Newspapers: A thing of the past?

[Subdivisions]

CNBC is currently having a discussion about the viability of newspapers in light of "rumors" of the possible sale of the New York Times and the apparent interest by Rupert Murdoch in owning it. It's all speculation at this point but it begs the question raised by one of the panelists: Are newspapers a thing of the past?

The basic premise is that newspapers are giving way to electronic media sources, ie: The Internet. I assume the discussion is about the actual paper version of newspapers, considering most newspaper have a companion website. So, the argument used for newspapers as nostalgia was centered around the creation of dynamic content. That's already been done on paper.

So, is there really any further need for distributed, paper-based news?

[bemildred]

1. Going the way of radio, is what it is.

No longer the immediate and primary source of news, one competitor among many in the business of entertainment and commentary.

[NJmaverick]

2. News Papers have a certain credibility

They need to adapt and become major sources of internet news. Beyond that, news papers are still the choice at the breakfast table and on the train.

[InvisibleTouch]

3. I find newspapers indispensible for one thing:

Lining reptile cages. Also very useful when housebreaking puppies.

As for content, I get it all on the web these days.

[madokie]

4. Even though we have the tulsa world delivered every day

neither of us really look at it anymore. Keep talking about dropping it but for some reason it stays in the pay bill stack. I'm finding it much easier to get my news from the net anymore. After reading the same account from several different websites makes me think maybe what I just read may be true where as with the printed paper I have to take their word that someone down there done the leg work to confirm the article. If I do it myself at least I know what effort to prove has gone into what I chose to believe.

[Red Zelda]

5. Newspapers have killed themselves

Too many vapid entertainment and feature stories. Not enough real news analysis. Too many brain-dead editors.

[demobabe]

8. I disagree

Newspapers are losing out because they can't compete with the internet and TV. By the time you get your newspaper, the news is already one to two days old. Who wants to read a newspaper when you can see news as it's happening from live webcams, YouTube, or TV and then go talk about it on the Democratic Underground? Newspapers just can't provide that.

[Johonny]

13. I'm not sure

You can cover vastly more news in a newspaper in the same amount of time an average reader looks at it. You can frankly learn more in 30 minutes reading the paper than 30 minutes listening to the news. It's just the difference in reading verse listening. You simply read much faster than you can read. I agree however on the web part of it. Online newspapers will (are) a huge value. Still online newspapers lack one big thing. Local news. Local news is generally vastly undercovered on the web. I still find my local paper the best source for what's going on around town.

[AngryOldDem]

14. Depends on the newspaper's philosophy.

Case in point: In my city, the newspaper has decided that its readership has the attention span of a gnat, so therefore it limits its stories to one page, regardless of how important or how complex the subject is. Analysis pieces (not talking about op-ed) are virtually nonexistent, or when they are run, they are edited to such a truncated degree that they are useless. But, if you want to read ad nauseam vanity pieces about the dating habits of reporters, or what bar serves the best martini, or how someone's precious little darling did in the weekend dance contest, well, that rag is just the ticket.

It's frustrating, because I am in the habit of sitting down with a paper and actually reading it. But what is the point when the stories leave me wanting to know more? And the Website is not much better -- I was on there today and it had a story that consisted of three paragraphs. When I want to post something on DU that I saw there, I try to find another source -- because more than likely what I post here will be the entirety of the Internet story.

It's sad. I worked for that paper for nearly 20 years and I date its demise to the startup of USA Today, with it's splashy graphics and color. Since then the paper runs after every trend du jour -- and spending tens of thousands of dollar by doing so -- and in effect has killed itself.

I think, too, that it has given up the ghost to broadcast and Web-based media and figures, Why try anymore?

I know people who read it only for the death notices.

[Red Zelda]

16. Well said

Newspapers have abandoned any critical coverage mission in favor of cheap graphics-oriented coverage of teen events, etc.
Funny, books are selling. Because they have content.
Newspapers have turned their staffs over to 22-year-olds looking for the next big fashion spread for the front page. That, along with a fear to do real stories about real topics, is why they're dying.

[demobabe]

19. I think that's more a point of economics

Newspapers have been on the decline as TV became so prevalent. They've been looking for ways to cut costs over the years and squeezing down features to fit the page count.

It's a really simple formula: you get your total advertisements for the day, and that dictates your page count. As the advertising goes down, so does the page count and the ability to purchase content. It's a lot cheaper to run syndicated content than to hire reporters to write stories.

Investigative reporting has gone away largely to the fact newspapers (and TV news stations) are unwilling to pay a reporter to spend weeks investigating ONE story. The "big scoop" doesn't seem to be important anymore. When was the last time you saw a newspaper break a HUGE story?

[Johonny]

18. Either way

You can simply read more content in 30 minutes than you can listen too. If the paper has less content today than 20 years ago is another topic altogether. The reason TV didn't destroy the newspaper is the same reason youtube and webcast aren't going to destroy it. People who want news are going to read it.

[BadgerKid]

6. Not really.

It would be great if everyone could whip out a handset and access the internet at any time at any place. Most cell phones can do this, but last I checked it's relatively expensive that it prevents general web browsing. Plus the screens are tiny.

It would be convenient to have a newspaper on an airplane or when having a private moment. Not everyone can go to the library or cafe to read their newspapers.

[demobabe]

7. They will mostly go away when there is a good enough technology to replace them

Most newspapers have seen the writing on the wall and put their news up on the Internet... it will continue to transition that way. I am sure print editions will be around for quite a while because it's tactile and portable, you can read it in the bathroom, or on the bus or train.

My fear is that comic strips will go away. Cartoonists will have to transition to online media. It may be a boon for cartooning - then again, maybe not. Comic strips have been pared down over the years to fit smaller spaces in the newspaper, and you don't have those restrictions online.

The downside is that cartoonists will have to be able to market themselves to be able to compete with all the other websites out there, and that's a pretty tough job, if not nearly impossible.

[AlCzervik]

9. i hope not, i get 2 delivered to my house everyday.

[SpiralHawk]

10. Murdoch just canned the Editor at the Wall Street Journal yesterday

No doubt so he could put in a Totalitarian Propagandist Toady that he completely controls.

The mass media is a republicon propaganda borg at this stage of its devolution.

[blm]

11. Internet relies on the investigative work of NEWSPAPERS and news organizations

and anyone who OWNS the newspapers will STILL get the credibility that comes with it as a mainstream source for information.

Too many lefties assumed, "Big deal, nobody reads papers anymore, let the Wingnuts have it."

And all available newsmedia is regularly snapped up by the fascists who intend to tighten their hold on the very newsmedia being discarded. They know that when it comes right down to it, the internet will NEVER be the main source of news and credibility that print and broadcast media is and has.

[LanternWaste]

12. Many pedestrians, car-poolers and mass-transit riders don't have access

"So, is there really any further need for distributed, paper-based news?"

Many pedestrians, car-poolers and mass-transit riders don't have access to the internet during transit. A newspaper however, is readily available.

There are still many, many different circumstances in which a newspaper is simply more convenient and accessible, and less expensive to readers.

[Aptastik]

15. Lots of great points in this thread, I'll add

I think we're already seeing a slow, but steady, transition of newspapers to the Internet. As others have said, most of the "reporting" on the Internet is using newspapers as their primary source, just look at the discussion on sites like this.

I think where at first newspapers dismissed the Internet as something that wouldn't be profitable and just posted their stories on their website, they are now beginning to see the flexibility, and more importantly, the profitability of using various media formats and the ability to instantly break stories on the web.

The New York Times is a wonderful case study, as "America's paper of record" and being the pompous people they are, they seemed to be most resistant to this movement. They no longer charge for access to content and they have truly embraced many aspects which make web-based publishing so great, adding "most read/commented/emailed" section, adding user-submitted video, comment sections etc.

Any "legacy medium" is going to be hesitant at change at first, but once they discover how much money they can make (and save with much lower distribution and publication costs), they will certainly start moving en masse.

[gatorboy]

17. National papers, sure. But local papers still thrive on local information.

Something harder to get online.

Plus, who wants to take their laptop into the bathroom? :P