Slashdot Mirror
Are Newspapers Doomed?
Ponca City, We love you writes "James Surowiecki has an interesting article in the New Yorker that crystalizes the problems facing print newspapers today and explains why we may soon be seeing more major newspapers filing for bankruptcy, as the Tribune Company did last week. 'There's no mystery as to the source of all the trouble: advertising revenue has dried up,' writes Surowiecki, but the 'peculiar fact about the current crisis is that even as big papers have become less profitable they've arguably become more popular,' with the blogosphere piggybacking on traditional journalism's content. Surowiecki imagines many possible futures for newspapers, from becoming foundation-run nonprofits to relying on reader donations to deep-pocketed patrons. 'For a while now, readers have had the best of both worlds: all the benefits of the old, high-profit regime — intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on — and the low costs of the new one. But that situation can't last. Soon enough, we're going to start getting what we pay for, and we may find out just how little that is.'"
OK, newspapers have their problems, but the biggest problem with the Tribune is that Sam Zell loaded it up with an unmanageable level of debt when he bought it.
The Tribune is more an example of how raiders like Zell enrich themselves during a leveraged buyout than an example of a failing newspaper.
Newspapers used to be the main source of aggregated of information about current events; they were few alternatives. Now we have a wide variety of sources for the same information; and don't need a daily paper to satisfy our information needs. As a result, the business model will change
You'll still need services such as the AP; but how the information is used will change. I would expect to see the multi-channel news organizations who can combine television, radio, and internet (blogs, websites, streaming data) to be replace newspapers as the primary daily news source.
As a side note, I expect more DCMA take down notices as organizations seek to protect their IP from being redistributed by outlets that don't pay for it.
I'd also expect to see local papers thrive - they can cover stories of limited interest beyond their communities, and deliver targeted ads for businesses. In addition, I'd expect specialty papers that target specific audiences (such as sports fans) to thrive because they can do more in depth and broader coverage of a narrow topic than say the AP. And of course, USA Today because every major hotel in the US buys a ton of them.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I hate responding to an AC here... as this is usually an exercise in futility. Still.... I hate to see stuff like this get posted that is so blatantly untrue.
I don't get this. The Bill of rights clearly followed the procedure of Article V of the original constitution, including having the 1st U.S. Congress pass the wording on twelve amendments and submitted them to the state legislatures for approval.
Of those original twelve suggested amendments, ten of them were passed by the required number of state legislatures rather quickly and became known as the "bill of rights". One of them, now known as the 27th Amendment, was finally "approved" in 1992 when the Michigan state legislature ratified that amendment proposal and is surprisingly the most recent addition to the U.S. Constitution.
This amendment, BTW, attempts to stop Congress from giving themselves pay raises while in office... although it hasn't seemed to work out very well, nor has Congress really followed the intent of this amendment since its passage.
What happened to amendment #12 of this original proposal? It was about how Congress (the U.S. House of Representatives in particular) could in theory be expanded substantially if the population of the USA were to grow significantly from 1780 levels. The House is no where near the maximum number of representatives allowed under the U.S. Constitution, so this amendment is really irrelevant to the current conditions of the country.
Where it gets unconstitutional is that the passage of the Constitution was provisional for some states until the bill of rights were passed and approved. So technically the meeting of the 1st congress was unconstitutional as the constitution wasn't yet approved completely.
This shouldn't imply, however, that the founding political leaders of the USA didn't like the bill of rights and didn't think it should be in the document. The only argument against the bill of rights is that "rights" not found in this document would be taken away by the government on a whim. This has, unfortunately, proven to be a correct assessment as well.