What should we do? Very serious question..

[jason_whitlock]

Dallas Morning News is slashing jobs and coverage. The LA Times just said it won't be covering road hockey games.

Are we standing in the middle of the Titanic and trying to convince ourselves that it's just a little water and everything we'll be okay? It's only a matter of time before these cutbacks hit all of us square in the face. Newspapers appear totally uninterested in doing anything different in terms of content? More "blogging" isn't going to save our industry.

Is it time to jump for a lifeboat?

 

[leo1]

you could always go to law school

 

[JR]

Jason, there's already a discussion on this one thread above (now below) yours.

 

[MileHigh]

Well, what would that lifeboat be?

 

[Cosmo]

This tells me there are very few true "national" sports sections left. I remember when most people in baseball cities would send a reporter to the World Series, no matter who was playing in it. I wonder how many do now? How many papers not in Florida and Texas staffed the NBA Finals? It's getting harder and harder to justify sending a local writer to cover a national event, even at the big papers.

 

[markvid]

This tells me there are very few true "national" sports sections left. I remember when most people in baseball cities would send a reporter to the World Series, no matter who was playing in it. I wonder how many do now? How many papers not in Florida and Texas staffed the NBA Finals? It's getting harder and harder to justify sending a local writer to cover a national event, even at the big papers.

No, I think Jason (and I don't presume to speak for him here) is saying LOCAL coverage is being scaled back.
I understand the premise behind Jason's question, but I think the key is adaptation.
Are papers going electronic? Probably not for a while, but by the same token, since a majority of folks get there info on-line rather than a hard copy of the paper, what do you do?
Do the sites charge? Even if maybe 35-50 cents per day to keep up the revenue streams?
I don't think we're headed to Titanic territory, but the iceberg is in sight if papers don't adapt and do it now.

 

[hockeybeat]

We ignore sports that aren't mainstream.

It's been debated before, but UFC draws the 18-to-34 male market. So, why would newspapers not cover it? It's that segment of the population that will buy the newspapers in the next 20 years.

I think we need to start adding analysis into sections. Let's say the Yankees beat the Royals 12-1. It's not enough anymore to write 16 inches of "The small market Royals got smoked by the Yankees, 12-1, at Yankee Stadium yesterday." It's time we go into the game and say, "The Royals lost because of X Y and Z."

Readers know the score when they pick up the paper. They've seen it on-line or watched the game. They don't need a recap. They need more.  

 

[Buck]

It's a time of volatile change, which can be difficult. Such times present challenges and opportunities.
Anybody who's been thinking it's 'just a little water' has been kidding himself/herself.
On the other hand, there's no need for a Chicken Little reaction.
We just have to realize that the industry is changing, and we have to be prepared and willing to deal with that.

 

[Montezuma's Revenge]

Well, what would that lifeboat be?

 

[BTExpress]

How many papers not in Florida and Texas staffed the NBA Finals?

Serious question: Why would they?

Game ends at midnight, either after most papers' first-edition deadlines or close enough that there will be no quotes. It's pack journalism for any quotes you do get.

We sent a half-dozen writers and three photographers to the NBA Finals, and everything for first edition was still sent at the gun, without any quotes.

So what on earth would a Philadelphia Inquirer reader get from an Inquirer staffer going to these games?

And what does the Inquirer get out of it?

Seriously, other than "it looks good to have 'our' guy there," the negatives seem to seriously outweigh the positives.

 

[westcoastvol]

Some random thoughts...

I get the LAT and NYT on weekends. A rep from the NYT called me today, offering to give me eight weeks of daily delivery for the price of the Sunday paper. I declined, as I read it online. I'm guessing they're trying to get their circ numbers up.

RE: LAT
They don't print all the stock market quotes the way they used to. They didn't send anyone to cover the Tour d'France this year- Diane Pucin blogged from it last year. Sure, there's no Lance-esque story this year, but still...I hope the sports department at the LAT really enjoys the shiny new plasma tvs going up in their section.

RE: the future
It'd be sooo much cheaper (and profitable) to go strictly online, using a subscription fee basis for readership. It'll happen. Just not yet.

 

[Columbo]

Guys....

Not covering the local NHL team on the road is SO overdue.

 

[Buck]

Subscription-based online sites don't work.
Perhaps they will in the future, but right now they aren't viable.
It's very hard to get people to even register for a site, let alone pay for it.

 

[Cosmo]

How many papers not in Florida and Texas staffed the NBA Finals?

Serious question: Why would they?

Game ends at midnight, either after most papers' first-edition deadlines or close enough that there will be no quotes. It's pack journalism for any quotes you do get.

We sent a half-dozen writers and three photographers to the NBA Finals, and everything for first edition was still sent at the gun, without any quotes.

So what on earth would a Philadelphia Inquirer reader get from an Inquirer staffer going to these games?

And what does the Inquirer get out of it?

Seriously, other than "it looks good to have 'our' guy there," the negatives seem to seriously outweigh the positives.

BTE ... No, I understand why Philadelphia or Minneapolis or Boston wouldn't send a reporter to the NBA finals. But that never stopped them before from covering the championship series of what's perceived as the No. 2 or 3 sport in this country. Maybe papers are wising up and cutting the fat.

 

[hockeybeat]

How many papers not in Florida and Texas staffed the NBA Finals?

Serious question: Why would they?

Game ends at midnight, either after most papers' first-edition deadlines or close enough that there will be no quotes. It's pack journalism for any quotes you do get.

We sent a half-dozen writers and three photographers to the NBA Finals, and everything for first edition was still sent at the gun, without any quotes.

So what on earth would a Philadelphia Inquirer reader get from an Inquirer staffer going to these games?

And what does the Inquirer get out of it?

Seriously, other than "it looks good to have 'our' guy there," the negatives seem to seriously outweigh the positives.

BTE ... No, I understand why Philadelphia or Minneapolis or Boston wouldn't send a reporter to the NBA finals. But that never stopped them before from covering the championship series of what's perceived as the No. 2 or 3 sport in this country. Maybe papers are wising up and cutting the fat.

I interviewed at a major midwest paper earlier this year. The topic of cutbacks/streamlining came up and the SE said their paper didn't have any agate clerks on staff. Instead, they farm the agate to a third party company in Canada who puts those pages together and sends it to the printing plant. The plus is that the paper doesn't have to pay six clerks twenty-some odd thousand dollars a year. The negative is that the paper doesn't know if they have undiscovered young talent.

 

[spaceman]

I don't think we're headed to Titanic territory, but the iceberg is in sight if papers don't adapt and do it now.

The ship be sinkin'.

 

[KYSportsWriter]

Jason, there's already a discussion on this one thread above (now below) yours.

But JR, you know JW has to have his own thread.

 

[shotglass]

I don't see where it's his question to ask. He's got the electronic media backup. Better we should worry about the people who don't have that.

 

[buckweaver]

RE: the future
It'd be sooo much cheaper (and profitable) to go strictly online, using a subscription fee basis for readership. It'll happen. Just not yet.

Cheaper expenses, probably helps circulation a little, but where does the revenue come from? You're not getting the same rates for online ads as you are in print, and we all know where the money comes from. So that's the issue, at least right now.

So the question we need to be asking -- although it's not our question to deal with or even answer -- is how do you make online advertising profitable? Because that's the next step for newspapers. And that's where the change comes from.

 

[jason_whitlock]

i dreamed of being a newspaper columnist. i love newspapers.

but newspapers are not adapting well to the new age....it won't be long until rivals.com hires a columnist who will be more influential than newspaper columnists.... newspapers refused to cover recruiting thoroughly, so a web site popped up and is doing the issue justice....

when will some newspaper sports section have the balls to ignore the apse formula and dramatically change its approach?