Reacting to news

I did not bring up Orlando on this thread, Shotglass did. I did not bring up Orlando on the other thread; that was the name of the thread.

And how has this worked for your newspaper's circulation? Are you down?

There have been other options for information ever since radio started. Some people prefer newsprint, but they won't if we chase them away by ceding news to another medium.

You have tasted the Kool-Aid, I see. This kind of thinking is what's killing newspapers.

 

How is my circulation? Anyone? Anyone out there? How is your circulation?

The NY Post was up. And, they hemorrhaged cash. Want to to be the Post, Frank?

It's not Kool-Aid. It's reality. Our demo is dying, quite literally. I know the history of newspapers. I know people have killed them off starting with telegraphs.
This isn't the telegraph. This is personalized news on demand. Something newspapers can't offer in the "fiber product."

You think I'm killing newspapers. I think you're going to need to take your head out of the sand to see it. 99% of your posts, I agree with you. Especially on ethical issues. You're right on. I just disagree with you on this one.

 

I was just about to post that Frank has really emerged as a great poster, especially on the journalism side of the board.

Then he went all DyePack on us and mentioned the kool-aid.

 

We're pretty stable. Down about 6 percent daily from the high 25 years ago, with population about the same. Sunday is a bit worse.

I agree we'll wind up moving to the Net. But your philosophy just kills the print product faster. We want to continue to make as much money in print as possible until Web advertising catches up, and to do so we do not want to drive people away. If we stop printing news, people who want news will stop buying us.

 

DyePack taught me everything I know.

 

My swipe aside, Frank, I enjoy reading your takes on this side of the board. You seem to know your shit and you're not afraid to discuss things civilly, even though you may or may not be in the majority of things.

I know you probably didn't need my endorsement, but keep it up.

 

I'm not sure I agree with Frank on his premise about hard news being the end-all, that insight and analysis don't have much value.

But given all the insight Frank has shown on so many matters about this business, it certainly makes me think about it.

 

I don't for a minute think Frank is saying hard news is the end-all and insight and analysis don't have much value.

What I read from his posts is hard news has more value than many of you want to believe, analysis and insight are good, and the overemphasis on enterprise at the expense of hard news is not the end-all, either.

It also has to be based on your market. If you're Orlando and have only one pro team to cover with an oversized staff and an oversized budget, you can do whatever the hell you want.
If you're in a market like NY/NJ where there are 8 major pro franchises plus minor sports and colleges, you natuarally have less space for enterprise unless you just want to throw the news out of the paper.
And trust me, throwing hard news out of the paper for the sake of enterprise is the most certain way to kill newspapers.

 

As I've mentioned before on a different thread, look at the free dailies that have popped up in and around major cities. Very newsy, even with a lots of wire copy that "people can get anywhere on line." Yet people still pick them up and read them. Would they if those papers switched to opinion, analysis and long takeouts? When the New Times alt-weekly chain bought Village Voice Media recently, the decree was less opinion, more news. There still is a huge market for newsprint products, but we have to understand that just as we can't corner the market on national/international news, we certainly can't charge money for a softer, analytical product because that can be done very inexpensively by an upstart competitor online. But who can afford to match our local news coverage? And by that I include coverage of nearby pro teams. This is why I believe in hard news. People can get "news" online in the generic sense, but no one can afford to deliver news like we can. Even TV stations, with a strong advertising base, basically report off that morning's newspaper. Our news sets in the agenda in every town. Now if we stop giving it away online, people will pay for it.

 

I don't know, spnited.

It seems to me that Frank -- and he can certainly chime in, because I don't want to misrepresent him -- has written several times that who the columnists are seems to make little difference, that not that many people have that strong of a loyalty to the so-called stars.

If I misinterpreted, Frank, then I stand corrected.

And I'm certainly not advocating throwing news out of the paper for enterprise. I've come to question the value of a lot of what we call enterprise anyway. But I think people ARE interested in the columnists' take on things, because much of the news is 12 or more hours old by the time it appears in the paper.

Frank makes me take a long and hard look at that, though.

 

I still don't think some people are seeing one simple fact ... the drop in circulation may not be the fault of what we are doing. It's a change in society in general. We could do everything the way Frank believes, and newspapers could still go the way of the dinosaur in 25 years.

And seriously, Frank, this has gotten so close to DyePackish as to be frightening.

 

But, MR, saying who the columnists are often doesn't make any ral difference is not the same as saying you don't need columns and opinion and analysis.
There are very few columnists around the country who are considered the absolute voice of their city/area/state. We on the inside care more about who the voice is than the readers do, in most cases.