This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The Fate of Newspapers

edited March 2009 in Politics
I just found this story: U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers
Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.
Jason?

Comments

  • Jason?
    Don't ask him, he doesn't write for a paper anymore.
  • Hey, I see no problem with this. If we're not giving money to the newspapers, that would be very bad. Letting them be non-profits is totally cool. I don't understand why we need a new law for it. Was a newspaper not allowed to be non-profit before?
  • Nothing wrong with it, but I don't think the newer generation really cares. It feels like newspaper are getting prepared for life support as old people start dying.
  • Nothing wrong with it, but I don't think the newer generation really cares. It feels like newspaper are getting prepared for life support as old people start dying.
    USA Today will be the last paper to die. By the time it goes, the old people will be gone as well.
  • If no one is buying them why not just let them go out of business?
  • If no one is buying them why not just let them go out of business?
    A large amount of old people in the government. :P
  • If no one is buying them why not just let them go out of business?
    If you're a politician you need to communicate with old people. If old people don't get news, how will they know who to vote for? Almost every old person votes. And the chain continues.
  • So, are you saying that newspapers must continue to operate so that politicians can get their propaganda out to the old people?
  • edited March 2009
    So, are you saying that newspapers must continue to operate so that politicians can get their propaganda out to the old people?
    I'm saying that politicians want newspapers to continue so they can get propaganda to old people. I would be fine if the died, but I won't object to them being non-profit. I will object to giving them money.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • I do have to agree with your earlier sentiment. I don't know if anything is stopping them from being non-profit, they already are!

    It may just be that because they have long been for-profit (and profitable) the current owners may rather see their business die then become a non-profit.
  • Old people can still get news. They can get it on TV. If you can afford a newspaper subscription you can afford a cheap TV.

    Papers are still relevant, though, in more rural areas. In those areas, they are often the only source of local news.

    In an urban area, there is no need for a printed newspaper. I'm not saying that they are a bad thing. On the contrary, I believe that they are a good thing. I can't, however, ignore the fact that they are redundant at best.
  • Old people can still get news. They can get it on TV. If you can afford a newspaper subscription you can afford a cheap TV.
    But they switched to digital, and now the old people don't know what to do.
  • Old people can still get news. They can get it on TV. If you can afford a newspaper subscription you can afford a cheap TV.
    But they switched to digital, and now the old people don't know what to do.
    They've been running "Get a free converter box with this coupon available HERE!" commercials for a long while now.
  • Jason?
    Don't ask him, he doesn't write for a paper anymore.
    Quaedam, November 2007.
  • On the subject of "old people" jokes I'd like to point out something.

    If a person will be 70 years old in 2010 they were 40 in 1980.
    If a person will be 60 years old in 2010 they were 30 in 1980.

    When you say "old people" what age range are you talking about?

    I bring this up in part because I recently read an article where people were bitching about a 65 year old woman who was still paying a leasing fee on her rotary dial phone. The writer was accusing the phone company of preying on old people but the article did not point out that the woman was in her 30's when the Bell System was broken up. She may be "old" now but she was not old when the telephone system was broken up and she could have bought her own phone.
  • edited March 2009
    When I say old people, I don't necessarily mean old as in years, though there is a strong correlation. What I mean by old people is people who are old in mind, or old fashioned. People who are slow to change and adapt to changes in society, be they technological, social, or otherwise.

    There are plenty of senior citizens, who are very old, but are not old people. Go on YouTube and you can find plenty of awesome people who were born a long time ago, yet have adapted very well, and would not be bothered by the loss of a newspaper. You will also find plenty of people who are relatively young, perhaps even in their '30s or '40s who are luddites or otherwise refuse to move beyond the way the world was when they were children. Nostalgia and resistance to change keep them stuck in the '70s or '80s or what have you. There is clearly no shortage of people stuck in the '60s.

    Regardless, the overwhelming majority of old people are old, and the overwhelming majority of young people are young, which is why we feel ok using the term "old people," even when we don't mean it in its literal sense.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • Old people can still get news. They can get it on TV. If you can afford a newspaper subscription you can afford a cheap TV.
    I don't know, but other then maybe PBS, can you really find "quality news" reporting on TV?
  • So, are you saying that newspapers must continue to operate so that politicians can get their propaganda out to the old people?
    That sort of thought, from my observations, were being tested mildly by the Obama campaign especially with his use of the internet. The Twitter, Facebook and generally increased internet blogs surrounding the campaign seemed progressive compared to prior elections.
    This is however an outsider's perspective of the US and the events that took place.
  • Old people can still get news. They can get it on TV. If you can afford a newspaper subscription you can afford a cheap TV.
    I don't know, but other then maybe PBS, can you really find "quality news" reporting on TV?
    BBC America and BBC World News.
  • Newspapers in the U.K are having the same problem, (and probably everywhere else too. With everything online, and the rise of blogs, old newspapers are in trouble. I think many will fold and/or merge, leaving just a few.

    I personally used to read U.K tabloid papers, but there's not any real news in them anymore, just a lot of scaremongering. Only ones that do have anything interesting, I can easily find the same news online. I do think its important for newspapers to have an online version, besides the paper cut. I see some are going for the register style model, and while that might suit them, it kind of defeats the object of news being an open accessible source of info, from anywhere, anytime.

    But yeah, a few will survive and perhaps go non-profit, with one of two actually making profit. Guess they'll have to use the recycled paper for something else.

    BBC World News Service which still goes out on radio, like it always has. NPR is also pretty good for stuff many might not report on.
  • It is a bit of a shame, really. As newspapers fall and bloggers and wikipedia rises it will be increasingly difficult to discern well researched and properly sourced news from the dreck. I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable fee to access a creditable online newspaper.
  • Oh, meant to say, should that US bill go through?

    Probably not. Necessity is the mother of invention, so newspapers need to get with the times, get creative or go under.

    I get an e-Metro newspaper delivered to my inbox, free, everyday. Its nice and we need to see more stuff like this.
  • Right now I'm in a class where we are making an ARG for the Democrat and Chronicle as a way to attract the young professional demographic to the newspaper. If its successful it could be an interesting way for newspapers to bring in readers.

    Also I recommend checking out this TED talk about design possibly being a way to save newspapers.
  • I certainly think there are ways to attract young people to newspapers, like a free supplement of something they like. I'm sure many comic lovers would buy a newspaper if they got a free comic issue out of it, via vouchers or inside the newspaper.

    Over here, we have some newspapers, giving away free music cd and dvds. Since both the music and newspaper industries are in trouble, it seemed to benefit them both well. This on happens with sunday newspapers, where a weekly magazine will be included, making it a package deal. This worked out well for one U.K band, who got new fans from such exposure.

    After watching that video, I see what you mean. If newspapers look like that here, I might buy one too. Interesting stuff.
  • A lot of local papers are terrible. When we lived in Buffalo and received the paper for a few months. There was so little in the paper that was of any use/interest that we realized we were only really pulling out the coupon sections and recycling the rest without more than a glance. We did the math and the subscription cost just about as much as we saved from the coupons, so we just canceled the subscription and called it a wash.
  • The problem with papers isn't what content is offered, or how much. It's that young people generally do not care anymore. It's all part of the burgeoning man-child mentality. It also has to do with an antiquated business and distribution model. It also has to do with the continued over-saturation of the information market. Newspapers are failing for the same reason that network television shows don't draw 30 million viewers an episode anymore.
  • Someone should make a newspaper that's full-color, comes out every day, and costs 10 cents newstand and less than that for a subscription. It should contain nothing but full-color comics. As many of them as possible, in whatever size and shape the creators want, within reason. It should also have technological methods for readers to vote on which comics are funniest, and which are not funny. A page or two with news about comics, or interviews with creators would be good also.

    I know that the vast majority of newspaper comics suck. But I also know that when I go to my parents house, the only section of the paper I look at is the comics. A paper with just comics I think would sell big, and would push down the circulations of other papers, as there are at least some people out there who are just buying them for the comics.
  • Right now I'm in a class where we are making an ARG for the Democrat and Chronicle as a way to attract the young professional demographic to the newspaper. If its successful it could be an interesting way for newspapers to bring in readers.

    Also I recommend checking outthis TED talkabout design possibly being a way to save newspapers.
    I was all ready to post saying newspapers are dying, and good riddance, and the journalistic credibility of bloggers will work itself out. However, this video completely changed my opinion.

    Having a lot of artsy friends who want to go into design, I know it's a crappy business with no real demand. Imagine if every paper had an artist working on its aesthetics. More importantly, imagine if there were a local paper, the kind of thing reporting on town hall meetings and school pageants, that had a weekly cover on that caliber, always featuring someone familiar to you on the cover! With today's design tools, I think it's possible, and I think it would be an amazing way to build a community.

    I can't put my finger on what in that video changed my opinion, but suddenly I'm a lot more optimistic about the fate of papers.
  • The problem with papers isn't what content is offered, or how much.
    While I agree with your overall point, content issues aren't helping to draw anyone in. When half of a paper is just articles from other newspapers, the local articles are poorly written and highly biased, and the rest of the paper is fluffy-feel-good-local-color bullshit - then why buy? This certainly isn't every paper, but many papers that cater to medium-to-small sized cities fit this description.
  • The problem with papers isn't what content is offered, or how much.
    While I agree with your overall point, content issues aren't helping to draw anyone in. When half of a paper is just articles from other newspapers, the local articles are poorly written and highly biased, and the rest of the paper is fluffy-feel-good-local-color bullshit - then why buy? This certainly isn't every paper, but many papers that cater to medium-to-small sized cities fit this description.
    On a personal level, I agree with you. On an actual level, large newspapers are suffering the most because macro-news has too much competition. It's the micro-news that everybody needs, and from a reliable source. People still want to know what that fire was over on Harvard Street, or why the water bill just spiked $20 a month, or why there are so few police left, or why all the ambulances were parked around the college Thursday night, or see Johnny's picture as he pitches for the Pioneers.

    Local news will always find some sort of a niche market. Maybe papers will fulfill that task; maybe it's the era of professional local news blogging, if start-up newschasers can make an online model work. I know a guy in these here parts who chases the police scanner and gets tens of thousands of hits a week on his blag writing about car crashes, stabbings, and apartment fires.

    Sadly, the thing propping up most small-town-middling-city newspapers right now is local high school sports coverage. That tells you something about the average intellect of consumers. It might not be why enlightened folk like you or myself buy a paper, but we're awesome. Fluffy-feel-good-local-color-bullshit sells well, too, because old people who read papers want to feel safe. They want to feel that the world is essentially a good place. And mid-page sections about the woman who's dyed poodles for 30 years and is now working for poodle-saving charities is -- again, to my great chagrin -- a big pull.
Sign In or Register to comment.