Wash. Post columnist: Time to shut down the small papers

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

JayFarrar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
9,931
From a web chat at washingtonpost.com
Wimberley, Tex.: I've watched regional newspapers self-implode over the past four or five years.

One added more pages to the newspaper, then laid off the news staff to I guess pay for the extra pages. But this made the newspaper weaker, not stronger. Who wants to read articles from Timbuktu that local people cannot relate to?

Then after that, they cut back the reporting staff even further. Do they really think readers want more pages of garbage than local reporting?

It should be no surprise newspaper companies want to dump the Chicago Tribune and Miami Herald when newspaper companies run newspapers in a way that doesn't relate to their readers.

Are newspaper companies as dumb as the auto industry in producing products nobody cares about anymore?

Why aren't newspaper companies and their boards smarter in finding ways to connect with their audience? Do you think newspaper companies are going the way of network television -- irrelevant?

Steven Pearlstein: This is a big problem, and one that I think about every day. The newspaper business is in a death cycle, as you indicate, and it needs to find a way to pull out of it. There has been a dramatic deterioration in the quality of the product. The reason, as I see it, is very simple: the only way to produce a good product is for there to be massive consolidation in the industry, so that economies of scale can be achieved. But to date, we cling to these outdated notions that every city of 25,000 people needs its own daily newspaper. Not only can't those papers be very good at delivering a full range of local, national and international news and features, but their existence makes it difficult for even the big metro papers to have enough circulation (scale) to do that. Unfortunately, consolidation takes a long time, especially when so many papers remain in family ownership. So what is going to happen is that you hare going to have a huge amount of destruction of value and waste of talent until things get so bad, and newspaper prices get so low, and so many papers go out of business, that a few successful consolidators can finally come in and create the new model. What is also needed, however, is for the public to finally realize that there is no free lunch, that advertisers are no longer willing or able to pay for the cost of news collection, and that if people want quality news, they are going to have to pay for it just like any other good. If they are willing to pay $2 each morning for a cup of coffee, then they should willing to pay at least that much for a good newspaper.

Yes, let's kill off all the small papers that provide the financial backbone for most media companies to prop up the money losing metros. And, while we are at it, let's shut down all the papers that aren't named the Washington Post or NY Times. Plus, curses to the family-owned papers who stand in the way of the corporate media companies. It is all the small papers fault.
I don't know to laugh or get really angry.
 
You may disagree, but this is the guy who just won the Pulitzer for predicting the current economic crisis before the fact. He might very well be wrong about this, but his record is being right.
 
i don't care what he's done before, he's dead wrong on this. it's not the small papers killing the business. what a prick.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
If they are willing to pay $2 each morning for a cup of coffee, then they should willing to pay at least that much for a good newspaper.

Awww yeah, that'll go over real well.

::) ::) ::)


And every 7-Eleven (not even to say mom-and-pop grocery store) in towns under 25,000 should close down so everyone can drive 75 miles to the Megamongopolis Wal-Mart once every two weeks to stock up on food.
 
The papers that are the most healthy, or have seen the lowest drop in circulation, are the smaller papers.

While I disagree with this guy, I could see a day where the only papers are the big papers. They absorb all of the smaller papers in their region and then the readers have no choice. Gannett is already looking at doing something similar, as we have talked about on countless previous threads. Every city gets USA Today wrapped in a few pages of local news.
 
Most Americans DO NOT live in metropolis areas. Obviously, he has not done his homework.
 
Had same reaction as most of those above. He is serving a large, semi-national newspaper, and calling for the end of the small fry. Gee, not at all self-serving.

I thought the small fry were, on the whole, hanging in relatively well, at least where they weren't part of skinflints' chains. If so, then MYOB, Pearlstein.
 
Drip said:
Most Americans DO NOT live in metropolis areas. Obviously, he has not done his homework.

Either him, or you.

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/1008_smalltowns_katz.aspx

But the 1910 census was the last one in which rural Americans represented a majority of the population; these days, we've become a thoroughly metropolitan nation. Two-thirds of our population lives in the top 100 metropolitan areas, and 84 percent of Americans live in all 363 metros. Being in a metro means being tied to someplace else; the Census Bureau defines metropolitan areas as a city of 50,000 or more, plus the adjacent counties that have close social and economic ties to the urban core.
 
FirstDownPirates said:
Drip said:
Most Americans DO NOT live in metropolis areas. Obviously, he has not done his homework.

Either him, or you.

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/1008_smalltowns_katz.aspx

But the 1910 census was the last one in which rural Americans represented a majority of the population; these days, we've become a thoroughly metropolitan nation. Two-thirds of our population lives in the top 100 metropolitan areas, and 84 percent of Americans live in all 363 metros. Being in a metro means being tied to someplace else; the Census Bureau defines metropolitan areas as a city of 50,000 or more, plus the adjacent counties that have close social and economic ties to the urban core.

and those people are often better-served by the podunk times as far as localized news. for instance, the dallas morning news supposedly serves a buttload of suburbs and adjacent counties but they do a lousy job of covering those suburbs and counties on a regular basis. and i'd bet it's the same way at other metro gorillas.
 
I was just pointing out that what he said is demonstrably false.
 
Mizzougrad96 said:
The papers that are the most healthy, or have seen the lowest drop in circulation, are the smaller papers.

While I disagree with this guy, I could see a day where the only papers are the big papers. They absorb all of the smaller papers in their region and then the readers have no choice. Gannett is already looking at doing something similar, as we have talked about on countless previous threads. Every city gets USA Today wrapped in a few pages of local news.

I disagree ... I think the newspapers that survive will be the small ones, and folks will get their state and national news (for better or worse) from CNN, FoxNews, regional TV channel/web site, etc.

There is a paper in the county next door that publishes page after page of high school sports (sometimes more pages than the regional daily). I don't see that going bye-bye any time soon...
 
I quote from the link: "Not only can't those papers be very good at delivering a full range of local, national and international news and features, but their existence makes it difficult for even the big metro papers to have enough circulation (scale) to do that."

What this pinhead, Pulitzer and all, doesn't understand is that smaller papers aren't concerned about carrying the national and international news. They continue to succeed, despite being cannibalized or siphoned off through "consolidation" by their respective motherships, because they provide LOCAL content unavailable anywhere else, to include the Internet.
 
txsportsscribe said:
FirstDownPirates said:
Drip said:
Most Americans DO NOT live in metropolis areas. Obviously, he has not done his homework.

Either him, or you.

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/1008_smalltowns_katz.aspx

But the 1910 census was the last one in which rural Americans represented a majority of the population; these days, we've become a thoroughly metropolitan nation. Two-thirds of our population lives in the top 100 metropolitan areas, and 84 percent of Americans live in all 363 metros. Being in a metro means being tied to someplace else; the Census Bureau defines metropolitan areas as a city of 50,000 or more, plus the adjacent counties that have close social and economic ties to the urban core.

and those people are often better-served by the podunk times as far as localized news. for instance, the dallas morning news supposedly serves a buttload of suburbs and adjacent counties but they do a lousy job of covering those suburbs and counties on a regular basis. and i'd bet it's the same way at other metro gorillas.
Your post answered exactly what I was going to say.
 
Checking in from a 16K family-owned daily in the south. No layoffs. No paycuts. Circulation is actually going up. The only thing we're struggling with is advertising, but that has more to do with the economy than anything else. Heck, as recent as August, we were setting records for advertising. Our prep football section had more ads in it than ever. I'm not bragging; I'm just trying to illustrate how stupid this idea is.
 
SCEditor said:
Checking in from a 16K family-owned daily in the south. No layoffs. No paycuts. Circulation is actually going up. The only thing we're struggling with is advertising, but that has more to do with the economy than anything else. Heck, as recent as August, we were setting records for advertising. Our prep football section had more ads in it than ever. I'm not bragging; I'm just trying to illustrate how stupid this idea is.

Amen to that, brother. Keep up the good work!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top