Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The Newspaper Industry Is Dying Before Our Very Eyes

By Bill Boyarsky, Truthdig. Posted December 18, 2008.


Newspaper management is hastening the industry's demise by chasing away talented journalists.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

As we know, the death of the American newspaper is fast approaching.

Specifically, the paper editions of newspapers are dying. Readers and advertisers are migrating to the papers' Web sites or to other sources of information on the Internet, thus reducing revenue of the print editions. One day the papers will no longer be on my driveway before dawn, and I will be getting all the news from my computer and my iPhone.

This is a huge economic dilemma for the news industry, as the print editions, rather than the Web sites, supply most of the revenue needed to support the newspapers' news operations and to hire the journalists who dig up the news and edit the stories.

As someone who has been in the news business for most of a lifetime, I'm concerned about the uncertain future of these women and men. Without them, who will "watchdog" politicians and bureaucrats, charity officials, cops, educators and the many others who help make our society run? Who will report and comment on the culture that binds us together? Who will explain the social tensions that tear us apart? 

First, the current situation:

The Tribune Co., which owns the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun and other dailies, the Chicago Cubs and 23 television stations, has filed for bankruptcy. The New York Times has said it will sell or mortgage its headquarters building. The Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press, a joint publishing operation, announced that they will limit newspaper home delivery to Thursdays, Fridays and Sundays while selling printed copies at newsstands seven days a week. They said their Web sites will expand news coverage.

Finally, Editor & Publisher reported that Fitch Ratings, the credit rating firm, issued a report declaring it "believes more newspapers and newspaper groups will default, be shut down and be liquidated in 2009 and several cities could go without a daily print newspaper by 2010."

Newspaper management's reaction to this projection is to cut the staffs. This seems to be killing what's left of the golden goose, but publishers are notoriously shortsighted. 

One suggestion for increasing revenue comes from Peter Osnos, founder of the publisher Public Affairs. He pointed out in his Century Foundation column in November that newspapers are giving away news to Google and other search engines.

He said newspaper publishers should do what the book publishers have done: They sued Google and forced an agreement that requires payment for digitizing and distributing copyrighted books. Osnos wrote that "Google has now conceded, with a very large payment, that information is not free. This leads to an obvious critical question: Why aren't newspapers and news magazines demanding payment for use of their stories on Google and other search engines?  Why are they not getting a significant slice of the advertising revenue generated by the use of their stories via Google?"

But newspaper management is probably too disorganized and distracted to get together on the long and complex litigation that the proposal would demand.

Then there is the matter of a labor force.

The average entry-level reporter's wages are $25,167 a year, according to Payscale.com. And today's beginning reporters are asked to do more than those starting just a few years before. "In some cases it means being able to go out and report the story, write for online, shoot video, edit from the field, and update for the print edition. And in some cases it means shooting the pictures, creating a slideshow, putting it in Flash, and doing all that in addition to reporting," Ernest Sotomayor, assistant dean of career services at Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism, told Poynter Online.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: journalism, advertising, web, newspapers, los angeles times, bankruptcy, reporters, chicago tribune, tribune co., baltimore sun

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Mark Twain and Thomas Jefferson said the only truth in a newspaper is the advertising, anyway
Posted by: texasrodeoqueen on Dec 18, 2008 9:48 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some guy wants everyone to believe the same **** he does. The papers here in TX are just GOP propaganda rags anyway. Every time I've ever been in the paper they distorted the facts or quotes and just made shit up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Short trip to a Scotch verdict
Posted by: cyanide on Dec 19, 2008 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To some of us it looks as if the Information Age will morph into the Too Much Information Age or, if you prefer, the Age of Ignorance. The student who tells the author "Don't worry. We'll figure it out" might as well have said "Don't worry. Be happy."

These new kids, like all kids, are cocky and confident that they can make their Web logs pay somehow -- but it may be they feel that way only because they haven't yet had to deal with a libel suit. Does anybody here know of a case in which a blogger got sued? If not, there's one coming soon I betcha.

Many of us have long thought that journalism should be a calling rather than a profession. But a lot of the new kids are called to a political agenda -- Christianity, gay rights, feminism, environmentalism, patriotism, etc. -- and NOT called 'to tell the truth and shame the devil'. Worse: America's crummy education system teaches many of them that their political agendas ARE the truth.

Crap is not king these days so much as prejudice rules under a million names. America's night will have a thousand lies and nobody will know the truth about anything.

Good night and good luck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Short trip to a Scotch verdict Posted by: monkeywrench
THERE IS NO 'NEWS' IN NEWSPAPERS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Dec 20, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Newspapers are no longer a way to keep informed. True, the internet has had a huge impact. But I've been a newspaper reader for many years and I find that they're filled with junk that I can find elsewhere. The War in Iraq was almost completely ignored and Hurricane Katrina got very little coverage. Most local papers are nothing more than gossip sheets, and major papers are reluctant to print anything controversial. That's what most news is. The failure of journalism to do its job is a good part of the reason for the fiasco we call the Bush administration. For those reporters who dared to tell the truth (Dan Rather) there was a price to pay. Like most other sources of news, they are nothing more than a venue for advertising. On days when I don't buy a paper the only thing I miss is 'Garfield' and 'Peanuts'. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Death {dearth} of News
Posted by: When In Doubt on Dec 20, 2008 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporations bought the newspapers so they could control what reached the public and to dumb down America more than it had already achieved.

Do you think Barack Obama would have achieved this much if he had relied on Nespapers?
He knew where the power to move things was in the public which hadn't bought into what the papers were printing and moreover, leaving out.

Cyberspace was a rich field to plow and sow and reap for Senator Obama.

The world has changed before our eyes. Corporations will now attempt to buy out the "Reporters" working this space.

Keep watching.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Death {dearth} of News Posted by: luzmejor
Don Quixote
Posted by: Don Quixote on Dec 20, 2008 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Newspapers on paper, bookshops, music shops and others are doomed by Internet. They will dissappear or be reduced to a minimum. This was predictable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Um ... yeah Posted by: realmuzik
» by the way ... Posted by: realmuzik
R.I.P.
Posted by: Gracchus on Dec 20, 2008 12:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I still get a newspaper. One section deals with national and international events. I read that. Most of what I find there, though, I have already read on the internet. One section deals with state and local news. I read that. I read the editorial and opinion pages. At most that is twenty or thirty pages.

I discard to the recycle bin the one or two hundred pages of advertising. Let's face it. In the newspaper business, the news is just a "loss-leader" to draw in customers for the real product, the advertising. I shouldn't be paying for a newspaper, I should be paid to read it.

Newspapers are dying? It's about time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Demise of the Fourth Estate
Posted by: Jacksonian on Dec 20, 2008 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the inherent flaws of the current approach of online news sites is that they rely on the work of traditional journalists, yet few make provisions for hiring professional reporters in the long term. Meanwhile, traditional media are dying out.

Newspapers and other old-fashioned media outlets use the web as a way to offer their product in a different medium-- but the product still relies on the original medium. Where would the NY Times online be without the reporters and columnists who fill the newspaper's actual pages?

Even for those web sites which offer original reporting, there is a dependence on links to the work of others. Places such as Salon.com produce much of their own original material using both bloggers and reporters. Others such as Huffingtonpost.com rely heavily on bloggers and links to other sources and employ only a handful of professional reporters to cover what amounts to a national beat. Both draw from wire services and other news sites for their product.

But these sites and others make much ado about the role of the so-called, "citizen journalist," without really acknowledging that much of today's news which feeds their sites comes from professionals.

It's great to have eyes and ears everywhere, but who's going to "cover" traditional "beats?" Sneaking into a private fundraiser and surreptitiously recording a presidential candidate may bring you and your news organization its 15 minutes of fame, but who's going to cover the un-sexy news?

Here's another thing to consider: If newspapers die, what is the future of the Associated Press and other wire serices? These are significant feeder sources for most media, including web sites, and they rely on the sharing of original stories among the various media. The AP actually originated as a clearinghouse/consortium of newspapers.

What they're sharing is original reporting produced by professionals locally, regionally, and nationally. Much of online original reporting derives from such services. At the same time much of the web "news hole" is "filler" from the wires or links to traditional media.

Bloggers in particular love to malign the "Mainstream Media," the evil "MSM," particularly with respect to political coverage and the coziness of Beltway reporting. And those criticisms are often deserved.

But at the end of the day, trained journalists do fulfill an important function-- and most do it honorably. Without their expertise, "news" is likely to become whatever the government and corporations tell their government and corporate media it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We can't rely on volunteers.
Posted by: chorton on Dec 20, 2008 1:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This Spring and Summer I followed up on under-reported stories, and found a baker's dozen of stories that were completely ignored by the major corporate news outlets - the networks and major national dailies, including apparently NPR. All were stories that any reasonable person would agree were news, of national importance and interesting to many or most readers/viewers. Many were carried on major wire services such as APF and even AP, and many were headline news across Europe but ignored here. Stories ranged from Kucinich's filing of impeachment resolutions to Obama's declaration that he would quickly review and strike down Bush's illegal regulations, signing statements and directives, through Putin's declaration that Russia had determined that Iran was not working on a nuclear weapon.

Much also has been said about the way the news media distorts and tilts the news - much easier to see than what is not there! - and how it shapes the public dialogue with its choice of words such as "terrorist", "collateral damage", "moderate", "centrist", "Free World", "gunmen", "insurgents", "strongman", "fringe candidate", etc, and its ready acceptance of assumptions about the motives and meaning of American actions and those of America's rivals and victims.

It is easy to write off a news media that is so systematically distorting and withholding information. But another chilling episode brought home the lesson that we simply can't rely on the alternative press as it is now constituted to fill the void.

HCR 362, which effectively authorizes a naval and air blockade of Iran - an act of war - was introduced in the House in mid-May. It was not reported by *any* media, as far as I have been able to determine, until mid-June, when it was reported in an Iranian-American blog from LA and then was picked up by Daily Kos, followed a few days later by AlterNet and others.

By that time it already had over 100 Congressional Co-sponsors, and undoubtedly everyone on Capitol Hill knew about it! It eventually garnered nearly 300 co-sponsors, 2/3 of the members of the House, but died in committee due to the actions of several brave Representatives, who withdrew their support and acted to table it under pressure from the peace movement.

To this very day the rise and fall of this "stealth bill" has never been reported in the Corporate Media, except for a few mentions on CBS and one story on AP and a couple of columns by Pat Buchanan carried by Yahoo in July!

My point is this: the alternative press urgently needs a large cohort of paid, funded and properly-equipped professional journalists out there looking for, investigating and following up on stories. Volunteer journalism and picking stuff up off the wires simply won't do the job! If we had had a crew of progressive journalists in Washington spending their days button-holing politicians and informants, poring over the Congressional Record and digging through other government documents, the story of HCR 362 would have hit the air in hours, not a month later!

We have serious work to do, and much at stake! Luckily (or not, depending on whether you are one of them!) there are plenty of unemployed journalists available to take this on if we (and they) can come up with a workable model for how to organize and pay for it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Newspaper dying even earlier in Alamogordo, NM
Posted by: Hearst Observer on Dec 20, 2008 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As if the aforementioned factors are not killing newsprint media fast enough, one daily newspaper in southern New Mexico is speeding up the process. The Alamogordo Daily News has canned the best editor it had in the last 20 years and also its best reporter, leaving it with a rather defunct staff that either cannot spell or is slanted toward stories about flowers and tea parties. In July, 3 police arrest stories were suppressed, with the inerim editor insisting that from that point on, any police arrest story had to include the side of the arrested parties! Despite local readership wanting local news (rather than nothing but AP stories) -- there has since been little local news in what has become a lousy excuse for a daily newspaper.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bad news/good news.
Posted by: Dickinseattl on Dec 20, 2008 2:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bad news is we're losing our Fourth Estate and a desired and important sense of community. The good news is our newspapers have long since lost any real check and balance over our governments except when those governments best represented the egalitarian interests of the common good, and as propaganda for the rich and as CIA assets, they will not only not be missed but we may be the better off with their absense in their current format and with their current owners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Newspapers will NOT be missed
Posted by: disc golf on Dec 20, 2008 7:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After there was an article in 2005 about how smoking increases the risk of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), I wrote to AP to explain why: Smoking decreases the amount of vitamin C in a child's blood and SIDS IS, primarily, "infantile scurvy." (I wrote on this subject in college in 1979!) When a few weeks ago they had an article about how "electric fans" in a child's room could prevent SIDS, I again wrote to AP to explain why: The fan simply recirculates and dissipates toxic gases (extremely toxic gases--like same as sarin!!), that are formed above the child's mattress from interaction with baby fluids and fungus growing inside their mattresses (along with nefarious interactions with various "required" flame-retardant chemicals in such mattresses). Such gases are heavier than air and accumulate just next to the mattress. This is why parents say keep the baby's face from near the mattress! Never mind, they're sleeping on poisonous gases! OF COURSE a fan will remove such gases! But explaining this would take work! It would take "investigative journalism"! (And, money!)

Again, my educated and documented comments were ignored. Apparently avoiding embarrassment (while continuing to gather money each year for "SIDS research" and profit(?)), is more important than saving 8,000 children EACH YEAR in America! Had the newspapers been more concerned about spreading NEWS and TRUTH, 24,000 children would not have had to die. (http://www.tompetrie.net/id10.html)

But it gets worse! Suppression of natural remedies by the major news media has also been significantly responsible for over one million deaths each year from cancer, heart disease and other causes. After all, natural remedies for ALL these have been around for decades. Of course, they're not perfect, but they're far better than "conventional" approaches, in most cases.

These are some of the examples of failure from the perspective of a nutritionist. What good is the "news" if they only report "non-controversial" topics, as mentioned by another reader? I also will not miss the newspapers.

So while I have known that scurvy and poison

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Newspapers will NOT be missed
Posted by: disc golf on Dec 20, 2008 7:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, I got that truncated somehow.

Anyway, good media informs us and, there is no doubt that media--even the corporate controlled media, does this. If it's natural disasters, criminal activity and other "non-controversial topics", you can be sure they'll cover them. After all, they need to give us the illusion that they're working for us. But should a controversial topic come up (preventing SIDS, reversing heart disease or diabetes or cancer), they're SILENT!

As John Stauber (and co-author) explain in "Trust Us, We're Experts", we understand the topic of "news/propaganda" by not only what IS covered, but how it is covered and what is IGNORED.

We MUST continue to think for ourselves! Major media--including the major newspapers, just don't encourage us to do this. This is why they won't be missed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

advertiser pressure isn't new
Posted by: sophiej on Dec 21, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been with us at least since the early '50s, when I got my first print news job. A few brave publishers banned the ad folks from the newsroom, but not enough. We used to get page dummies with a note, "no nuclear stories," on pages with a Pacific Gas & Electric ad. Resistance has always been hard, not necessarily futile.
Print publishers never figured out how to compete with television, and now it looks as if television can't compete with the Internet, especially when they're putting their best stuff online.
Serious news people are studying non-profit models.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DIE BABY DIE
Posted by: ds1st on Dec 27, 2008 5:09 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope yellow / brown journalism dies in 2009.

I am sick and tired of liberal rags. I can’t stomach the irrelevant one-side views/news that gets published in the paper. One sided B.S.

I haven’t bought a newspaper in 10 years.

Bye, bye NYT … fools!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 'National' Media Can Croak and I wouldn't care
Posted by: lunamina on Dec 30, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What good have they done for us in the last couple of decades? Obfuscation and propoganda is more like what we have gotten from these corporations. So I say...Good Riddance. I learned to get my news from the Internet Free Press or specific news magazines that I trust,many years ago and I support them with donations. I would much rather be paying internet journalists that the corporate media any day. Plus their news is so much more reliable!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A shame
Posted by: luzmejor on Jan 1, 2009 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sorry to hear that, but don't despair. Poor newspapers will fail and then perhaps another news outlet will take over the territory.

Every news business in America is doing a lot of fancy footwork to attract attention, even the old and experienced. Newsprint technology is part of the past, it is too expensive and takes too long, so its death is inevitable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

leftbank
Posted by: markw4786 on Jan 9, 2009 6:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The death of American newspapers will be no loss at all. How many millions of trees will be left untouched? Where will the corporate lackeys, the Chamber of Commerce and the pro Israel lobby go to disseminate their lies and distortions. The often told reason for this demise is the internet. True the internet and blogs are a good source of information and counter-balance to the half-truths of corporate media but this is not the real reason. Print publications like THE NATION are more popular than ever. No the failings of newspapers is THEY'RE NOT BELIEVABBLE. NAFTA was given nothing but praise and popular press from its genisis, with barely no objections ever offered. The war in Irag was championed universally by American newspapers. Even the "liberal" NYT in their piece on what went wrong in Irag consisted of neo-cons and pro-war advocaaters EXCLUSELY. What crap.
As a lover of trees and the truth I, for one, will not miss this cavalcade of mullet (that's a fish) wrap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement