist off and on for years, but my new goal is to spend that time reading books instead, which I don't do nearly enough of.

Hear, hear.

That's actually a New Years resolution of mine. To get back into reading books again. And mostly fiction at that.

I'll still get the Economist ince I just renewed my subscription. I cut the NYT home delivery last year, but we still get 4 or 5 copies here at work if I want to sit down with it (which I rarely do anymore).

And I don't watch enough tv to justify a HD set. But, I'm sure I'll find other things to spend my money on. And it will be something a hell of a lot more enjoyable than reading about all the dreary shit that's going on in this world everyday.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Mike Schwartz

Wasn't there limited access years back to many newspaper websites?

If I remember correctly, they had limited amount of articles, kind of a tease to perhaps buy the paper.

The Economist still does that. You need a subscription to access a lot of their online articles.

The NYT used to shitcan access to the op-eds. No real reason to shed a tear because you couldn't catch Mo Dowd's latest drivel. Of course, back then all you had to do was find out wher al-Bertson was posting them all since he did the honorable thing by ripping off the NYT by cutting and pasting on several Jazz related web sites.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Dan Okrent, in an address from 2000 or so to the Columbia School of Journalism

The Long Tail, baby.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

but my new goal is to spend that time reading books instead, which I don't do nearly enough of.

I'll second that. I got a few for Christmas.

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

And I don't watch enough tv to justify a HD set.

If you watch *any* TV, that's justification enough to get an HD set. You can get a decent small one for less than $300 at BJ's, etc. I'm ready to get a blu-ray player, personally.

[Scott Dolan]

I'd rather spend that money on music.

Honestly, I'm just not a huge tv fan. And DVD's still look just fine to me.

[Gary Sisco]

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

the Times is now $13 a week if you buy it each day, that's $676 a year. I can get a HD TV in probably 18 months of savings by not buying the paper. it's the recent price increases that were the final straw for me.

I've subscribed to the Economist off and on for years, but my new goal is to spend that time reading books instead, which I don't do nearly enough of.

For me, books are a different kind of reading. I'm always reading books, all my life. My mom taught me how to read before I was in school. Which was a mixed blessing in some ways. But reading books is as much a part of my life as eating. That basic. I have to have books, and I make time to read them.

When we moved my Economist sub was suspended and it was probably close to two months worth of interruption. I've been getting it again but at first I found that I'd gotten out of the habit of that kind of reading and three or four issues came in before I was back into it enough to have the one read by the time the next arrived.