Internet Kills LA Times National Edition

Doc Ruby writes "The LA Times announced that it is folding its national edition on 12/31/04. The Times spokesperson said the paper's mission has been to reach 'key Washington, D.C., and New York audiences,' and that 'other electronic ways of reaching those audiences became more plentiful.' The folding edition will be replaced by "remote printing" by NewspaperDirect, and their email highlights, Top of the Times. Is this the way all our newspapers will be going?"

Comments

Lots of papers probably having this problem...

[nathan s]

I know I fall into the demographic that reads news nearly exclusively online, but I think this is just going to increase as paper-readers age and kids watch their parents (my generation) reading it online.

Frankly, papers are unwieldy; I'm always getting them out of order or tearing them, not to mention that they store germs quite well (so I hear) - no picking those up on the subway for me!

I think the biggest paper-killer, though, is that by the time the news is printed and in your hands, it's out of date. For local news where not much happens (or if it does, everyone immediately knows), a paper might still work - but for national/international news, it just lacks the immediacy of online news sources.

Sloppy Headline

[fm6]

It's not as simple as "the Internet killed the edition." They tried to introduce a new paper to an already-crowded market and failed. Hardly suprising, with or without the Internet. The only role the Internet plays here is to provide a cheap delivery alternative. The existance of that alternative might have played a role in the Times' decision, but certainly not a crucial one.

Online newspapers are not a big success story. They cost a lot more to run (on a per-reader basis) than print editions, and they don't generate a lot of ad revenue. They're not going to replace print editions any time soon.

Well, let's see.

[artifex2004]

How many years ago was USA TODAY started?
Didn't it begin with the express business model of having personalized regional editions, with most of the stories being sent via satellite?

The clock's been ticking for a long time. Only the medium has changed.

Penenberg Wrote About This in Wired

[waldoj]

A few weeks ago, Adam Penenberg's Media Hack column addressed the matter of Internet-based delivery cutting into the newspaper business (" Newspapers Should Really Worry "). My favorite bit:

"Imagine what higher-ups at the Post must have thought when focus-group participants declared they wouldn't accept a Washington Post subscription even if it were free. The main reason (and I'm not making this up): They didn't like the idea of old newspapers piling up in their houses."

Anyhow, it's an interesting read, and not just because I'm quoted in it. ;)

-Waldo Jaquith

Re:maybe it was the opinions?

[totipotentsoul]

Daily Bugle.

Intellectual discourse is nice and all, but on slashdot, make sure you keep your comic books straight.

The hard news is somewhat opinionated in the NYT too though. Liberal sometimes, conservative others (they seemed to have a problem with Clinton, for one. read up on it on Salon if you want.) Better than Fox, but any news source is generally preaching to its own choir.

it's all just a little bit of history repeating

[goon america]

yadda, yadda, yadda. Video killed the radio star, the internet killed the video star, the sub-etha net will kill the internet star and soon the government brain implants will kill that. Wake me when the paradigm has shifted again.

Re:first post

[GileadGreene]

BOTH? Is the world limited to two viewpoints now?

No. Just the US. Fisher's Deduction: "The more issues a person crudely shoehorns down into a liberal/conservative dichotomy, the more certain you can be that the person is an American"

Re:Oh please

[poofyhairguy82]

To me, the murder of children -- wherever it occurs -- secures a higher priority of national concern than some dog yapping at the feet a naked terrorist.

So are you planning your trip to Sudan soon to save all the children there? No? Oh, so you only care to KNOW about children being murdered. Well that doesn't help much, does it? Especially not as much as KNOWING when government officials screw up, because unlike Saddam or the murders in Dafar our government changes its behavior when public ridicule embarrasses it internationally. Oh well, the great part about 2004 is that you can log on to Foxnews.com and find out every bad thing Saddam did wrong, and I can count on liberal national papers to embarrass our leaders (who deserve it by way of their actions) internationally and force them to change their wrong behavior.

Is immediacy the only determinant of value?

[Infonaut]

it just lacks the immediacy of online news sources.

IMO this is part of the reason so much online news and TV news sucks. There is immediacy, but no depth. News agencies fall over each other to get the scoop on a story, but when I live in California is it *really* worth knowing that scant details about some breaking story from Lithuania at 10:13 am when a much more detailed and informative story will be showing up in the NYT or the Post a few hours later?

I'd rather absorb news from a source that is checking facts, looking at all of the angles, providing relevant contextual information, and giving me a deeper understanding of the issues involved.