Didn’t the newspapers get gobbled up before the internet changed everything?

Jeff

They’re proven they can cut costs. They have not proven that they can simultaneously provide a product that their customers have to have.

Yeah….people will buy anything if they are told to. Look at McDonalds…they’ve never done better; Sales are up, the stock is at an all time high, despite the fact that McDonalds is the poster child of “crap product.”.

Our local paper here is part of the NYT, and it’s not worth anything except for lining a bird cage. They cut back on the local news, yet they increased the sports section,WTF?? Their editorial page doesn’t reflect the values of the community, and the workers all have a union mentality. The paper is shrinking, and they’re not doing anything to try to change. However, I still get it every day and read it from cover to cover.

Jeff

Part of me laughs. Part of me thinks hey, it’s worked for Ford all these years….

Since newspapers derive the bulk of their revenues from advertising, perhaps it would be in their best interest to fully beef up their advertising departments, hire the best producers, the hungriest producers, and offer them incentives. Have the sales staff hit everything and pitch everyone, leaving no stone unturned. Nothing talks like money, or the realistic potential to make big money.

Jeff

I’m sorry, but the best information is on the web. Go to sites like antiwar.com, counterpunch, Asiatimes for real news.

During my earliest days in the news biz, the paper I worked for had a profit margin in single digits. It was owned by two families and had been for decades. When owners died and heirs did not want to continue in newspapering, the paper became part of small chain. The profit margin demanded by the chain virtually quadrupled in a year.

That story can be retold for newspaper after newspaper beginning back in the ’60s. For reasons I mentioned in the post (and other posts I’ve done), newspaper chains became media conglomerates that drew a new class of ownership that did not have public service as its principal motive for owning newspapers. And in comment 10, you explain very well the consequences.

When I asked for the definition of “good,” you provided a definitive answer, which I appreciate. Now consider the definition of “good” in front of another word — “owner.”

I’d suggest that the number of basis points above the T bill yield a corporate owner would take as acceptable profit varies to the degree to which that owner believes newspapering is a public — as well as profitable — service.

I have seen in the past 20 years no large media corporations willing to accept fewer basis points of profit in return for increasing their newspapers’ ability to perform public service.

I also have not seen a large media corporation that believes in increasing the ability of its labor force to produce a viable, trusted product that the public is willing to buy. If corporations did believe that, they wouldn’t be whacking the jobs, as you articulated well.

Remember the deal the Founders struck in the First Amendment. It gave newspapers freedom of the press in exchange for acting as a check and balance on the three branches of government. Newspapers must make a profit to survive. But some of the Founders are probably rolling in their graves as they witness what today’s newspapers have become.

Their corporate owners aren’t living up their end of the deal.

Thanks for your omments. I appreciate your help — and that of the other commenters — in sorting my often-mangled thinking on the subject.

I think the definition of good would be a return at least 300 basis points over the yield of a Treasury Bond. Investors would be lining up in droves for a return like that. (Note: I’m not talking earnings per share , but actual pay out)..

Hell, investors would be lining up if the stock paid a consistent dividend of 4-5%. Develop a business model that meets those parameters, and you could own half the media in the country.

Frankly, I’m of the old school that believes that it is necessary to spend money in order to make money, and cutting the news staff because of declining profits(to meet profit projections) isn’t the answer.

I’ve seen various companies go down the tubes because they wanted to maintain the sales/labor spread. When the sales go down, they cut labor. Less labor translates into less sales, which ends up with more labor cuts. It becomes a viscious cycle until nothing is left. This phenomena has happened to large retail companies such as K-Mart, Sears, and Albertsons. This method of mismanagement has never had a happy ending. Letting the bean counters run a business is a mistake.

Jeff

In my quest to pay better attention to my local reps I am having a hard time finding any reporting on the actions of my local politicians. It would be great if some of these displaced workers could get together and put out some meaningful reporting to compete with the big boys. I don’t know if it’s possible, but it would be step in the right direction.

http://mondediplo.com/
http://www.economist.com/
http://www.iht.com/
and a local plug…
http://www.laprensasa.com/

And of course, every publication has its own editorial voice; I tend to trust more the ones who make their biases (or traditions) explicit and transparent. I expect to have to compare sources and judge for myself, but that’s fine with me.

Between all of the dropped balls lately, and the understanding that embedded journalism = rah! rah! journalism, can Americans really be blamed for tuning out?

It’s a shame when the investigative reporting at the Beijing Olympics represents the best America has done in the last decade. Even then, one can’t help but wonder how much of that has come from our propaganda machines.

Has America really become so self absorbed that we will continue to say “…ah, fuck it, tomorrow doesn’t matter anyway…only right now is important.”

While living in the moment completely is the stuff of Zen enlightenment, that’s not really what we’re doing. Ignoring the past and borrowing from the future for just a little more pleasant living right now is going to flush the whole thing down the toilet if we’re not careful.

Huh?, you’ve got a good point. I used to make it a habit to buy the local i grew up with (Detroit Free Press) even if i could get the news with more ease on the internet. But there isn’t any actual news in the local i grew up with anymore. When half of the front section is advertising and they put the obits, the weather page, and traffic in there i have a hard time coughing up the money. And when most of the actual news pieces are wire service lifts i see no point at all.

I also lament the demise of the newspaper industry. What ideas do you have to improve the industry, while ensuring a good return for investors?

FYI,
Our local alternative paper has 1/4 the total circulation of our local NY Times owned paper….and it’s just a weekly. My friends at the alternative paper say that business has never been better. Although I have profound differences with the politics and editorial content of the paper, they’re my friends, and friendship trumps politics everytime.

Jeff

Jeff

i agree this sucks for journalism as a whole, but if you really care about it stop patronizing blogs that don’t break any news or generate any real original content. and no, cut/pasting a few sentences from an article and adding your $.02 is not “genuine original content.”