COMMENTS: 6
Will Your Hometown Newspaper Still Be Around in 6 Months?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Media and Culture headlines via email.
You might miss Circuit City and Linens & Things, two casualties of the Bush Depression. Perhaps you worked there or bought your first TV set or popcorn popper there. But unless you had a personal investment in either of those places, you won't likely miss them 5 years from now.
But you will miss the Rocky Mountain News, printing its last edition last Friday. The Cincinnati Post is already gone. And if it happens, add the San Francisco Chronicle and the Philadelphia Daily News. That list might soon include the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Detroit News.
You might not live in those cities; maybe you've never even been to their Web sites. But you will miss them.
In 1978, when I was a child, the Chicago Daily News came to a close. It was sad watching a newspaper publish its last edition. But in 1978, we still had a healthy Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times. Heck, the Sun-Times literally was a merger of the Chicago Sun and the Chicago Times.
Cities had pride based on whether they were a two-newspaper town. The number of two-newspaper cities is dwindling: Denver will only have one paper on Saturday; Philadelphia, Seattle, and Detroit are in serious danger of joining the group.
But San Francisco is different. While it technically has two papers, the Examiner is a joke. And Hearst is threatening to shut down the Chronicle, the only significant daily paper in one of the largest cities in the country. There is the Oakland Tribune and the San Jose News, but neither of them cover San Francisco with any significance.
Have we reached the point in the media world where two newspapers in a major city is a luxury? New York has 3½ dailies (Newsday doesn't cover the whole city); Chicago has two but both are very wounded; Los Angeles and San Francisco essentially only have one of significance. Boston amazingly has two relatively strong ones. Dallas-Ft. Worth and Minneapolis-St. Paul will likely keep two papers, only because of the two distinct cities in those markets.
Having competing newspapers in a city was vital in an era where TV news -- shallow by comparison even then -- fell short and radio news was a non-factor. Now, outside of NPR, radio news is virtually non-existent, and TV news is even shallower now. We do have the Internet, though. But is it an able substitute for having two newspapers, or possibly even one?
Newspapers have multiple problems -- the Bush Depression is a small part of it. A number of major newspapers were leveraged beyond belief. They have lost classified ads to Web sites such as Craigslist. But they also haven't adapted to the changing scope of how news is collected and disseminated.
There was a time where newspapers had to exist, given what advertisers wanted, regardless of the content. For years, newspapers promoted the value of the Sunday paper by saying, "the coupons alone pay for the cost of the paper."
Times have changed and newspapers have not tried to catch up to the 21st century realities. In the last eight years, newspapers -- even The New York Times and The Washington Post - missed so many Bush corruption stories and gave him the benefit of the doubt when he hadn't earned it. I'm sure newspapers felt like they got more sales in cheerleading for the Iraq War even before it started.
In the past, newspapers sold their souls for partisan gain and sales (the love of Reagan, all the countless Clinton impeachment stories), and could get away with it. Now with the Internet, we know we aren't getting the full story from newspapers.
I had the privilege of attending a forum on how to save Chicago journalism on Sunday. There was an esteemed panel, a nice mix of traditional journalism figures and the new breed -- those who run journalism Internet sites that serve Chicago. My initial views of the forum can be found here.
There was a generational divide in the room. The older people generally thought newspapers need to stop giving it away for free. The younger people felt newspapers weren't aggressive enough in making money from the Internet.
Stay up to date with the latest Media and Culture headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: weathered on Mar 1, 2009 6:27 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'if its not reported, it never happened'
'by deceit we wage war'
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JefffromCA on Mar 2, 2009 10:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: soundman on Mar 2, 2009 10:23 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But really, my local bank is far more important! Hope it survives - I rejoined the local small bank when CitiCrap gobbled up my previous bank. I know better than to get on board the Titanic. Tramp steamers for me!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: danielleismyname on Mar 2, 2009 11:54 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I totally agree with this comment. Newspapers will not die off completely. People love flipping through them, the love folding them in half and putting them under their arm. But their old business model will not, and cannot survive. The trick is not, 'oh just put it all online.' Believe it or not, young people (the ones who are 'killing' the newspaper by not reading it) aren't looking at news on the internet either. IT depends on the person, depends on the culture. I love reading my local paper, but I also like looking at news online. However, I have friends that don't care at all. They would rather see who added pictures on Facebook, or what the new funny video on YouTube is. That is just the culture we live in. How do we make 'news' more of a priority for a generation that seems not to care? I don't know yet.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: When In Doubt on Mar 2, 2009 7:58 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bloggers and On-Line news sources were successful because they reported what the NYTimes didn't.
I miss the hand held news with it's diversity when it was healthy. I still read the local two or three times a week to keep up with the local arts and entertainment.
But the eagerness of that "morning paper" by the door is gone and now the computer is the second the act of the day.
These are the mirrors of our society as it disintegrates with self-serving politicians and industry usuping the joy of living.
We get what we vote for and when we get what could be a vast shift...the adversarial right attempts of destroy it just as they did with President Clinton.
Rue.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dgiVista.org on Mar 9, 2009 12:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keep Reading Your Community Newspapers, Or Else
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: weathered on Mar 1, 2009 6:27 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'if its not reported, it never happened'
'by deceit we wage war'
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JefffromCA on Mar 2, 2009 10:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: soundman on Mar 2, 2009 10:23 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But really, my local bank is far more important! Hope it survives - I rejoined the local small bank when CitiCrap gobbled up my previous bank. I know better than to get on board the Titanic. Tramp steamers for me!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: danielleismyname on Mar 2, 2009 11:54 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I totally agree with this comment. Newspapers will not die off completely. People love flipping through them, the love folding them in half and putting them under their arm. But their old business model will not, and cannot survive. The trick is not, 'oh just put it all online.' Believe it or not, young people (the ones who are 'killing' the newspaper by not reading it) aren't looking at news on the internet either. IT depends on the person, depends on the culture. I love reading my local paper, but I also like looking at news online. However, I have friends that don't care at all. They would rather see who added pictures on Facebook, or what the new funny video on YouTube is. That is just the culture we live in. How do we make 'news' more of a priority for a generation that seems not to care? I don't know yet.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: When In Doubt on Mar 2, 2009 7:58 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bloggers and On-Line news sources were successful because they reported what the NYTimes didn't.
I miss the hand held news with it's diversity when it was healthy. I still read the local two or three times a week to keep up with the local arts and entertainment.
But the eagerness of that "morning paper" by the door is gone and now the computer is the second the act of the day.
These are the mirrors of our society as it disintegrates with self-serving politicians and industry usuping the joy of living.
We get what we vote for and when we get what could be a vast shift...the adversarial right attempts of destroy it just as they did with President Clinton.
Rue.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dgiVista.org on Mar 9, 2009 12:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keep Reading Your Community Newspapers, Or Else
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Half-Naked Hot Chicks and Beer: The Sexist Guyland of the Super Bowl Beer Commercial
Can Obama and Dems Overcome the Right's Talk Radio Monopoly?
Why We're Addicted to Disaster Porn




