1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

More on the future of newspapers

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by SF_Express, Feb 5, 2007.

  1. Editude

    Editude Active Member

    It might not have to if ad rates are based on the number of unique page views rather than the number of unread papers on the driveway.
  2. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    I'm certainly no expert on the cost effectiveness of advertising. I have always wondered if you get your money back by buying a full-page ad in a newspaper.

    However ... I REALLY wonder if it would be cost-effective to pay serious amounts of money for Web advertising exposure.

    I mean, everybody does their darnedest to avoid clickthroughs and pop-ups anyway. They don't WANT to see those ads.
  3. FileNotFound

    FileNotFound Well-Known Member

    That should be taped across the top of everybody's monitor.
  4. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    I have Firefox. I don't have to make any effort to avoid them -- they're voided for me. :D
  5. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    Yeah, well, Firefox remains the minority, even in spite of the chorus. ;)
  6. henryhenry

    henryhenry Member

    people read good stories.
    stop the presses.
  7. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    You're rolling already?
  8. busuncle

    busuncle Member

    And I'm not sure I even agree with that.

    We like to think that people are just slobbering over that 600-inch, four-part series on some socially significant concern, but I think the number of people who actually read those stories from beginning to end can be counted on one hand (and some of them are paid to edit to the copy).

    We don't really want to know the stuff that people read because it would upset so many of the myths that we hold dear. And, besides, newspapers don't win awards by having a strong crime blotter or making sure a picture of that grisly crash on Main Street gets good play or providing blow-by-blow coverage of the mayor's sex scandal or having a good comics section.
  9. henryhenry

    henryhenry Member

    good doesn't mean 600 inches anymore than it means 4 inches.
    length has nothing to do with it.
  10. SoSueMe

    SoSueMe Active Member

    Mine will be much better when, in pretty much the same eight-hour shift, I don't have to:
    1) head to three assignments
    2) take the photos for all three
    3) upload, photoshop, save, etc. said photos
    4) layout pages
    5) layour agate
    6) write a column
    7) wade through the garbage people send in

    Ridding the biz of copy editors, photographers, graphic designers and reporters, and then amalgamating all of those has caused us to rush out half-assed stories and half-assed photos.

    I ask: How can I perfectly capture the moment/spirit/play/details/emotion in both print and photo - at the same time?
  11. Crimson Tide

    Crimson Tide Member

    World's oldest newspaper goes digital

  12. boots

    boots New Member

    There is a damn good chance that papers as we know it won't be around in the near future. Young people aren't plunking down 75 cents to read what Donnie Sports Columnist has to say about the big game. People can figure things out for themselves.
    When was the last time you saw someone under 25 purchase a newspaper from the store or a newsstand?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page