Newspapers go boom.

[superaielman]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/19/newspaper.decline.layoff/index.html

It's been in the cards since the advent of radio in the 1920's, but the internet reallly has put newspapers on the skids. San Fran's likely to be the first major american city without a newspaper and the figures in the paper about circulation are pretty grim.

It's a shame that newspapers are going down and out so quickly, but it's hard to compete with the internet. I used to love reading the paper every day and still enjoy some of the stories, but now I can get so much more from the net.  The sports and current news are far more up to date on the internet just by the nature of the medium and provide far more in depth material. Opinion pieces can be found online as well. I've see the Virginian Pilot (A very well run paper) struggle with decreasing reveunes to the point of removing parts of the paper, and this is a paper in a major metropoltian area with zero competing papers, that hasn't been hit very hard by the recession to boot.

Less sources for hard news worries me, but I don't see how most print papers can adapt to the changing times.

[Meeplelard]

Yeah, it was inevitably going to happen, but its sad.  It doesn't help that my Philosophy in Cyberspace professor keeps bringing up "Newspapers aren't going to last much longer, not even big ones like the New York Times."

[superaielman]

You know what's sad? The paper I read the most of -by far- is the Green Bay Press Gazette, and that's for the Packers online section they have. I'd love to see a breakdown of major cities's papers and how much the local sports team impacts that.

[metroid composite]

San Fran's likely to be the first major american city without a newspaper

San Fran has about four free newspapers that you can pick up anywhere, including print versions of The Onion (yay).  Oh, and newspapers in several languages, for that matter.  I've never paid much attention to the Chronicle, by comparison; it definitely doesn't feel like the most-read paper.

And...in general, frankly no I don't see it as some inevitable slide.  Newspapers are things you can hold in your hand, and that don't strain your eyes when you look at them, or require a plug/battery.  There's always going to be a market for this.  TV strikes me as the medium that the Internet would cannibalize, if anything.

[superaielman]

Major daily, excuse me.

And...in general, frankly no I don't see it as some inevitable slide.  Newspapers are things you can hold in your hand, and that don't strain your eyes when you look at them, or require a plug/battery.  There's always going to be a market for this.  TV strikes me as the medium that the Internet would cannibalize, if anything.

All papers won't vanish, but the days of the daily newspaper in every town are likely done.  Several factors are there, but the internet in several forms is what is hurting it the most.

[NotMiki]

The biggest loss will be pulitzer material.  Large, in-depth exposes that you need a reporter or a team to work on for weeks or months before producing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_Investigative_Reporting

Here's the page.  It's scary to think that some of these stories might have gone undetected, particularly

2006: Susan Schmidt, James V. Grimaldi and R. Jeffrey Smith of The Washington Post, "for their indefatigable probe of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff that exposed congressional corruption and produced reform efforts."

and

2008: (Two winning newspapers) Walt Bogdanich and Jake Hooker of The New York Times, "for their stories on toxic ingredients in medicine and other everyday products imported from China, leading to crackdowns by American and Chinese officials." Staff of The Chicago Tribune, "for its exposure of faulty governmental regulation of toys, car seats and cribs, resulting in the extensive recall of hazardous products and congressional action to tighten supervision."

The internet is good for quick news of all shades, and you can get top-notch analysis of what's already out there, but frankly, there aren't many pure internet sources producing a lot of original hard reporting (with some notable exceptions).  I hope some kind of model comes into play that makes long-form reporting a profitable part of the new media world, but I worry for it.

In Hollywood, every low-grossing art film that comes out is supported by a Big Momma's House 2.  I hope internet news can achieve something like that.

-----------

I agree that the tactile part of having a newspaper is great, but frankly, I don't have the money to spend on a Times subscription when I can read everything in it and more online.

[Grefter]

NotJim is on the right track kind of there.  The high quality really in depth stuff is where Newspapers can shine and this is something they really SHOULD be emphasizing.  The medium has it's strengths of accessibility, portability and branding, these strengths should be played to and if they are it might actually do them some good in the long run (some really shitty papers out there).

[metroid composite]

the days of the daily newspaper in every town are likely done.

Ok, but which part of this is the weak link?  I see four words here: "daily" "local" "news" "paper".

I don't think anyone's going to argue that interest in "News" is gone.  "Paper", as mentioned, has strong selling points.  "Daily" is slow compared to other sources...but this has been true since Radio.

Seems to me the problem word here is "Local".  Given a choice between the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, I'd probably get the Times...even though I live in SF.  To use an analogy of another medium, when I first got to SF I was surprised to find out that there were local city-based TV stations with local low-budget productions.  Never seen those anywhere else, and I can understand why: I just...don't feel a strong incentive to watch any of these over, say, national/international programming.  To use a political analogy, 50-100 years ago people used to care relatively more about their local representative in elections as opposed to the modern focus on Prime Minister/President.

So I wonder if the primary issue here is really globalization; Internet's a part of globalization, yes, but...I've lived long-term in three different cities, have friends and family spread over five different cities (if not more).  A life like mine makes me less excited about local news.  How did this spreading out happen?  Improved long-distance travel; improved long-distance communication.

[NotMiki]

Financially speaking "paper" is a huge issue.  Costs a lot more to print 50,000 papers every day than to get 50,000 unique hits, and 50,000 is dinky even for local papers.  With ad revenue from the physical paper shrinking, especially classifieds thanks to Craigslist, I wouldn't be surprised to see local papers start jumping straight to online-only.  I imagine a paid subscription service would make sense for small papers.

[NotMiki]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jU0bBG87YCT3T3qKx-PqEUY84MLAD974H1O82

Bill proposes to allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits, like PBS stations, choosing tax-exempt status in exchange for not being able to make political endorsements.

This is aimed at struggling local newspapers, which are likely not profitable anyway.

[Cotigo]

Mm.  That's a brilliant solution, actually, especially considering local dailies tend to have atrocious websites. 

Re: Arguments as for why papers won't fail. 

Eh.  Web based news organizations <i>will</i> adapt to meet the need for hard-hitting, hard-researching national journalism; all the newspapers going out of business means is that net journalism will be forced to evolve faster.  The whole tactile aspect of papers is a point, I guess, but considering the production costs of actually sending out a paper as opposed to putting information up on the internet, HA HA HA HA HA to that actually being a relevant point.  Hell, HA HA HA HA HA to that being a relevant point considering that newspaper readership has dropped significantly even before the economy went tits-up retarded.  People who care enough to go out and get a paper for that reason are a dying breed already in my generation.  Why wouldn't they continue to die out in later generations?

[Idun]

It's not necessarily the conveniency of internet news material that directly tops newspapers. At least in Georgia. The AJC has been slicing its amount of staff editors and writers, and cry when they lose 60% of their subscriptions because people aren't receiving the same quality of newspaper they initially received. That, and the operating expenses involved compared to the internet.

My view of online news is fairly simple. I'm not a constant checker of the news: I find that once I continually read news articles, I become depressed or it's really about celebrity bullshit. But for that fact, I like how the internet gives me access to other news sites than CNN, Fox, The Economist [I wouldn't exactly label this 'news'] like BBC,  and20 Minutes.fr. The variety is the selling point for me. This isn't to say that local newspapers are mundane, but if I'm looking for a more expansive view on current events, they're certainly not (AJC, at least) the ones to rely on.

I'm not apprehensive of newspapers eventually disappearing, but I'm pondering on the effects it will have. What essentially is a resultant effect is the removal of primary resources. Access, the nature of blogging on news websites. .  I mean hell, you can print out the page and make it a primary document through extension, but the intangibility just seems unsettling on a low level. If I were to exaggerate and say that newspapers completely disappeared, I'm pretty sure there would be a good possibility for a subscription or charge fee for internet news. What is now free, may not be. Then it'd get shitty and is a loophole. But I don't think that's the unfortunate future.

Also. I am not a fan of the NYT.

[Ranmilia]

Our local paper, generally considered one of the better ones in the nation, offered early retirement to all employees 55 or older this week.  Yeah, the collapse is hitting all at once.  Will be sad to see it go, I've yet to see an internet news source that offers the same breadth and presentation of coverage.

[NotMiki]

It's not necessarily the conveniency of internet news material that directly tops newspapers.

The internet shaves money even if the same number of people are reading the paper, because so much of traditional paper revenue is ads, particularly classifieds.  Craigslist absolutely slaughters classified revenue.

[Grefter]

Solution, legalise prostitution, require it to be sold via Newspapers.  Craigslist loses all it's revenue!

[Idun]

It's not necessarily the conveniency of internet news material that directly tops newspapers.

The internet shaves money even if the same number of people are reading the paper, because so much of traditional paper revenue is ads, particularly classifieds.  Craigslist absolutely slaughters classified revenue.

I understand that, but I was talking in terms of how e-news vs. newspapers affect me.