Paper Burns

[Matt Deckard]

Once a staple of the world and how we kept our records, the periodical in print is now truly moving toward becoming the buggy whip of our time.

The New York Times has Mortgaged it’s building… papers are not being read and reporters are getting their news from blogs… watch the news, that’s where it’s coming from and there’s no shame in them doing it.

You see them on the shelves but for how long? I don’t think books are going to disappear anytime soon, but magazines and newspapers… unless they get with the society, their names will be just a part of something on an old post on an news website.

I don't think it's sad to see, knowing that I haven't really met anyone under 30 that actually pics up a paper in the morning. I was one that did though stopped after I realized it was feeding me old news, and why wait for a paper when I can get it online.

What do you think?

 

[B. F. Socaspi]

I read the paper pretty frequently actually, but I know I'm the exception there. I highly doubt any but the biggest papers will remain very long.

Magazines, however, I think will last a good while. To me, there's nothing the same as National Geographic in print.

 

[MEDIUMMYND]

I read the daily Telegraph every day,its readership holds up well and in my opinion there are many high quality magazines that will continue to sell well,not so sure about daily papers.

 

[MPicciotto]

The newspaper I think is on it's way to the history books. Like you said it's old news by the time it goes to print. But Magazines I think are here to stay for a while longer anyways. The depth provided by a magazine gives it staying power. I can pick up a ten year old magazine and read it with as much interest as the latest issue of the same mag. But a ten year old paper is only of interest to me as a curiosity. A once a month magazine I can read even if I'm busy. But I tried the daily paper thing for a couple of months. Gave up when the papers still in their plastic bags were piling up. I already had the news I wanted while checking my email and the rest that might have been of interest to me I just didn't get to. Then after a few days I just had that "old news" mentality and didn't even bother to open the paper.

Matt

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm a hard-core holdout for print media -- I absolutely despise reading long-form material off a computer. My eyes are bad enough already, thanks, and too much squinting gives me migraines.

I also don't think much of the overall quality of "online journalism," especially the blogger stuff, which strikes me as being far more agenda-driven and prone to yahooism than anything that has to go thru the process of being cast in type and printed on a page. I really don't care about getting the news five minutes after it happens, but I do care that it's written by professionals who've had both training and editorial supervision.

Maybe someday the "new media" will meet that standard, but by then I imagine my eyes will be so far gone it won't matter.

 

[Lady Day]

Ya know Lizzie, I said the same thing about blogs three years ago, heck, 8 months ago, but like National Geographic vs the National Enquirer, its reputation that builds readership.

There are a few blogs that have the freedom to report stories without the bias that may hinder their editor or paper. True, most 'editorial' blogs are dreck, but there are a few gems out there that are not just about opinions of the writer, but are just as fact driven if not more so, than their in print seniors.

Im just sayin'

LD

 

[John in Covina]

One thing is that metropolitian papers used to have tremendous competition, NYC had numerous papers, some like the Herald Tribune were actually far superior to the NY Times. As the competition died off many newspapers became entrenched in their own brand of advocacy and lost any semblence of fairness. Editorials by their nature don't have to be fair, but news bias has made it so many will no longer bother with their local paper.

For me the only time I will read the LA Times is for the weekly Food section to see about new restaurants, wine ratings, and maybe some good recipies. Otherwise I would not wrap my fish in it because of the taint.

 

[LizzieMaine]

True, but don't forget even with all the competition the papers in a typical city all were driven by a particular political slant -- that's nothing new. In New York, the Herald Tribune was a traditional Republican/Wall Street paper, the World-Telegram was Democratic, and the Journal-American was screaming hard-right-wing, with the Daily Mirror not far behind. The Daily News was a rabidly New Deal paper in the thirties, and then broke with FDR during the war years, did an about-face, and became even more right-wing than the Hearst papers. In all cases, the editorial slant was as obvious in the news columns as it was on the opinion page.

 

[John in Covina]

Most people don't see the bias when it's slanted their way. (Screaming doesn't seem like screaming when it's what you want to hear.)

 

[MPicciotto]

Let us differentiate between "blogs" and "print media" that is on the internet. I get my news from AP, Reuters and the local papers websites. Sometimes AFP, sometimes Fox. Sometimes Wired Magazine. But generally my "news" is gathered from wire services and local newspaper and TV/Radio station websites. At this time I don't read any "blogs"

Matt

 

[LordBest]

There was actually a kind of battle between print media and blogs in the last Australian election, though I am not sure how much publicity it recieved. A few blogs were started by people fed up with what they percieved as a lack of detailed analysis of politics, particularly polling, in the traditional print media. The print media responded by attacking the 'blogosphere' as being biased and unscientific and it became rather nasty. Come election day it turned out that the blogs got it right and some of the blogs now have the status of online print media.
Books will not dissapear. E-books have not really taken off, book sales continue to increase with population size and all areas of academia rely on books and printed journals just as much as the internet. The howls of anguish as first year university students are told they can not use internet resources are amazing, and oddly satisfying.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

I recently became editor of a small local paper and our readership has been growing over the last few years. The most common comment is that they can't get any real local news from the Internet - only the big national & international stories are carried, and those for the most part aren't a big interest, or the reporting is anything but objective - they carry only one side of the story and most with the same slant. A friend who is involved in statistics and such for papers nationwide, more along the lines of showing advertisers where they should be advertising, says that the smaller papers are growing - the Internet's no threat - and it's the bigger papers that are out of step with the times.

The NY Times mortgaged their headquarters? Big deal. They've been badly managed for years, as with the LA Times since the Chandlers sold out, ditto the Chicago Sun-Times. None have realistic long-term goals, as with so many businesses today. They're trying to make every quarter, every year's bottom line happy for shareholders, while ignoring that shortsightedness of that type is eroding their future viability. And then the federal government will reward their bad management with financial bailouts - what have they got to worry about? Small businesses, the backbone of the US economy, are allowed to fold daily, but if you're big enough, you get a politician or two or twelve on the under-the-table payroll, and they're going to cover your rearend when push comes to shove.

 

[kaiser]

I find that the Internet is a good source of information, the problem is that of telling what is the truth, and what is being presented as the truth. Printed media is generally printing the truth.

 

[Bourbon Guy]

I read an article recently, can't remember where, that made the point that it is not the blogs or internet news that are killing newspapers, despite popular belief, but eBay and Craigslist.

According to the article, newspapers had for decades been deriving upwards of 35% of their revenues from classified ads. When folks began selling their stuff over the internet via eBay and Craigslist instead of through classifieds, a significant portion of newpaper revenues dried up overnight, never to be seen again. Also according to that article, blogs and internet news don't really affect newspapers that much, but papers think they do, because they just happened to come on the scene at the same time as eBay and Craigslist, so papers focus on increasing their content on the net to try to compete with the bloggers, when their real problem is as described above, and most of them don't even have a clue why they are going out of business.

So, the problem is not the content or the fact that it is a paper-based media, but the obsolete business model that they all just fell into by default, and whether any of them will, first, recognize and accept the actual problem rather than just railing against the internet like a modern day Captain Swing, and second, figure out a way to fix their financial base fast enough to survive.

 

[MPicciotto]

I find that the Internet is a good source of information, the problem is that of telling what is the truth, and what is being presented as the truth. Printed media is generally printing the truth.

Again. If I read an AFP, Reuters or AP article "online" its is no different then reading the same article in a physical printed on paper newspaper except that I saved fifty cents. How is that any more or less truth then the printed one?

Matt

 

[ShoreRoadLady]

Well, I'm under 30, and I *do* read the paper, though I don't buy it. If I lived on my own, I think I might subscribe, but mainly for state & local news, not national & international. The national & international stuff is mainly pulled from the same sources (AP, Reuters, etc.), and I can read *that* online. (Actually, I could - and sometimes do - read the state & local articles online, but they're long, so I don't. There's something different about holding a paper in your hand and spreading it out on a table.)

With that said, I also read a number of blogs and other forms of online media. I don't think blogs will or should replace a well-researched daily paper. Unfortunately, what I often see in papers is a lot of rehashed, stale information that hasn't been properly researched. I also see a lot of bias. Sometimes it's blatant; other times it's just there, and I don't think the reporters themselves are fully aware of it. I'm decidedly not thrilled when I read an article that purports to be objective but subtly spins the story through the use of certain words, arrangement of facts, and taking statements by one side at face value without researching them. Drives me up the wall, and if I can spot problems in stories where I have a little background knowledge...well, it doesn't make me too confident about the others. What I do is treat the newspaper just like I treat most blogs: skeptically.

OTOH, I've found a number of blogs with authors who do more research and know more about their topic than your average reporter. You generally get to know which blogs are trustworthy (within reason), and which ones are just spouting bile.

Personally, I think it's interesting that newspapers have set themselves up on pedestals. Throughout history, newspapers have been biased, often quite blatantly. Objectivity in reporting is a fairly recent concept. I see newspapers heading back toward their biased early days, and I see the new media growing to fill the hole that they left. Between the two, one can at least get a semblance of balance, even if neither side is totally impartial.

 

[Bourbon Guy]

Well, I'm under 30, and I *do* read the paper, though I don't buy it. If I lived on my own, I think I might subscribe, but mainly for state & local news, not national & international. The national & international stuff is mainly pulled from the same sources (AP, Reuters, etc.), and I can read *that* online. (Actually, I could - and sometimes do - read the state & local articles online, but they're long, so I don't. There's something different about holding a paper in your hand and spreading it out on a table.)

With that said, I also read a number of blogs and other forms of online media. I don't think blogs will or should replace a well-researched daily paper. Unfortunately, what I often see in papers is a lot of rehashed, stale information that hasn't been properly researched. I also see a lot of bias. Sometimes it's blatant; other times it's just there, and I don't think the reporters themselves are fully aware of it. I'm decidedly not thrilled when I read an article that purports to be objective but subtly spins the story through the use of certain words, arrangement of facts, and taking statements by one side at face value without researching them. Drives me up the wall, and if I can spot problems in stories where I have a little background knowledge...well, it doesn't make me too confident about the others. What I do is treat the newspaper just like I treat most blogs: skeptically.

OTOH, I've found a number of blogs with authors who do more research and know more about their topic than your average reporter. You generally get to know which blogs are trustworthy (within reason), and which ones are just spouting bile.

Personally, I think it's interesting that newspapers have set themselves up on pedestals. Throughout history, newspapers have been biased, often quite blatantly. Objectivity in reporting is a fairly recent concept. I see newspapers heading back toward their biased early days, and I see the new media growing to fill the hole that they left. Between the two, one can at least get a semblance of balance, even if neither side is totally impartial.

Isn't it the truth! It's just that the papers now have some competition from the internet as to content that challenges what had been their own little monopoly. Although I have to admit that the biases present in what purport to be straight news stories in the papers appear more blatant over the past decade. Perhaps the real journalists have gone elsewhere?

On the other hand, between all the different media currently available, the news stories seem to get out.

 

[Lily Powers]

There's something oddly comforting to me about sitting at a cafe in the morning, before work and reading a paper. Yet, I see how it doesn't fulfill the immediacy with which we can now send and receive messages and retrieve information from our computers. And I'll still check the headlines online a couple of times a day. Sadly, I agree that print media will soon be a thing of the past, but people still love their TVs and like to watch other people, so I think televised news will stick around, but in an updated fashion with content and video available online, too.

 

[ShoreRoadLady]

Sadly, I agree that print media will soon be a thing of the past, but people still love their TVs and like to watch other people, so I think televised news will stick around, but in an updated fashion with content and video available online, too.

Y'know, it's funny, but I think if I had to give up one source, I'd rather give up TV news. I rarely, rarely watch it; it's too repetitive, and not in depth at all. Online video I like, but without too much talking from the newscasters. I can read the commentary, then watch the video.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There's something oddly comforting to me about sitting at a cafe in the morning, before work and reading a paper.

This is a big part of why I'll keep reading newspapers until there simply aren't any left. You can't -- comfortably at least -- read a computer at the breakfast table. And you definitely can't read a computer in the bathtub.