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!

Sounds like Digital First's John Paton thinks print is dead

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by WolvEagle, Nov 15, 2011.

  1. WolvEagle

    WolvEagle Active Member

    Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/business/media/paton-prepares-his-newspapers-for-a-world-without-print.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

    Funny that the story says that editorial staffing is roughly the same as it's been. Paton and his buddies have gutted our newsroom, penalizing us for the struggles of other papers in the chain. Managing editor of three papers? Gone. Both full-time photographers? Gone. Lifestyles editor? Gone.

    I understand the emphasis on digital - that's a no-brainer. But, people still love their print product - at least that's what our readers are telling us. And, that's what our advertisers are telling us, too. The ad count has remained steady - really.
     
  2. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    Print is still effective for the dwindling amount of readers. Print circulation is declining for most newspapers and anyone who says otherwise is full of it. Ad revenue is also declining for most papers and those who say otherwise are full of it. There are exceptions, of course, but you can't change the fact revenue is declining.
     
  3. WolvEagle

    WolvEagle Active Member

    Yes, print circulation is declining. Of course it is. But why penalize a paper where ad revenue is holding steady? Why not reward it for bucking the trend?

    And, it really bothers me that the vaunted New York Times didn't challenge Paton on his lie about editorial staffing. I thought the NYT was, like, the best of the best when it came to journalism. Guess I'm wrong.
     
  4. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    A paper in a chain doesn't exist in a vacuum. Your paper receives some benefits from being in a chain, so it should also bear some of the cuts as well.

    And is ad revenue really holding steady? I bet classifieds have taken a hit.
     
  5. WolvEagle

    WolvEagle Active Member

    Yeah, we've really benefited since they bought us and marched straight into bankruptcy. They've gutted us to pay for the dogmeat properties.
     
  6. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Now that I'm not a newspaper person anymore, just a reader, I automatically assume that any story about a newspaper executive that claims he's executing some kind of successful business strategy is just wishful thinking by the newspaper which publishes the story.
     
  7. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    Is there a significant number of people under 40 that love print? Under 60? I just don't see the love for print as witnessed by the lack of papers in driveways in my region.
     
  8. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    First, we already have a thread on this:

    http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/87074/

    It's easy to miss stuff online. My feeling is that most people who have abandoned print are less informed than they think. Probably they are informed about the one or two topics that interest them. Some have an almost Rain Man obsession with national politics, for example, but want no content that might challange their preconceptions. Often they could not identify their district in the state legislature.

    Last night I was in a social situation and a 50-something housewife was asking me, "So why do you guys give it away for free? ... No, really. Why do you ...."
     
  9. WolvEagle

    WolvEagle Active Member

    Sorry about the d_b. "John Patton" didn't register right away with me (not being a smart-aleck - honest).
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page