Should we bailout newspapers?

omej · Apr 21, 2009

Today, I saw on the ticker that John Kerry is holding a hearing to debate the future of journalism.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts announced Monday that he will chair a subcommittee hearing on the future of journalism.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Honestly, shouldn't we just let newspapers die? Yeah it was great while it lasted but with phones and computers, of what relevance are they? They have a high overhead (paper, printing, delivery).

Personally, I haven't read a newspaper in years to actually get the news (just read about things I already know). Besides, who want's to read old news when they can just turn on the computer or tv and be up to date in minutes?

If these companies are smart, they will switch to the web and discontinue circulation before it costs them dearly.

The Parakeet · Apr 21, 2009

I liked the argument that some guy put forth on Jon Stewart's show. You may get your news from online sources, but where do you think that they get their information?

The danger is that if newspapers bite the dust, then the journalists won't be able to do as much profitably. They won't have a patron backing them up financially.

The other danger is that it will be the big and fairly unbiased ones to die first. Niche papers will thrive and go more toward their biased extreme, making the nation very uninformed.

It is something that we should definitely keep an eye on.

Personally I think that they should be able to handle this alright by modernizing. I know that Murdoch supposedly did an experiment with one of his papers to see if it could survive by ad viewing alone. Why don't they try that out for a bit? They could get good money for a special ad on their homepage.

I think CSmonitor handled it pretty well. They mainly moved online and dropped production to a weekly circular. That seems like it could be a better option.

DodgeFB · Apr 21, 2009

I dropped my local paper a few years ago. Our paper put a young man's picture on the front page that had hung himself. Not just any picture, the one of him hanging from a tree.

And my wife was always wanting to throw the paper out before I was done with it. So I guess I don't care if they do stop the presses.

myp · Apr 21, 2009

The Parakeet said:
You may get your news from online sources, but where do you think that they get their information?

Are you asking where the sites get their info from? It is certainly not the papers. The internet is its own reporting source now where many reporters directly put the work derived from their primary research.

The Parakeet said:
The danger is that if newspapers bite the dust, then the journalists won't be able to do as much profitably. They won't have a patron backing them up financially.

Not quite because more people reading the news online only means more profit for websites, which again translates to payment for journalists.

The Parakeet said:
The other danger is that it will be the big and fairly unbiased ones to die first. Niche papers will thrive and go more toward their biased extreme, making the nation very uninformed.

The trend is still towards the net, so that will remain a huge source and obviously we will still have television news. I don't think we will all become extremists if the newspapers die

- I think you are looking into this a bit too much and trying to look for examples of why the industry should not be allowed to fail.

The Parakeet said:
Personally I think that they should be able to handle this alright by modernizing. I know that Murdoch supposedly did an experiment with one of his papers to see if it could survive by ad viewing alone. Why don't they try that out for a bit? They could get good money for a special ad on their homepage.

I think CSmonitor handled it pretty well. They mainly moved online and dropped production to a weekly circular. That seems like it could be a better option.

They can try what they want- that is up to them, but if it fails the government should not bail them out.

@DodgeFB - Wow, that is a very sad thing that they would actually show the picture. What sort of community reaction did that generate?

DodgeFB · Apr 21, 2009

myp said:
@DodgeFB - Wow, that is a very sad thing that they would actually show the picture. What sort of community reaction did that generate?

There was a very big stink about it. Several did as I did and canceled their paper. Some even thought it was very "progressive" of them to do it, and in color made it even better.

I think those offended must have made them nervous. WE have a new editor now and he even quit putting the DWI mug shots in the paper. He says he thinks he has the right to publish them. But his personal opinion is that if they have not been convicted they should not be embarrassed by being in the weekly lineup.

The Parakeet · Apr 21, 2009

That's just tasteless to put such a picture up. Can't imagine what would make them think that was a good idea.

MYP - I don't know about your sources, but most of the mainstream Internet places piggyback off of the big boys (Associated Press in particular). AOL and Yahoo do at least and that's what the majority of people think of as online news.

Like I said, there are arguments for them to possibly be supported. More of a devil's advocate position though. I would imagine that they'd transition to the Internet. Most already have a presence. It's just a matter of figuring out better ways to monetize it.

The big thing is that newspapers online won't be free if they go to that model. If they are supporting journalists, then they'll end up on a subscription basis (probably, ads alone are not going to support a full staff of writers and editors).

omej · Apr 21, 2009

The Parakeet said:
I liked the argument that some guy put forth on Jon Stewart's show. You may get your news from online sources, but where do you think that they get their information?

Well, I would assume that they get it off the wires from AP and Reuters.

The other danger is that it will be the big and fairly unbiased ones to die first. Niche papers will thrive and go more toward their biased extreme, making the nation very uninformed.

I think people would still continue to get their news from the same place they always do, albeit online.

I think CSmonitor handled it pretty well. They mainly moved online and dropped production to a weekly circular. That seems like it could be a better option.

Yeah that sounds like a good compromise, at least try to keep a weekly or even weekend edition.

DodgeFB said:
I dropped my local paper a few years ago. Our paper put a young man's picture on the front page that had hung himself. Not just any picture, the one of him hanging from a tree.

And my wife was always wanting to throw the paper out before I was done with it. So I guess I don't care if they do stop the presses.

Unbelievable. What newspaper was that? I can't believe they would do something so unethical. Blatant disrespect to the mans family.

GekiDan · Apr 21, 2009

With the rise of computers and internet, many of us seems to stay away and refrain from reading on newspapers. But I can say that newspapers play a big part on our history. Newspapers are already in circulation even before the invention of the computer. I think the government must help them to survive recession and get it back to normal.

deanhills · Apr 22, 2009

GekiDan said:
With the rise of computers and internet, many of us seems to stay away and refrain from reading on newspapers. But I can say that newspapers play a big part on our history. Newspapers are already in circulation even before the invention of the computer. I think the government must help them to survive recession and get it back to normal.

It has to come from people, not the Government. That is the sad part about it, especially in the United States and in Canada. The quality of newspapers are really awful in comparison with the quality of newspapers in for example South Africa. In South Africa some people read about three newspapers for breakfast, and two newspapers at night time. South Africans have newspapers that specialize in finance and general news for business people, and newspapers that specialize day-time news. In the United States news in the newspapers are old relative to TV news reporting. They do not have any use for people, so why should people buy them, and why should the Government bail them out?

Delta · Apr 22, 2009

I agree, the quality of newspapers here are terrible. You get maybe one or two good stories and that's about it. As for reporters not being able to get paid if companies move to completely internet means, I think that's bs. It's the same argument about CDs and other mediawhat... companies need to adapt or they are going to fail. There is plenty of money to be made on the internet - companies pay huge money to display ads on big sites. There is also the option of paid subscriptions like newspapers.

deanhills · Apr 22, 2009

Delta said:
I agree, the quality of newspapers here are terrible. You get maybe one or two good stories and that's about it. As for reporters not being able to get paid if companies move to completely internet means, I think that's bs. It's the same argument about CDs and other mediawhat... companies need to adapt or they are going to fail. There is plenty of money to be made on the internet - companies pay huge money to display ads on big sites. There is also the option of paid subscriptions like newspapers.

Exactly. I also think that the TV news services are probably a preferred kind of news for US citizens. I.e. instead of reading the morning newspaper they will do breakfast viewing, that type of thing. But even the TV news in the US and Canada is not that good. I think I got spoilt with the British way of reporting, i.e. that journalistic pyramid of putting the where, how, what, etc. in the most important first paragraph, then the next paragraph less important and the last paragraph least important. Specific factual news, rather than drama and entertainment. I remember when I first landed in Canada and there were these interviews with relatives of accident victims and doing close-ups of them crying. I was quite shocked at that.

Delta · Apr 22, 2009

deanhills said:
I remember when I first landed in Canada and there were these interviews with relatives of accident victims and doing close-ups of them crying. I was quite shocked at that.

Yep: here's some more Tool lyrics that sum that up pretty well (from the song Vicarious)

Eye on the TV
'cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavor it happens to be

Like:
"Killed by the husband" ...
"Drowned by the ocean" ...
"Shot by his own son" ...
"She used a poison in his tea,
Then (she) kissed him goodbye"
That's my kind of story
It's no fun til someone dies.

Don't look me at like I am a monster
Frown out your one face, but with the other (you)
Stare like a junkie into the TV
Stare like a zombie while the mother holds her child,
Watches him die,
Hands to the sky cryin "why, oh why?"

Cause I need to watch things die from a distance
Vicariously, I live while the whole world dies
You all need it too - don't lie.

deanhills · Apr 22, 2009

Delta said:
Yep: here's some more Tool lyrics that sum that up pretty well (from the song Vicarious)

These were really good ones thanks! Yes, that was exactly what went through my mind.

DodgeFB · Apr 22, 2009

omeythehomie said:
Unbelievable. What newspaper was that? I can't believe they would do something so unethical. Blatant disrespect to the mans family.

The Anderson News. It is a small weekly county paper. I have not heard many complaints in recent years.

Sparks · Apr 22, 2009

There will be a threat to local news and editorial commenting, but with todays blogs and so forth, I think that aspect can be replaced. Large newspapers have staff in particular spots and losing those reporters that work certain areas for long periods of time so they know their way around and have insight on the people involved will be a loss. But much of the news comes from "news services" which can hire it's own writers and then the stories go out to the subscribing services.

Christian Science Monitor is a good example of adapting to changing business and economic environments. Looking at it from the side of a world rich with information, losing the newspapers is a very bad thing. But from the view of economics, it is natural that they disappear when technology changes our habits.

GekiDan · Apr 22, 2009

Delta said:
I agree, the quality of newspapers here are terrible. You get maybe one or two good stories and that's about it. As for reporters not being able to get paid if companies move to completely internet means, I think that's bs. It's the same argument about CDs and other mediawhat... companies need to adapt or they are going to fail. There is plenty of money to be made on the internet - companies pay huge money to display ads on big sites. There is also the option of paid subscriptions like newspapers.

What I really hate on newpapers is the graphical/explicit content. There are pictures of dead people with gun shot woulds and flowing blood. And most of the news involve rimes such as murders, rapes and bad news. We rarely see good news afterall.

Delta · Apr 22, 2009

GekiDan said:
What I really hate on newpapers is the graphical/explicit content. There are pictures of dead people with gun shot woulds and flowing blood. And most of the news involve rimes such as murders, rapes and bad news. We rarely see good news afterall.

The problem is, unfortunately you're a minority on that matter. People love violence, they love to see it... otherwise no one would watch it and eventually the news corps would fail, but that's just not the case.

Like in the lyrics I posted, a lot of people will shun it... and they'll likely be watching it as they do.

curious · Apr 22, 2009

Most papers in the US aren't terribly graphic about violence. I'm in Mexico, though, and I can still see in my mind one of the papers that showed an array of police officers that had been beheaded. It was awful.

I subscribe to the New York Times on-line. One thing I like about it is that there are in-depth articles. I think the Christian Science Monitor may have the right idea.

deanhills · Apr 23, 2009

curious said:
Most papers in the US aren't terribly graphic about violence. I'm in Mexico, though, and I can still see in my mind one of the papers that showed an array of police officers that had been beheaded. It was awful.

I subscribe to the New York Times on-line. One thing I like about it is that there are in-depth articles. I think the Christian Science Monitor may have the right idea.

I totally agree and I had forgotten that New York newspapers and magazines are of the best in the world. Baron's is also excellent reading. I don't subscribe to the New York Times but have read it periodically, as well as the Wall Street Journal. I don't like the lay out that much as it feels a little crammed, but the content of course is really good.

omej · Apr 23, 2009

Delta said:
The problem is, unfortunately you're a minority on that matter. People love violence, they love to see it... otherwise no one would watch it and eventually the news corps would fail, but that's just not the case.

Like in the lyrics I posted, a lot of people will shun it... and they'll likely be watching it as they do.

Yep, that's unfortunately true. That's why inner city news don't report new buildings or new laws as often as they do homicides, robberies and other crimes. That is the stuff that gets viewers, and gets advertising money.

Should we bailout newspapers?

Similar threads