Another "Newspapers must die" article

[Stitch]

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonicshifts/archive/2009/09/27/don-t-bail-out-newspapers-let-them-die-and-get-out-of-the-way.aspx

He rips into newspapers and likens the content of the Boston Globe to a college paper, but this article reads like Jeff Jarvis.

 

[tapintoamerica]

A lot of harsh charges. Few if any specifics to back them up.
1) Reporters ordered to write sponsored content. Give me some links, dude.
2) "Plenty of countries that don't have democracy do have newspapers." -- I'm sure the Teheran Times is a bastion of journalistic integrity and watchdog mindset.
3) The Detroit papers are in trouble and "deserve it." Did this guy read the Kilpatrick coverage?

 

[wisportswriter]

Another "newspapers must die" article?
Well, stop the presses.

Get it? Stop the presses. (rim shot)

 

[fishwrapper]

One question (a bit rhetorical): How's Newsweek doing?

 

[Fredrick]

Sure, nobody has yet figured out how to make loads of money delivering news over the Internet.

Best line in that piece of **** article.

 

[jlee]

A bunch of generalizations with a byline. No new ideas. Great.

I've been reading the same damn thing since I got in the business two years ago. Sadly, I'm already tired of this crap. Where's the proof?

 

[JayFarrar]

I was just about to post this.
Another article about the great suckitude of newspapers.
Yet nothing in terms of facts or backing up any of his claims.
And, of course, the reason why papers aren't making money off the web? The papers.

Sure, nobody has yet figured out how to make loads of money delivering news over the Internet. But that's partly because there are too many old newspaper companies, stumbling around like zombies: creatures from another century, clinging to their lame old business model, surviving but not thriving—and sucking up money that Internet companies could put to better use.

And incredibly ironic that the article appeared in Newsweek, owned by one of those stupid newspaper companies that's keeping the internet from being profitable.

 

[jfs1000]

This was the worst article I have read on the subject. This proves papers need to be around because that column gets sent back to him at a paper. Why? Because there are no supporting facts illustrating his point. It came off as a college newspaper editorial about how old people suck.

 

[Deskhack]

Instead of giving newspapers bailouts, we should be hastening their demise. The weak papers need to die. The strong newspapers need to go into bankruptcy and restructure their businesses with smaller staffs and lower cost structures. Yes, it will be painful. But journalists will find jobs—and they'll be working in a better, faster medium.

...for about $6 per hour instead of, you know, a living wage. But there are always part-time jobs at Wal-Mart!

 

[HanSenSE]

I was just about to post this.
Another article about the great suckitude of newspapers.
Yet nothing in terms of facts or backing up any of his claims.
And, of course, the reason why papers aren't making money off the web? The papers.

Sure, nobody has yet figured out how to make loads of money delivering news over the Internet. But that's partly because there are too many old newspaper companies, stumbling around like zombies: creatures from another century, clinging to their lame old business model, surviving but not thriving—and sucking up money that Internet companies could put to better use.

And incredibly ironic that the article appeared in Newsweek, owned by one of those stupid newspaper companies that's keeping the internet from being profitable.

It's a classic case of circular logic. No money in Internet, it's all at the papers. Get rid of the papers, advertising will flow to Internet.

Yeah, right ... only Carl Lewis has taken greater leaps.