Saving Newspapers?

[Ziggy Stardust]

I wasn't sure if I should put this in News and Politics or Off-Topic, as it can be argued that this is human interest and not breaking news. If the mods think it fits better elsewhere, I apologize and feel free to move it as you see fit. Also, I apologize ahead of time for all of the links in the post, but I wanted to make sure the evidence for some of the things I say is readily available, as this week I am busy with work and will not have the opportunity to post regularly enough to supply sources for future reference.

To the point: we all know that newspapers (and other news outlets, generally, but I am sticking with newspapers for this particular discussion, though I'm sure this thread will end up covering alternatives) are not doing well. The advent of the Internet, combined with the general poor conduct of the press during much of the Bush Administration, and the general laziness of the younger generation have made the newspaper business model in shambles. Several major institutions have declared bankruptcy, and most of the others are not going well. A recent Op-Ed in the New York Times addresses the issue here. (Note: I'm not sure if you need an account with the Times to see that page; I don't think so, but if you can't access it just tell me and I will post it in whole).

In any case, I created this thread to ask what the denizens of SD.net think about the future of newspapers and, therefore, the future of journalism.

First off: why do you think the newspapers are failing so miserably? In the aftermath of 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq War, the media in this country really dropped the ball. They gave up all the ethics and responsibility that the industry is supposed to stand for. Since then, the situation has gotten better, but unfortunately increasingly obvious bias in some prestigious institutions (Fox News, obviously, and to a lesser extent MSNBC and CNN, etc.) and the laziness of many reporters still cause the news industry to suffer. A February 2008 poll showed that 64% of Americans are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism (note that the poll is referring specificlaly to local news coverage; though the same Zogby poll also illustrates that 67% of Americans feel that 'traditional journalism,' however that may be defined, is 'out of touch'). It is no surprise that Republicans are more disillusioned by journalism than Democrats, as the right-wingers have a bit of a persecution complex, but I do find it interesting to note that so-called independent voters are equally irritated at the quality of American journalism. It is up to debate, however, whether this is due to them buying into the Republican's anti-media campaign or whether it is due to inherent problems with the industry itself. This brings us to the central theme in any debate about American media: bias.

As I mentioned earlier, some of the more prominent news sources are very blatant in their political affiliations and are not afraid to show it. Does this mean the media as a whole is largely liberal or largely conservative? If you believe Fred Barnes (which, generally, you probably shouldn't), there is "undeniable proof" of an overall liberal bias in the media. It is true that, in 2004, 34% of journalists self-identified as liberal, while only 7% self-identified as conservative. However, this is down from 61% and 15%, respectively, in 1997. Other data, quoted by Fred Barnes that I as of yet have been unable to find alternative sources for, indicate that 55% of journalists believe that the media has been taking it easy on Bush. This is a no-brainer: the media took it INCREDIBLY easy on Bush. It is only in the past year that the media has taken it upon itself to start really digging into his administration. The media gave in, unfortunately, to the great American tradition of white-washing. It is hard to put the blame on them, exactly, as almost all Americans were stupid enough to do it; all the same, it is the responsibility of journalists to keep that from happening, so they do bear a good deal of the burden. Barnes also claims that, in 2004, 75% of stories about Democratic candidates were positive, and Bush only had 40% positivity. However, even in 2004 Bush's approval ratings were low (depending on the source, hovering between 40 and 55%). It is hard to cry liberal bias when Bush was doing so many things wrong that just about everyone could find something to complain about (and, of course, despite Barnes' bitching, Bush DID win in 2004).

The quality of writing is also a major problem. There are plenty of great journalists in this country. However, help isn't what it used to be, as they say. There is no shortage of young people who want to become journalists. The problem is that this new generation does not have the same standards as the old. The Internet makes people lazy. Google is used for fact-checking: this can obviously be fine for some things, but there is tons of information that is simply not available or not trustworthy. Young reporters often copy directly from press releases (a symptom of PR firms paying more money than newspapers, thus attracting the smarter, and thus better, English majors out of college, so the quality of writing in press releases is often higher than in many newspapers).

So, what is it exactly that people want out of their newspapers? Many people seem to agree that they should be reporting the facts, uncovering corruption, etc. However, there is also a perception that journalists should always remain neutral. While a commitment to objectivity is certainly laudable, it is also, frankly, impossible, especially in the realm of politics (DISCLAIMER: there is a difference between 'getting both sides of the story,' which is important, and 'neutrality,' which is often arbitrary; for example, it is perfectly acceptable to publish a Creationist's viewpoint, but it is not acceptable to treat it in the same light as scientific theory). The solution that many newspapers used for years, and the Wall Street Journal still does, beautifully, is having what amounts to a peer review process, in which stories pass through multiple layers of editors. Unfortunately, as has become obvious lately in the case of the Chicago Tribune and its associated publications, in the past decade or so business interest has played a large role in the running of the news industry, to the point where extraneous efforts at preserving objectivity have been cut. I have seen papers or TV stations, for example, that don't even have an editor that does anything except format the story for publication (does anyone else remember that CNN article with a clearly photoshopped image that somehow made it past the editor?). I agree that reporters should try their best to be committed to the facts and the truth: unfortunately, in the world of American politics, the truth has a distinct bias against, for example, the extreme right-wingers, Joe Lieberman, etc. In addition, in some fit of libertarian rage, a surprising number of people think that journalistm is an invasion your privacy. (EDIT: I just realized that the previous link does not go to the exact poll I meant to use, but I have to run now and don't have time to find another; but a large percentage of Americans think that reporters need to be more respectful of people's privacy)

So how can newspapers change? The NYT op-ed I linked to at the beginning of this thread claims that they should be run on endowments, like colleges and universities, instead of charging for subscriptions or covering their pages with advertisements. It is an interesting idea, but it is of questionable feasibility with a weak economy. The value of college endowments decreased by 23% between July and November, 2008 alone. Also, institutions like Harvard have billions of dollars in their endowments, but still have to charge exorbitant tuition fees. Certainly, a university and a newspaper are not run the same way, but the point is that endowments have not eliminated the need for income among universities (though it is arguable that the way they spend their money is inefficient, at best, and idiotic, at worst). On the other hand, you have business models like Bloomberg, which controls the one news media outlet in the country that has grown in the past two years rather than shrink.

And what about the Internet? The rise of the blogosphere (oh, God, how I hate that term) has fundamentally changed the way journalism operates. And not just the Internet; the spread of communications technology in general has made it difficult for newspapers to keep the virtual monopoly they once held over the industry. The availabililty of information is amazing, but the quality of it is questionable.

So what do you think? Are newspapers dead for good, killed by the advent of technology? Will they be replaced by some other form of news media? Or is it simply a matter of adjusting their business model (after all, the problem isn't that nobody is reading newspapers, it is that nobody is buying them; a friend of mine that is an editor at the Washington Post has commented on how they are teetering on the brink fiscally, but their readership is actually up)? What obstacles do newspapers have to overcome in order to save themselves?

EDIT: Here is another interesting poll, which I post, for now, without additional comment.

[General Zod]

Regarding neutrality, I think sensationalism is a major issue. Oftentimes you wind up finding the press publish the most attention-grabbing headlines they can think of to describe a story, but once you actually read the article you're left with a different impression than what they were trying to spin it as.

[Sea Skimmer]

Newspapers will probably survive, but only on a modest scale and in a largely electronic format. A proper online newspaper and a news websites aren’t the same thing, the newspaper only updates at set times, usually twice per day. That means more time for fact checking, less emphasis on rushing out sensational headlines. People just don’t want to commit to paper hard copy subscriptions anymore and nothings going to reverse that trend. The best hope is that electronic paper will provide the extra advantage over plain new sites newspapers need to avoid sliding into complete oblivion. A big problem is as newspapers become weaker, they become less able to support investigative journalism, and thus lose even more purpose.

[Edi]

Moved to N&P because the topic fits better there and is more closely related to N&P subject matter. Good post.

[Mr Bean]

Lets be honest with this. It's because most newspaper coverage is in fact garbage. If I want the funnies, coupons or the Want Ad's I'll buy the Sunday paper. If I want news I can tell you right now I'll find much more comprehensive coverage online. Granted Newspaper's are still a fair sight better than the three big 24 hour news channels, but that's changing in the fact the 8pm-10pm shows are getting better. Yes even Fox's coverage has been increasing in quality over the years on actual news being covered. If I want to watch people filling air-time(And doing a shitty uninteresting attempt at it) I can watch them at any other time.

So why do I buy a Newspaper again? What does a Newspaper offer me that online sources or evening News does not?

*Edit
I had to throw this in that at the National level things like the New York Times are still breaking actual "news" What has the local Kentucky Courier broken of note story wise recently? Not much. Or back in Ohio the the Cincinnati Post? Or in North Carolina Telegraph or any one of a dozen major state newspapers? They don't break much in the way of important news. Not even in their own states. If I do see breaking news it's a local TV station that gets picked up by the big three and then written about.

[Big Phil]

First off: why do you think the newspapers are failing so miserably? In the aftermath of 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq War, the media in this country really dropped the ball. They gave up all the ethics and responsibility that the industry is supposed to stand for. Since then, the situation has gotten better, but unfortunately increasingly obvious bias in some prestigious institutions (Fox News, obviously, and to a lesser extent MSNBC and CNN, etc.) and the laziness of many reporters still cause the news industry to suffer. A February 2008 poll showed that 64% of Americans are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism (note that the poll is referring specificlaly to local news coverage; though the same Zogby poll also illustrates that 67% of Americans feel that 'traditional journalism,' however that may be defined, is 'out of touch'). It is no surprise that Republicans are more disillusioned by journalism than Democrats, as the right-wingers have a bit of a persecution complex, but I do find it interesting to note that so-called independent voters are equally irritated at the quality of American journalism. It is up to debate, however, whether this is due to them buying into the Republican's anti-media campaign or whether it is due to inherent problems with the industry itself. This brings us to the central theme in any debate about American media: bias.

They're failing because the products they offer - news and entertainment - can be better provided in other methods and from other sources. If people wanted to get their news from dirty paper, and sit down and read it the way they did ten or twenty years ago, newspapers would still be fine.

Competition from other sources is really the killer, however. Newspapers are no longer the sole option for those looking for news, entertainment, jobs, etc., and they've been slow to react to their competition from sites like Monster, Craig's List, etc. Now it's simply too late

The quality of writing is also a major problem. There are plenty of great journalists in this country. However, help isn't what it used to be, as they say. There is no shortage of young people who want to become journalists. The problem is that this new generation does not have the same standards as the old. The Internet makes people lazy. Google is used for fact-checking: this can obviously be fine for some things, but there is tons of information that is simply not available or not trustworthy. Young reporters often copy directly from press releases (a symptom of PR firms paying more money than newspapers, thus attracting the smarter, and thus better, English majors out of college, so the quality of writing in press releases is often higher than in many newspapers).

I don't know whether the quality of writing has really decreased or not, although the perception is definitely there. I can tell you, however, that better, more interesting writing can often be found on blogs (however biased they may be).

So, what is it exactly that people want out of their newspapers? Many people seem to agree that they should be reporting the facts, uncovering corruption, etc. However, there is also a perception that journalists should always remain neutral. While a commitment to objectivity is certainly laudable, it is also, frankly, impossible, especially in the realm of politics (DISCLAIMER: there is a difference between 'getting both sides of the story,' which is important, and 'neutrality,' which is often arbitrary; for example, it is perfectly acceptable to publish a Creationist's viewpoint, but it is not acceptable to treat it in the same light as scientific theory). The solution that many newspapers used for years, and the Wall Street Journal still does, beautifully, is having what amounts to a peer review process, in which stories pass through multiple layers of editors. Unfortunately, as has become obvious lately in the case of the Chicago Tribune and its associated publications, in the past decade or so business interest has played a large role in the running of the news industry, to the point where extraneous efforts at preserving objectivity have been cut. I have seen papers or TV stations, for example, that don't even have an editor that does anything except format the story for publication (does anyone else remember that CNN article with a clearly photoshopped image that somehow made it past the editor?). I agree that reporters should try their best to be committed to the facts and the truth: unfortunately, in the world of American politics, the truth has a distinct bias against, for example, the extreme right-wingers, Joe Lieberman, etc. In addition, in some fit of libertarian rage, a surprising number of people think that journalistm is an invasion your privacy. (EDIT: I just realized that the previous link does not go to the exact poll I meant to use, but I have to run now and don't have time to find another; but a large percentage of Americans think that reporters need to be more respectful of people's privacy)

That's an excellent question - I don't know what people want from a newspaper. You can find major news stories online well before they appear in print. I still read the newspaper (online, for free) for news, but newspapers can't survive offering the news for free without charging for advertising, and they haven't figured out how to monetize the online advertising model.

So what do you think? Are newspapers dead for good, killed by the advent of technology? Will they be replaced by some other form of news media? Or is it simply a matter of adjusting their business model (after all, the problem isn't that nobody is reading newspapers, it is that nobody is buying them; a friend of mine that is an editor at the Washington Post has commented on how they are teetering on the brink fiscally, but their readership is actually up)? What obstacles do newspapers have to overcome in order to save themselves?

They're not dead, but they cannot continue in their current form. Some newspapers (New York Times, London Times, etc. ) will continue to be able to publish print copies and thrive, but second tier newspapers (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) are probably going to die. Those newspapers that figure out how to monetize the Internet will survive. I wouldn't be altogether surprised to see consolidation of Internet and print media (i.e., Google buying local papers and offering local news), kind of like how many television stations bought radio stations (and vice versa). Frankly, an Internet/radio/TV/news conglomerate makes a lot of economic sense.

[Sea Skimmer]

Lets be honest with this. It's because most newspaper coverage is in fact garbage. If I want the funnies, coupons or the Want Ad's I'll buy the Sunday paper. If I want news I can tell you right now I'll find much more comprehensive coverage online.

Maybe for national and international news, I've never seen a news site that wasn't from a newspaper in the first place that could match coverage for the state and local level, and that stuff tends to have a lot more effect on ones life. I think a lot of Americans really underappreciated how much political power is still held at the state and local level.

[Guardsman Bass]

That's a good point. Local newspapers, with their reporting and even endorsements, can have a large effect on state and local politics. AFAIK, the best source for news about Utah Politics and Utah in general here in Salt Lake City is still the Salt Lake Tribune.

What I think will happen is that the major newspapers will contract to the point where they either die or survive by a combination of on-line advertising (which doesn't pay well, because of the competition from ad sites in particular and other Internet sites in general) and subscriptions. That's probably why the Wall Street Journal has been loathe to give up their paid subscription requirement for a lot of their news available on-line (especially the Business Section) - you have a smaller audience because they can't access everything, but you also get a guaranteed income as long as your paper can keep the subscribers. They'll have to shrink, to be sure, since going fully on-line will probably never make up for the loss of the ads in the actual papers in terms of ad revenue, but they'll save some money from not having to actually print physical newspapers.

In a way, that would actually be bringing the newspaper business full circle. In the 18th century and earlier, a lot of newspapers' main source of revenue were subscriptions. That changed over the 19th century, when papers started shifting towards becoming profitable off of ad revenue (they also started getting away from the Political Party-dominated newspapers, of which the Chicago Tribune was one, IIRC - for the Republican Party). That worked, as long as there wasn't a better medium to sell advertising in.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Since there are a number of people I want to reply to, I am splitting this post up in two. Hope the mods don't mind the +1.

Regarding neutrality, I think sensationalism is a major issue. Oftentimes you wind up finding the press publish the most attention-grabbing headlines they can think of to describe a story, but once you actually read the article you're left with a different impression than what they were trying to spin it as.

I agree, sensationalism is a major problem, especially in news television networks. It isn't as big a problem in newspapers, but you still see it with unsettling frequency. We've probably all read a headline that made something out to be incredibly important and significant, but the article didn't lend that impression at all. There are papers out there that manage to avoid the sensationalism, though, and, quite tellingly, are the ones that are best surviving the current climate: Bloomberg and The Economist (say what you will about its conservative bias) are good examples from both sides of the pond. It is interesting that both are doing so well by appealing largely to the financial sector, with the news as an "icing on the cake" sort of deal.

Newspapers will probably survive, but only on a modest scale and in a largely electronic format. A proper online newspaper and a news websites aren’t the same thing, the newspaper only updates at set times, usually twice per day. That means more time for fact checking, less emphasis on rushing out sensational headlines. People just don’t want to commit to paper hard copy subscriptions anymore and nothings going to reverse that trend. The best hope is that electronic paper will provide the extra advantage over plain new sites newspapers need to avoid sliding into complete oblivion.

The problem is that there is a huge emphasis in the news industry on "getting the story first," which sometimes seems to take precedence over "getting the facts right." If (or, as you point out, more accurately when) newspapers transition to a primarily electronic format, I find it unlikely that they will restrict themselves to updating a couple of times per day. Look at CNN, for example: they update with amazing frequency, but the quality of the story is often rather low until they've had more time to fact-check and edit. I see a lot of basic spelling and grammar mistakes on CNN, even, which indicates that they are rushing to get the story out before anybody else does. I was talking to a friend at the Associated Press the other day, and they complained about a news item about two years ago (the exact story has slipped my mind) that she discovered first. Unfortunately, she only had one source, and AP guidelines prohibit dissemination of a story without at least two sources. The story was broken by, I believe, the Los Angeles Times. It turns out they ended up getting a lot of the facts wrong, because they went ahead and published with only one source. And this is with traditional print journalism; in an electronic format, I worry that this problem will be exaggerated by the ability to update far more frequently than you could with a newspaper.

A big problem is as newspapers become weaker, they become less able to support investigative journalism, and thus lose even more purpose.

Indeed. I was at the DC bureau of the Chicago Tribune the other day. They have gone from a staff of about 60 full-time reporters to less than 20 in a relatively short period of time. They dropped the full-time investigative staff, and many reporters who are still there are forced to cover beats that they are unfamiliar with, which further decreases the quality of the reporting.

Lets be honest with this. It's because most newspaper coverage is in fact garbage.

How is it any worse than what you find on TV or the internet? Those venues have the ability to update far more frequently than a newspaper, yes, but in general I don't find newspapers to have lower quality.

If I want news I can tell you right now I'll find much more comprehensive coverage online.

Really? Where? Most online news sources are not entirely comprehensive, nor have a higher standard of quality than newspapers. I think the real issue is not that the Internet is better, but that it is more convenient.

Granted Newspaper's are still a fair sight better than the three big 24 hour news channels, but that's changing in the fact the 8pm-10pm shows are getting better. Yes even Fox's coverage has been increasing in quality over the years on actual news being covered. If I want to watch people filling air-time(And doing a shitty uninteresting attempt at it) I can watch them at any other time.

I agree. TV, in my opinion, has the lowest standard for journalism these days: it is horribly blatant how biased and unethical many of the major networks are, and the editorial staff are largely incompetent. Does anyone else remember the MSNBC broadcast back in Novemeber where they were talking about Virginia but high-lighted North Carolina on a map? I don't know whether or not there is an upward trend, as it is has been a while since I've even bothered with television news coverage.

So why do I buy a Newspaper again? What does a Newspaper offer me that online sources or evening News does not?

To each their own, I suppose. I personally find the standard of journalism in most newspapers (suffering though it is) to be superior than the vast majority of Internet news sites or television networks. But convenience tends to trump quality, unfortunately.

I had to throw this in that at the National level things like the New York Times are still breaking actual "news" What has the local Kentucky Courier broken of note story wise recently? Not much. Or back in Ohio the the Cincinnati Post? Or in North Carolina Telegraph or any one of a dozen major state newspapers? They don't break much in the way of important news. Not even in their own states. If I do see breaking news it's a local TV station that gets picked up by the big three and then written about.

Actually, most polls show that people tend to be more interested in reading local papers than national papers. Local news is incredibly important. I don't think you can say that local papers never break "important news," as the a story that is important for locals will almost always be utterly irrelevant to people not from that area. I am a New Englander, and local papers there have a fairly good track record of breaking local news. Only last summer, I believe, the Providence Journal did a good job highlighting some corruption in the city fire department.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I apologize if some of this is hard to follow, I am in a real hurry. I will clarify later if need be, but for the most part I agree with Sanchez, I am just expanding on certain individual points.

They're failing because the products they offer - news and entertainment - can be better provided in other methods and from other sources. If people wanted to get their news from dirty paper, and sit down and read it the way they did ten or twenty years ago, newspapers would still be fine.

I don't think the problem is inherent with newspapers, though. Only a few years ago, about 55% of Americans got their news primarily from the papers, with only around 30% using the Internet. It is only in the past couple of years that there has been a huge shift; I believe the numbers are now 50% for the Internet and 10% for papers (polls to this regard are tricky, though, because of the obvious differences in demographics and socioeconomics; I am having a hard-time finding reliable numbers). Essentially, it is only during the period of time where newspapers started declining in quality, due to a combination of their own stupidity and business interest, that people stopped reading them. That said, I agree that electronic media are the future, and that paper circulation is inevitably going to disappear. However, I am wondering whether newspaper will successfully adapt to the Internet, which at present they are having a difficult time doing.

Competition from other sources is really the killer, however. Newspapers are no longer the sole option for those looking for news, entertainment, jobs, etc., and they've been slow to react to their competition from sites like Monster, Craig's List, etc. Now it's simply too late .

Indeed, the newspaper have nobody but themselves to blame; the business model they have operated under was slow and stupid.

I don't know whether the quality of writing has really decreased or not, although the perception is definitely there. I can tell you, however, that better, more interesting writing can often be found on blogs (however biased they may be).

I myself have noticed a noticeable decline in the quality of writing. As I mentioned in my previous post, many reporters are being forced to cover beats they are unfamiliar with; the day of specialized reporters is over, in favor of Google. Unfortunately, this has led to a lot of stupid coverage. I'm sure many people on this site will agree with me that political and science journalism is pathetic in how it manages to misinterpret the issues (if it doesn't miss them entirely). However, I would dispute that "better, more interesting writing" can often be found on blogs. They are more convenient, not necessarily better.

That's an excellent question - I don't know what people want from a newspaper. You can find major news stories online well before they appear in print. I still read the newspaper (online, for free) for news, but newspapers can't survive offering the news for free without charging for advertising, and they haven't figured out how to monetize the online advertising model.

So far Bloomberg is doing a damned good job at things. They offer essentially two services: general news and business-specific. They have excellent business related news, which you need to pay for. Since many businessmen need to know this news in order to survive, they essentially have to pay (you can argue that they can always go somewhere else; however, Bloomberg is simply better than many of its competitors, one notable exception being Reuters). With the revenue they get from businessmen, they are able to give out the general news essentially for free, with relatively little advertising. They are the only American news source, I believe, that has grown in the past year, rather than shrunk.

They're not dead, but they cannot continue in their current form. Some newspapers (New York Times, London Times, etc. ) will continue to be able to publish print copies and thrive, but second tier newspapers (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) are probably going to die. Those newspapers that figure out how to monetize the Internet will survive. I wouldn't be altogether surprised to see consolidation of Internet and print media (i.e., Google buying local papers and offering local news), kind of like how many television stations bought radio stations (and vice versa). Frankly, an Internet/radio/TV/news conglomerate makes a lot of economic sense.

I agree with all of this, with the additional point that local newspapers I think will survive fairly well, even compared to the big national papers. At least for now, eventually they will be outdone by the Internet, but when it comes to small communities (especially in the South and Midwest), electronic media has not yet really taken hold.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Once again, I apologize to the mods for separating these posts out, but I loathe long posts. I will edit them into one if you wish, however.

That's a good point. Local newspapers, with their reporting and even endorsements, can have a large effect on state and local politics. AFAIK, the best source for news about Utah Politics and Utah in general here in Salt Lake City is still the Salt Lake Tribune.

Exactly! I already talked about this in my previous posts, so I won't repeat myself, but I'm glad someone has another example outside of my New England one.

What I think will happen is that the major newspapers will contract to the point where they either die or survive by a combination of on-line advertising (which doesn't pay well, because of the competition from ad sites in particular and other Internet sites in general) and subscriptions.

That is what many are trying to do now. However, the problem is, as you said, advertising quite simply doesn't have the money in it that it used to be. And as Mr. Bean and Sanchez pointed out, why pay for a subscription when there are free alternatives? Also (I find this argument to be a little silly, but I will point it out nonetheless because it is rather commonly used) what about people who can't afford a subscription? How do they know what is going on?

That's probably why the Wall Street Journal has been loathe to give up their paid subscription requirement for a lot of their news available on-line (especially the Business Section) - you have a smaller audience because they can't access everything, but you also get a guaranteed income as long as your paper can keep the subscribers.

The Wall Street Journal is trying desperately to avoid the mistake the Washington Post made by having essentially the entire newspaper online for free. More people are reading the Washington Post than ever before, actually, but they are all getting it for free, so the Post gets nothing out of it.

They'll have to shrink, to be sure, since going fully on-line will probably never make up for the loss of the ads in the actual papers in terms of ad revenue, but they'll save some money from not having to actually print physical newspapers.

It is interesting some of the measures that newspapers have been taking to save costs on printing. The Tribune is "tabloid" style now, which saves space and money. I believe some papers are planning on not using paper at all, anymore, but using a type of plastic or something? I can't find much about that online, but I have heard rumors to that effect.

In a way, that would actually be bringing the newspaper business full circle. In the 18th century and earlier, a lot of newspapers' main source of revenue were subscriptions. That changed over the 19th century, when papers started shifting towards becoming profitable off of ad revenue (they also started getting away from the Political Party-dominated newspapers, of which the Chicago Tribune was one, IIRC - for the Republican Party). That worked, as long as there wasn't a better medium to sell advertising in.

The Tribune was a Whig publication originally, but eventually distanced itself from the Knowing Nothings by becoming an organ for the Republican Party. It was also blatantly anti-Catholic and anti-Irish. But that's besides the point. The old model for newspaper certainly was effective, but there was no alternative then. Radio and TV couldn't kill newspapers on their own, but the Internet certainly has the potential to.

[Guardsman Bass]

What I think will happen is that the major newspapers will contract to the point where they either die or survive by a combination of on-line advertising (which doesn't pay well, because of the competition from ad sites in particular and other Internet sites in general) and subscriptions.

That is what many are trying to do now. However, the problem is, as you said, advertising quite simply doesn't have the money in it that it used to be. And as Mr. Bean and Sanchez pointed out, why pay for a subscription when there are free alternatives? Also (I find this argument to be a little silly, but I will point it out nonetheless because it is rather commonly used) what about people who can't afford a subscription? How do they know what is going on?

Presumably, the people who can't afford a newspaper would simply get the bulk of their news from one of the major electronic media, like the television/online news like CNN, Fox, etc. Newspapers would basically be a more exclusive news source on the national and international level, with papers selling subscriptions based off of reputation, and selling some on-line ad revenue to add whatever revenue they can get. They'd be newsbreakers, plus offer news and writers that the main media doesn't/wouldn't offer.

That's probably why the Wall Street Journal has been loathe to give up their paid subscription requirement for a lot of their news available on-line (especially the Business Section) - you have a smaller audience because they can't access everything, but you also get a guaranteed income as long as your paper can keep the subscribers.

The Wall Street Journal is trying desperately to avoid the mistake the Washington Post made by having essentially the entire newspaper online for free. More people are reading the Washington Post than ever before, actually, but they are all getting it for free, so the Post gets nothing out of it.

That's what I figure all the major papers will turn into - all online papers with subscription-requirements for full access to the website.

They'll have to shrink, to be sure, since going fully on-line will probably never make up for the loss of the ads in the actual papers in terms of ad revenue, but they'll save some money from not having to actually print physical newspapers.

It is interesting some of the measures that newspapers have been taking to save costs on printing. The Tribune is "tabloid" style now, which saves space and money. I believe some papers are planning on not using paper at all, anymore, but using a type of plastic or something? I can't find much about that online, but I have heard rumors to that effect.

I think they'll ultimately go full-online, as soon as electronic devices with internet access (cell phones, blackberries, etc) become virtually ubiquitous, and people stop buying physical newspapers. That would save them some money, presumably, since they wouldn't have to pay for printing costs and distribution.

In a way, that would actually be bringing the newspaper business full circle. In the 18th century and earlier, a lot of newspapers' main source of revenue were subscriptions. That changed over the 19th century, when papers started shifting towards becoming profitable off of ad revenue (they also started getting away from the Political Party-dominated newspapers, of which the Chicago Tribune was one, IIRC - for the Republican Party). That worked, as long as there wasn't a better medium to sell advertising in.

The Tribune was a Whig publication originally, but eventually distanced itself from the Knowing Nothings by becoming an organ for the Republican Party. It was also blatantly anti-Catholic and anti-Irish. But that's besides the point. The old model for newspaper certainly was effective, but there was no alternative then. Radio and TV couldn't kill newspapers on their own, but the Internet certainly has the potential to.

Are you talking about the "old model" (when newspapers were reliant on ad revenue), or the really old model, when they were reliant on subscriptions? I think they can survive under the latter - a lot of magazines do.