The last print subscriber

One problem, besides the Internet, is that people aren't as interested in local news as they used to be. This has been documented. People, for whatever reason, are today more interested in national and international news and much less interested in local news. So this means that even where a local newspaper does not have a Web site worth visiting, or puts the content behind a paywall, people are still unlikely to subscribe.

 

Cite your work.

 

Calling bullshit on that, Dick.

 

Dick, you give no allowance for degree there, and that's why you're wrong.

I don't even need you to cite letter and verse on the premise; I agree that there's less interest in local coverage than there was in, say, 1975.

But the real question is whether that diminished taste for local goes so far that the reader wouldn't care if they never saw it. I say they still care enough. If you don't have anywhere else to find what Podunk High's football team did, or what came down at the Podunk board meeting, you're not going to give up access to it easily.

This is a concept that big-city types have struggles relating to (not saying you necessarily fit that bill). But there are still strips of Americana where the individuals hold some interest in their community and what's going on in it.

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119249/fergusons-lesson-local-government-poses-real-threat-liberty

 

No. Newspapers by and large do a piss-poor job covering local news. Mostly, the shitty product drives the lack of interest, not vice versa.

 

I agree that this is an advantage for print newspapers. But it's a pretty slight one. I've had a tablet for about two years. I think there has been one or two times that I let it run out of power when I had wanted to use it.

Tablets are not limited to one per family.

This is not an inherent advantage for newspapers. Web sites and tablets can be designed to do the same, and are.

If one of the arguments you are hanging your hat on is that print newspapers have display ads, thus "enhanc(ing), the reading experience," I would have to say that you are losing the argument.

Tablet/Web versions:

1. There when I wake up in the morning at 3:45 a.m., without fail. Many stories available when I lay down to bed at night, if so inclined.

2. No clutter.

3. Easier to hold.

4. Less bulky and awkward to read than a newspaper.

5. Multimedia presentation in some cases.

6. Cheaper.

7. Multiple periodicals can be delivered to one device.

8. Unlimited space so stories can get the amount of words they deserve.

It is just difficult to imagine, for the consumer, any advantage that a print newspaper has that outweighs the enormous advantages that a tablet or Web site version has.

 

You forgot:

9.) No black ink stain residue from crappy old printing press and cheap paper left on your hands once you put the tablet down that forces you to use auto mechanic/machine shop soap to remove it.


However, he forgot:

4.) Portability. You can take a newspaper on an airplane and when the stewardess tells you to power down all your electronic items, you don't have to power down your newspaper. This is, however, the only instance in the world that I can think of that appeals to needing a print copy of a newspaper.

 

Most papers with any business sense would be aggressively trying to phase out the print edition, not taking steps to save it. That would be the forward-thinking thing to do.

Though it won't be without some sadness, it will actually be a good day for the industry when the last print papers roll off the press. That will mean it will have moved on from the delusion that print is a part of the industry's future.

 

Well, that's certainly uplifting for some of us. Thanks for that.

 

Agree with you 100 percent.

 

I wonder how many major newspapers' presses are fewer than 10 years old.