Slashdot Mirror
News Worth Buying On Paper
theodp writes " Last night,' confesses Business Insider's Henry Blodget, 'I did something I very rarely do: I bought a newspaper. Why? 'Because there was some news in the newspaper that I wanted that wasn't available online for free [a hyperlocal zoning story].' The problem in the news industry, suggests Blodget, is there is way too much commodity news coverage of the same stories, so it has to be given away for free. To be able to charge for news, Blodget suggests, you need more news that can't be found anywhere else. So, is there any type of news that you're still willing to pay for these days?" I've recently discovered that a newspaper in The Villages, Florida publishes a monthly list of "Golf Cart Crashes (With Injuries)," googling for which only seems to bring up ads for lawyers specializing in that area, so paper will have to do.
Because the really good in-depth articles are not available online, unless you pay. And I prefer to read at leasure on a large tabloid format, instead of on my mobile or laptop.
That said, there is a whole generation growing up who thinks the generic news with 5 lines of information and 2000 lines of unwarranted conclusions are the standard for news. A fertile field for would-be demagogues.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
How much did you pay for the paper?
How many physical ads in the paper were you "forced" to glance over?
On the bright side, at least your viewing habits were not tracked. (Probably!)
My wife and I still read the local rag (The Press Democrat) because, although we've read most of the national and international news online 1 or 2 (or sometimes even 3) days before, there are stories in Sonoma County (and parts north) that simply don't show up anywhere else. It used to be owned by the NY Times organization, but it was recently bought by a group of local investors who are emphasizing the Local News aspect.
We might switch to the electronic version of it, but we will not lose our need to know what's happening in our own community.
Before the WWW (and into the dotcom era), big city newspapers could afford to carry large staffs of professional reporters, so I bought a daily newspaper on the newstand more often than not (50 cents back then IIRC because they also had more ads). Often I couldn't finish a newspaper in one sitting so I'd fold it up and take it home, there used to be *lots* to read in the better papers.
Then Craigslist took away a lot of the ads, and people started getting their news online too. Newsroom layoffs became an annual occurrence.
I think this is something that is going to change soon, too. Eventually, even newspapers will be found online. I mean, the only thing keeping paper printed news around is the fact that a large enough portion of the country still doesn't have a computer, like old people or the poor. Sooner or later, local news will migrate online, using ads and views to generate income enough to run the news, much like how the newspaper industry works now.
Even with that in mind, the amount of money made by local readers of local-only (or very specialized) news can't be enough to compete with free news, in my opinion.
Reprinting the same stories as everyone else is cheap. Actually researching and writing your own stories costs money, particularly if you spend more than ten minutes on each one.
Not at the summary not at TFA, but more that there is a market for golf crash injury victim lawyers.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
is that the people that make the money decisions don't know the difference between a 'blog' and a 'news story'
it's all just 'text' to them...or 'content'
tech industry types may not understand the news business, but we sure as hell know the concept...
why is Microsoft so alienating to users? b/c it tries to make everything proprietary...locking users out of features!
this article, with it's notions of 'finding proprietary content to charge for' as a way to save newspapers...well...
it's the exact opposite!
the news business is a perfectly viable economic system...print on cheap paper, sell ads to make profit
done
enter the internet, where the 'content' is available w/o purchase
the author, and most news CEO's problem is that they see the internet as only a 'downside'...they don't see it as **another** option to connect to users
the internet requires alot of infrastructure to use...compared to a piece of paper...print is still viable even though the demand is lower now with the internet
the solution is threefold:
1. adjust expectations regarding how profitable 'news' can be
2. online ads that connect to the print ads/classifieds
3. repost redundant content rather than producing it in-house
I must credit TFA for #3...the author rightly sees that *some* of what your average daily newspaper does in the newsroom is redundant.
Newspapers as organizations should cut staff, but they should cut everyone *but* editors and writers....
Newspapers and magazines are very 'top heavy' with corporate structure and HR type stuff and it really cuts into the profit margins.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Sitting on mah porch in the sun, having a few beers and then sleepin with a paper newsie over mah face still isnt done good enough by a fondleslab
An online paper with a set of sliders. That way I can choose to receive 70% hard news articles 20% book reviews and 10% human interest. On the human interest I can dial 0% celebrity gossip, 60% cat pictures and 40% heart warming stories of strangers helping old ladies.
Someone else can dial 70% showbiz, 20% financial and 10% international news.
OK so I may have made up these percentages and categories, but I think a tailor made paper like that could be successful.
I will pay for news which are:
1. Interesting.
2. I didn't know already.
3. Is researched with background facts documented.
4. Is well written.
But this requires skilled reporters and writers. Which you have to pay for ! Something to think of for publishers ?
Mundus Vult Decipi
There isn't any, in any format. Besides, there isn't any 'news' reporting anymore. Its all about bias and commentary, not raw facts.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The development in news is kinda disheartening. I can't talk about your country, obviously, in mine we get more and more of low quality papers, some being pushed onto you for free (literally. You open your door and there's a newspaper hanging on your doorknob, not that you ever signed up for one). You can pick up newspapers on your way to work in the subway or at the train station. For free.
Quality-wise you're dealing with the worst kind of bull that you could possibly think of. 99% opinion, 1% weather forecast and quiz page. Of course, you cannot SELL a newspaper like this. Never. Not only do I get that kind of crap pushed in my face (literally...), I can get the same kind of "quality" (and even better) online.
I think if you want to SELL your news, you have to deliver quality. Give me information. Not opinion, not yellow press nonsense, not articles that were copy/pasted from some online news source or some news agency, i.e. the same crap I can get for free (and often get whether I want to have it or not). Give me well researched articles that go beyond the surface, on topics that actually matter. Do an exclusive interview with an interesting person, a politician with a vision (who doesn't just repeat whatever bull his party wants to spew), report about stuff that matters, send a reporter there and ask the people around for their view. Ignore the "official" bull and dig deeper.
THAT is what journalism is about. For everything else, I already have more than I could possibly want, and I will most certainly not pay for it. If anything, you'd have to pay me to be better than the rest of the crap.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There's money in chasing golf carts as well as ambulances: San Anselmo woman awarded $4.3 million in golf cart crash suit
There is a weekly paper her in Norway called Morgenbladet (probably named from the time yonks ago when it was daily) that seems to do actual journalism.
But apart from that, I prefer olds instead of news: Retro Gamer. New magazines all write about the same things, RG write about totally different stuff (and which actually takes some reporting and investigating to find out).
Every time I read one of these stories saying "will you pay" or "content should be free" I shake my head. Yes you can get some decent wire service reporting, but if you want the type of in-depth reporting about international affairs, economics or local affairs that can take you beyond a 140 letter understanding, you are going to need to buy content. FT, Economist, New Yorker, NYT etc. I personally subscribe to my local paper and the NYT on line, and am happy to do so, as I seem to be able to grasp that generating real content requires real reporters who get paid actual money and actually leave their cubicle. For those who argue that there is still content out there, that is true, but the high quality content is getting rarer and rarer. And of course there's plenty of garbage out there for free. Which leads me to point two, which is that if society as a whole continues to refuse to pay for content creation, then society as a whole will pay in other ways as more and more people get less critical analysis, more partisan opinion and more manipulation. People criticize the media for bias but oh boy, social media is just unadulterated lies. Just like your facebook account, mostly everything fed into social media during times of crisis fits a narrative and is carefully managed.
For example I tuned into the Turkey protests via social media. Total joke. Both sides have become adept at choosing and publishing images, videos and words that support their narrative. When #occupygezi publishes a picture of a pool of blood on the ground or a severely injured protester being cared for in an ad hoc clinic, they are emotional and raw but what am I really looking at? Who is the relatively independent observer who is trying to put these events in context, verify timelines, put local events into a broader perspective? Who is explaining the motivations, backstories and competing interests? A paid journalist, that's who.
No, I haven't had any use for the news hardcopies for years.
I do read the online news of the tax-funded Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE), who are turning into a general media organization. In the end, it may be that there's no money in news so the whole "business" will be left to the governments. I'm fine by that.
Raw facts are easy to report. I suspect most people get that from more direct sources rather than conventional news outlets. What the news outlets need to do is start doing the legwork, the analysis, the digging that goes beyond the raw facts.
Example: here in San Diego there's a flap over the mayor being accused of sexual harassment. What makes me raise an eyebrow is the line-up on the accusing side (the city attorney the mayor embarrassed by chewing her and her department out over her prosecution of the BofA "sidewalk chalk vandal" case, the opponent who lost to the mayor in the last election) and the distinct lack of charges/complaints filed by actual victims. What I'd love to see is what newspapers and news reporters used to dig up: who are the actual victims (in general terms, if not naming actual names), what they accuse the mayor of actually doing, who convinced them to make the accusations, are there any other witnesses to the behavior and what do they say about it, what does the mayor say about specific incidents when pressed on them. You know, all the interesting information behind the story. But none of that makes the papers or the TV news reports. Is it any wonder then that I don't have much use for the conventional news outlets? They're good for the weather report and not much else.
If you go hyperlocal enough, how big is your market, and does that justify the cost of printing papers and distributing them?
The bigger question for me is, what is the future of investigative journalism? Will we have a media that is available globally, that asks the questions people in power (corporate, state, religious) don't want asked? And how to we pay for that - is there enough of a market there?
Are nothing more than corporate dreck disguised as 'news' and padded with copious ads and fliers. If I want specialized news, I'll take a blog written by an expert, sans advertising - consumed on a tablet or e-reader.
We only get the "paper" edition on Sundays, but I read the digital version (as they refer to it) daily. I was going to give up the print version completely; however there's essentially no cost advantage in doing so. Oh well, having newspaper around occasionally turns out to be useful, anyway.
I'm the only one who reads it, though. I don't really get why my wife and daughter aren't interested in the news (especially local news, which isn't effectively available elsewhere) - but it's obvious there are more people like them than there are people like me.
#DeleteChrome
That is what is killing the newspaper business (IMO). Anyone can get the AP stories instantly now. If something happens in Washington D.C. there will be dozens of identical reports about it.
If something happens in your town you might catch it on a local news show. Unless they're also busy covering what just happened in D.C.
A local paper can give you the local news and tell you what the local impact of whatever it was that just happened in D.C. will be.
But in order to do that, the local paper has to hire local reporters who have more knowledge/expertise than the average person. And it is cheaper to skip that and just buy the stories from the AP. And then fail because no one wants to pay for a paper when you've already read the content on your PC, iPad and phone.
The Guardian Weekly is, in my opinion, a great weekly paper with many in-depth articles, most of which from an objective point of view. And even if they are subjective, this is usually clear, and gives another interesting view on the matter. The news is "worldly" (ie. not about Justin Bieber's latest haircut) and the result of a careful selection of the most interesting pieces from various other newspapers.
More importantly, because it is a weekly paper (and on top of that a tabloid), the amount of fillers is seriously reduced, and all articles are newsworthy and readable.
Blah! I only buy my news on Stone Tablets. This flimsy paper you speak of is just a fad.
Living in Wales, I try to pick up the weekly Welsh-language paper Y Cymro exactly because it covers stories that the BBC and UK daily papers don't bother with. Similarly, an Irish/French/Spanish/whatever newspaper offers a more global viewpoint on some news stories (though these often have online editions as well).
For how long will real newspapers exist if the readers want everything for free online? And when will they notice that all these interesting stories, ranging from PRISM to Syria were actually being written by paid journalists? When will the blindingly obvious implication that a world without investigative journalism is a dictatorship hit them?
And now someone like Henry Blodget is trying to say that newspapers need stuff that can't be found elsewhere to survive, which basically means to become the local gossiping outlet? He should be ashamed of himself.
I still read the very local papers that have very specific news connected to the local area as that kind of news isn't readily available online.
But these are only published once a week and are distributed free to the area they serve.
I dont pay for newspapers or news content, most of my "general news" comes either from watching news on free-to-air TV (especially on the ad-free national government-run broadcaster, the ABC) or from reading online news sites (again I read the ABC news website a lot)
Worth every penny.
This is why Warren Buffett is buying up local newspapers across the US. Online newspapers can only make money by reaching a large audience for the purposes of advertisements. Local newspapers survive because they provide local journalism that the national newspapers just aren't interested in (and rightly so - they can't make money from it). Local newspapers will survive for a long time, either in print form or in online subscription form, because there is an audience willing to pay for the news.
1. I will pay for quality, in-depth reporting that is factual and truthful. The truthful qualifier is especially important. If you look at the reporting of a given event you will see many, many facts used to paint wildly different pictures. If you're not painting a truthful picture, I don't want your product. Some people like to believe these are ideological differences, but they aren't. They're ideological agendas being pushed onto actual events that have nothing to do with the agenda. I'm not paying for that shit.
2. I will pay for niche reporting. Again with the quality required from any other organization.
3. I will pay to get rid of ads. Ads cost me more money than subscriptions.
4. I will pay for local reporting. Unfortunately the local reporting everywhere I've ever lived seems to be done by amateurs and is funded through advertising. That model doesn't serve my needs.
I pay for my (weekly) local newspaper. Where my mum lives, they have a weekly print newspaper too, but there it's also available in either a subscription or one-off PDF each week, so sometimes I buy that PDF if there's a story in I want to read, as the local newspapers only sell in a relatively small geographic area. I wish my local paper did PDF too, I'd buy it like that. But, until then, I buy the print version. There's lots to read that you just can't get elsewhere, and the websites for these local papers only report national and regional headlines, they don't put any of the local content on their website at all.
We buy a Sunday paper almost every week because it's really hard to line the bird cage using a flat screen monitor.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
"...googling for which only seems to bring up ads for lawyers..."
That's because Google doesn't really work anymore. It used to return even obscure results, but strangely accurate. About three years ago I noticed a change: Google now returns mostly the popular results - so one can no longer use it to find what you really want unless you are searching for what everyone else wants.
There's only one major 'real' newspaper in Columbus, Ohio. The Columbus Dispatch has most people finish reading it disagreeing with half of what they read and vice versa. We get to support the dwindling presence of journalism in this country. This paper also has the rare quality of not being owned by a national corporation and reports on metro and state affairs from a local point of view. Considering that there are many bloggers and web 'journalists' that try very hard to do a good job and live up to journalistic standards, most of them don't have the credentials to participate in the process the way that credentialed members of journalism can. Until that time, we buy the paper, read it and are at least aware of what is happening around us even if we don't like the reporting on it. /don't watch local news though, cuz it's not journalism
..but have my doubts. Our local paper just abandoned their building for much smaller digs. I appreciate their local coverage, but I know their circulation and revenue are way down. I agree there's a need for local reporting, but am not sure how it will be paid for.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I spent a lot of time reading free news online, and I have to say you get what you pay for (present company excluded, of course.)
Much online news seems like it was written by unpaid interns at media companies who are on tight deadlines. There's a reason for that.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
If news companies want to make money they should do more than reprint the same stories that everyone else is running from the wire service.
Getting reporters to actually work and dig up stories and write about interesting angles, so that they provide unique useful stories, and then they might have something worth selling.
Nothing annoys me more than trying to find news about something local and finding that the online local news source has covered their front page with (inter-)national news.
If your small-town newspaper has a website, remember that it is competing with CNN.com, BBC.com, nytimes.com, and everything else. Chances are you not going to do better international news than the "big boys". You are going to be carrying the same AP story as everyone else.
So where can you compete? The local news that CNN, et al, are not going to carry. Do not make your readers search your site just to get the local coverage they are looking for.
Places like WickedLocal.com (in Massachusetts) have it figured out, probably because most Massachusetts local newspapers did *not* figure it out. Patch.com is trying to do this on a bigger scale.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
is The Economist.
I'm as hardcore geek as they come and I still prefer to read the weekend paper as paper because:
1) I like to read it with my saturday breakfast. A laptop, tablet or phone just is a pain for this and I'd smudge it up with my greasy paws anyway.
2) The natural flow and visual arrangement of a newspaper just works better in an absolutely defined space than it does in the maleability of an HTML document.
3) Computers distract you with a million things and constantly shine bright lights in your eyes. Paper is much better for reading any works of even moderate length because it does one thing and is gentle on the eyes.
Papers will still be around for a long time, mainly because of point #3. Certainly not in the numbers they once were, but technology natrually has a way of forcing once-ubiqutous things into niches. Think of cars vs. horses, movies vs. live theatre and now computers vs. paper.
I read the news on paper for the same reason I read books on paper: It's more convenient reading on paper than reading on the screen.
Improve at backgammon rapidly through addictive quickfire position quizzes: www.bgtrain.com
I like classical music. I stopped reading the LA Times except for an occaisional pickup of a tossed section at a restaraunt over 10 years ago. But, I can't find on-line a decent listing of upcoming classified music concerts in Los Angeles.
Come to think of it, that was one of the reasons I stopped buying the Sunday Times. They scaled back their Arts and Performance section and Calendar.
I read the news a lot now but only because it's available free on the internet.
Information should not be a commodity, folks and I knew this before anyone ever heard of this 'internet' thing.
The reason I never followed the news before the internet is because I REFUSED TO BUY NEWSPAPERS.
And you should too.
I mean it's ridiculous.
C'mon.
Reporter, with 20+ years in the business. Editors' news judgement is mostly driven by not getting complaints. Complaints come from people who already know something, and want to know why it's not in the paper; no one ever calls to complain that something they don't know isn't in the paper. So the senior citizens spelling bee MUST be covered; volunteers delivering flowers to cancer patients MUST be covered; the county fair MUST be covered. Meanwhile, stories such as how much data schools are gathering and storing languishes (it was turned in a week before the NSA thing broke), a story about the EPA fining a local refinery (and refineries nationwide) millions of dollars a year for not blending its fuel with cellulose-based ethanol that doesn't exist gets dropped because editors don't think it's important. And a story I pitched about our state's new law allowing concealed carry in public buildings might be negated because insurance companies are threatening to drop liability coverage is ignored (you might have seen a similar story in the New York Times about two weeks after I brought up the idea).
We don't teach many of our children how to read. Children who can read might find information on their own. They might question the status quo. Unfortunately, illiterate children have no use for newspapers.
I want a golf car crash suit as well
I'd buy newspapers if I see useful stories, not the same thing rehashed online. Say, tell me about the local economics, like housing prices, which parts of town are good. You know, do some legwork for me. Alternatively, tell me how all those international news affect my community. Such as how a declining Chinese consumption will affect the local furniture export.
There's not any news these days that I'd pay for. Fact is, 90% of what constitutes news, I don't care about. The other 10% doesn't get covered consistently by any source I'm familiar with that would make me feel justified in paying for it.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!