Papers Pulling Next Week's Doonesbury

It the idea of comics is to get kids to read the paper why put Doonesbury in comic section? Current run is just not appropriate for kids.

If today's cartoon happened to be a movie, it would be rated "R".

 

Guys, just sitting back and watching this discussion, I don't think YF and his adversaries are terribly far apart in their positions. All of you seem to agree that what newspapers can do these days is limited by their (lack of) resources.

I think where you diverge is -- and correct me if I'm wrong, YF -- YF's position is that the resources that are left are being allocated incorrectly. He believes that if you're going to cut things because of limited resources, cut the comics, puzzles, Dear Abby, Hints from Heloise and all the fluffy feature-y stuff and put everything you have into what he sees as the newspaper's core mission -- delivering hard news, investigative reporting, enterprise.

His view is: Don't keep all the candy while cutting reporters and then claim you don't have the resources to do the reporting that should be at the center of your "brand."

The flaw in that is that the fluffy extras cost far less than paying the personnel to do the job the way it used to be done. But the idea, I believe, is that the extras should be the first things to go rather than keeping them at the expense of more important things. Even if the money you'd save from not running comics isn't much, it's still coming at the expense of the news operation.

Now, the question then becomes who is the audience? Is the draw of the comics and similar stuff worth it to be a "family" newspaper and to get more readers to feel like they have a stake in the paper?

I don't know the answers, but I think I get the questions.

If that makes any sense at all.

 

Thanks da man, I think that's a good summary.

My "big boy" comment was directed to Boom, and was meant as a comparison between the Times/Journal and the Post/News.

Then everyone got upset because they thought I was putting their paper down.

But, I don't even consider the Washington Post or the Chicago Tribune to be in the same class as the Times and Journal. So, would you expect me to show a lot of love for the Chronicle, or the Podunk Press.

And, yes, I do get that the comics and Dear Abby cost a lot less than having a full newsroom. As you were able to understand, my point about keeping them was more about appearances and "brand" not a cost comparison.

 

One person can paginate the comics, the puzzles and Dear Abby, plus what's left of the classified ads and probably the other ads. When you can get that much reader value out of one person, it would be a terrible choice to make that the first cut.

 

I didn't say it should be the first cut. I'm not even saying you have to cut them.

But, when you cut real reporting, and hang on to all of the fluff, it does send a message. Sorry, but it does.

And, like I also said, what ad buyer is requesting placement on the same page as Dear Abby?

Not only have you guys all cut people and reporting, but you've actually shrunk the size of your paper. Each remaining page is valuable real estate.

Is it wise to dedicate a page to the funnies, and another to Abby, Heloise, and Jumble, when they don't bring in add revenue?

 

Based on every reader survey I've ever seen, absolutely. Those are some of the most-read pages in the paper.

 

This isn't going to seem very bright, particularly where I've come from in 35 years at some pretty good newspapers, but if you're talking about things like comics, like it or not: The thing I miss MOST about not getting a daily paper anymore -- I only get Sunday now -- is a quick and easy way to read the damn daily comics. Used to be a morning ritual for me.

I did NOT get my daily newspaper for in-depth investigative reporting, which I can get online. But having all the comics there is a service.

I'd say the majority of people who still get the print edition would not be happy to lose that page.

 

*****
Is it wise to dedicate a page to the funnies, and another to Abby, Heloise, and Jumble, when they don't bring in add revenue?
*****

That's not what it's about. It's about serving the reader, and the reader -- maybe not you, but most readers -- wants that stuff.

And in places I have been , Abby and Heloise pages are high priority for advertisers.

 

Great post. We understand the message, but again, I don't see the cost savings being all that much if you want to cut comics/Dear Abby, etc. Now, I think where you'd have an argument would be to cut the Food/Travel/Other feature sections and focus on news, but that would also aggravate a lot of readers. Not everyone buys the paper for hard news or sports. Some people love their crossword puzzle, others want Sudoku, and Dear Abby is widely read as well. I think all of this stuff gives the paper a chance to reach a wider audience. And it also helps to fill the space that can't be filled because of the lack of bodies to produce stories. It's a tough spot, for sure. There's no doubt many papers could use their limited resources more wisely, but isn't that a big reason the business is stuggling so mightily?

 

Cutting the food section would be even more suicidal, unless you think all those Wednesday grocery inserts are spoiling the brand. And you could sell Mary Worth into white slavery and it isn't bringing back the bodies in the newsroom needed to do a proper job. One has nothing to do with the other. I understand your view that comics make a newspaper look inferior. Hell, I think it is a valid opinion. The guy who's an opera fan has a valid opinion too, but he isn't getting the Top 40 station to flip formats.

 

3/17/12

http://www.doonesbury.com