The last print subscriber

Who the hell doesn't trust TMZ in this day and age?

"Real" news outlets spend half their lives chasing the shit TMZ finds.

If TMZ says it, it pans out.

 

Well, my local paper -- the Arizona Republic -- now gets those stories from something called "Bang Showbiz." Yeah, I'll go with TMZ.

 

There used to be. Not anymore.

Newspapers are going to great lengths to ensure that they no longer have a mechanism to determine if a story is true or not. Let alone written in a clear, understandable way. They're eroding their credibility on purpose so they can save money.

 

I also don't quite grasp the distinction between "newspaper journalism" and "online journalism." The New York Times is newspaper journalism. And it's online journalism. The Wall Street Journal is newspaper journalism. And it's online journalism. The New York Post is newspaper journalism. Pro Publica is online journalism.

 

I pay $15 a month for web access. (Though a 7-day print subscription to my parents house on Long Island seems to cost about $14 a week and includes digital.)

Basically, the Times is running a free-sheet on the web. What happens to those vaunted million-plus electronic "subscribers" when the newspaper actually starts wanting money?

 

Not saying that the web product isn't great. I just don't see how it's making that much money.

 

In 1995-97, I worked as a designer in sports at the Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, and the paper was delivered to my doorstep every morning. In its incarnation then, it was a must-read for me — the news section much more than the sports — and I'd spend an hour or more each morning with it.

To this day, it remains the only paper I worked at where the news section was clearly better than the sports section. If I had somehow moved to that town, I would have subscribed even without a connection to the paper. I can't say that about any of the other stops where I worked in a nearly 20-year career.

 

Discussed this with one of my friends in the circulation department at my shop.

She was shocked that the $500 (or more) annual cost of the Tribune would mean home delivery costs MORE than the newsstand price (assuming the Trib is $1 daily and $2.50 on Sunday).

For years and years, the circulation sales pitch at almost every newspaper has been "Subscribe for three months/six months/one year and save $XXX off the newsstand price."

The only answer that makes sense is the Chicago Tribune is trying to discourage its customers from reading the print version.

 

I bet that Junior Johnson is the last print subscriber in his family

 

I mentioned this discussion when I was on the phone with my mom the other day, and she said they'd have to pry the printed version of the paper from her cold, dead hands.

If a substantial number of people under age 65 felt the same way, I'd be a bit more optimistic about the future of this business.

 

Why should anybody subscribe to the print edition of the newspaper? That's the question. People here say they believe in it. Why?

 

I suppose "tradition" is the answer most mentioned (often indirectly) on this thread so far. That's not a great answer.

Three other reasons in favor of my local paper — which would be true for me even if I didn't work there:

1. There's local news and sports coverage you can't get anywhere else. That includes the paper's website — which, like many 20K or less circulation papers, offers a rehash of the print product in a harder-to-read format, complete with annoying pop-up ads and toxic, degrading, anonymous online comments.

2. It's still convenient and affordable (again, even if I didn't work there, it would cost $150-199 annually for home delivery, which is almost always on time and on the porch).

3. My wife and I still enjoy skimming over the news, comics and box scores while eating breakfast and aren't comfortable doing that with a tablet or laptop at the table.