Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2009 > February > 06 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USWhat is the future of newspapers?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
I just opened a letter from a mayor of a Georgia town that will remain nameless, pleading with me to reverse a recent decision to cease delivery of the AJC to his city on the fringes of metro Atlanta.
“The vast majority of my citizens were dependent upon the AJC for news about our state, the United States and the world,” the mayor writes. The decision has reduced them to traveling to the next city over, “purchasing a single copy of the AJC and then passing it around…. I have even heard a fellow citizen … offer to purchase a used copy of the AJC from someone.”
I don’t know what to say to the mayor. In the first place, the decision to shrink our circulation area was a purely business decision and I had no input into it. Furthermore, I’m sure the business reasons for the decision were overwhelming and that there is no chance whatsoever of it being reversed. The economics of this business have profoundly changed for everybody.
Just this week, for example, News Corp., Rupert Murdoch’s media company and owner of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, announced a net loss of $6.4 billion in the last quarter of 2008. The value of its newspaper holdings alone were written down some $3 billion, and another 25 employees were laid off this week at the Journal.
As a privately held company, Cox Newspapers, the owner of the AJC, doesn’t publicly report its finances, and I’m certainly not in a position to know what our numbers are. But let’s just say that nobody in this business is immune to what’s going on, both in the industry and the overall economy. It has struck newspapers of every size, every editorial philosophy and in every region.
In fact, it’s a global phenomenon. In France, the government is trying to bail out its newspapers with taxpayer subsidies, an approach that would solve nothing and that I personally would oppose here in America. As Scotland’s Sunday Herald reports the French approach, “a package of measures that included the doubling of state advertising in key titles, a free one-year newspaper subscription for every French 18-year-old, and widespread reform of the newspaper distribution and manufacturing process, constitutes the most ambitious plan yet from any western leader to support the ailing print media sector.”
The British press faces the same problems, according to the Herald:
“Earlier this month, the Daily Mail and General Trust sold London’s Evening Standard for the nominal sum of £1. The paper is said to be losing £18m a year…. The extent of the problem, for those still in any doubt, was underlined by communications minister Lord Carter last Thursday, who wrote, in the newly published Digital Britain report, that the “dwindling of the advertising pound” would no longer “underpin content creation”.
So the British too are thinking about gov’t subsidies. Says professor Brian McNair, head of journalism at Strathclyde University:
“Who would have said six months ago that we would be bailing out our banks? We are in unprecedented territory. I don’t see why newspapers should not be considered eligible for state support.”
Again, government-funded newspapers contradict every instinct I have as a journalist. If we can’t find a solution that allows us to survive in some form as a private industry, we ought to go away. But what might that solution be?
First, it’s going to be web-based. At the AJC, we’ve already made the transition to thinking of ourselves as a web operation that also puts out a newspaper, instead of the other way around. If it survives at all longterm, the dead-tree medium will in effect be a niche product.
Some influential voices are beginning to wonder whether some form of Internet payment might be the answer. David Carr at the New York Times cites the example of Apple’s I-Tunes, which has convinced music downloaders to pay for music:
“Remember that when iTunes began, the music industry was being decimated by file sharing. By coming up with an easy user interface and obtaining the cooperation of a broad swath of music companies, Mr. Jobs helped pull the business off the brink. He has been accused of running roughshod over the music labels, which are a fraction of their former size. But they are still in business.
“Those of us who are in the newspaper business could not be blamed for hoping that someone like him comes along and ruins our business as well by pulling the same trick: convincing the millions of interested readers who get their news every day free on newspapers sites that it’s time to pay up.”
Walter Isaacson, writing in Time, suggests something similar. “During the past few months, the crisis in journalism has reached meltdown proportions,” he notes. “It is now possible to contemplate a time when some major cities will no longer have a newspaper and when magazines and network-news operations will employ no more than a handful of reporters.”
And his answer?
“The key to attracting online revenue, I think, is to come up with an iTunes-easy method of micropayment. We need something like digital coins or an E-ZPass digital wallet — a one-click system with a really simple interface that will permit impulse purchases of a newspaper, magazine, article, blog or video for a penny, nickel, dime or whatever the creator chooses to charge.”
“….Under a micropayment system, a newspaper might decide to charge a nickel for an article or a dime for that day’s full edition or $2 for a month’s worth of Web access. Some surfers would balk, but I suspect most would merrily click through if it were cheap and easy enough,” he writes.
Personally, I don’t know what the answer is. I do know that most of the news that feeds the blogosphere is generated first by reporters and editors at old-medium outlets, and that most of the content on radio and TV news shows — both locally and nationally — is also regurgitated from newspaper and magazine reporting.
That model cannot last. Just as the economics no longer allow the AJC to distribute to the mayor’s town, they won’t allow us to distribute work for free on the Internet forever either. And it has impacts that might surprise you. At lunch not too long ago, the local head of a federal law enforcement agency bemoaned what was happening to the newspaper industry.
Journalists serve that agency as an early warning system for public corruption, he said. They keep public servants honest, and they alert law enforcement to possible trouble areas. He worries that we won’t be there to serve that function any longer.
He’s right to worry. However, unless the market finds some way to value that kind of function, it will and should cease.
Comments
By gttim
February 6, 2009 1:22 PM | Link to this
I don’t have a problem with subscription type services. I have paid for for online magazine at a monthly rate. However, to justify that a local paper would have to have very good local reporting, local opinion pieces, a local event calendar and such. Any wire service story will be available for free somewhere else. I have to be sold.
And then, you can only let paying subscribers comment! Or have a button where we could only view paying subscribers comments. That would clean up these comments a lot! Filtering comments by subscribers, a ranking system by subscribers or something would be wonderful!
By DB, Gwinnettian
February 6, 2009 1:32 PM | Link to this
Nice think piece, Jay.
Any early wagers on who’ll contribute the very stupidest “you librul media liars deserve it!!11!!” troll post?
By Carter is a Fool
February 6, 2009 1:34 PM | Link to this
The crisis in journalism is in part because reporters have no longer chosen to be objective, but now display their bias in their reporting. The news is slanted way to the left as evidenced in last year’s presidential campaign. Chris Mathews has tingly feelings running up his leg every time Obama speaks. Yikes. Hardly objective.
You are an editorial writer and as much as I disagree with you, you do write your opinions. My problem with the AJC is that on your editorial staff, you have one token writer from the right and the rest represent the left. The main problem with the entire paper is the spin. The main news is now reported by people who want to be opinion writers and their bias shows in every news item.
The AJC is in decline because of the new media and electronics and because it is so out of touch with the population views because of the left leaning spin in the reporting.
By DB, Gwinnettian
February 6, 2009 1:38 PM | Link to this
“The AJC is in decline because of the new media and electronics and because it is so out of touch with the population views… “
carter, did you bother to even skim the friggin piece?
It’s not just the AJC, it’s your precious Rupert Murdoch-owned right-wing rags too. It’s every newspaper. Do you not get this?
By Debate101
February 6, 2009 1:43 PM | Link to this
The Internet has changed almost everything: Newspapers/Books, Music, Advertising,Buy/Sell Methods, Printing, Mail, etc….
It’s not just about Newspapers, it’s about what’s happening across any business where it can be handled electronically.
I can get my news online. I can read books online. I can send/receive mail online. I can develop, print and distribute anything Online. I can purchase music online. I can pay and advertise for free online. I can buy and sell things online. I can communicate with friends, family, etc… I can pay bills online. I can talk and see friends across the world online.
Soon we will not need a library, book printers, post offices, music stores, etc…..
I’m concerned that my grandkids will never hold a book in hand. They will grow-up thinking that music is somthing that was only obtained via the web. The post office was something that existed during our horse and buggy years. They will believe that bill pay online is the only form of payment processing. They may never go to the mall on a Saturday afternoon or see a movie in a theatre, because all of this has the possibility to be done ONLINE.
Jay, I really feel bad about the newspaper business. I really like to have a copy in hand, every now and then. However, I think this topic is much broader and will have to be addressed in the next 20 years. I’m in the technology business and have a computer science degree, but I think we are going technology crazy. Everybody wants every things to be quick, efficient and automated.
I’m only 37 and don’t have any grandkids. But, I do want them to enjoy some of the things I enjoy, like holding a book or newspaper in their hand.
By AJC/DNC Management
February 6, 2009 1:44 PM | Link to this
Start reporting the news instead of the “news?”
By TN Gelding
February 6, 2009 1:46 PM | Link to this
The printed and delivered paper should already be history.
As you said the cost is prohibitive, not to mention wasteful. It should cost a small fraction to produce the online edition and the ad revenues should be more than enough to allow for a profit if done properly. You already charge for Stacks. I probably would pay a small monthly fee if necessary. I threatened to discontinue delivery a couple of years back when the first reorganiztion was announced because it didn’t go far enough, but my wife over-ruled me.
By RealityKing
February 6, 2009 1:49 PM | Link to this
Newspapers companies are just going to have to adjust to our needs. And with the internet at our finger tips, reading the paper is way down on the list. If the AJC wants to survive, it will need to become much smaller, targeting it’s circulation on its adverticement’s audience. AJC online will never be profitable, meerly a way to stay realvent in the journalist world.
Go back to school Jay! I would suggest a Math and Science degree this time. Today you have to be able to compete with the best of the best, from around the world. I see them all around me.
By AJC/DNC Management
February 6, 2009 1:54 PM | Link to this
The story on NewsCorp-
{{{{Reflecting a sharp downturn in advertising across the broadcast television industry, the company had its steepest drop in the television unit, where income fell to $18 million, from $245 million a year earlier. The company’s television stations had a 44 percent decline, “reflecting a significant overall weakening of the local advertising markets despite increased political advertising revenues,” the company said in a statement. The film division had income of $112 million compared with $403 million a year earlier.
One bright spot was cable networks, including Fox News. The division reported income of $428 million, up $91 million from the period a year earlier. Fox News increased its operating income by 32 percent.}}}}
And the story with the “news” papers-
{{{{All but two of the 25 largest U.S. newspapers posted declines for the period, led by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, where weekday circulation fell 13.6%. The other major declines came at the Houston Chronicle, where weekday circulation fell 11.7%, and the Philadelphia Inquirer, which dropped 11.1%.
USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, the two largest U.S. newspapers by paid weekday circulation, were the only publications to post an increase for the period.}}}}
Bark, bark, DB, living life fact free.
By Mort Merkel
February 6, 2009 1:56 PM | Link to this
Carter is a Fool, having known lots of reporters, I guarantee you are reading from the right more than they are reporting from the left. There is some of that, but the perspective of the readers if unabashedly skewed, while real journalists do stifle their personal views while reporting. They care about their craft and take pride in reporting things down the middle. It’s we readers who have no such ethical obligation to consume the news and lend credence to the parts of it we disagree with.
Now, go ahead and call me an idiot.
By @@
February 6, 2009 1:59 PM | Link to this
(((I do know that most of the news that feeds the blogosphere is generated first by reporters and editors at old-medium outlets)))
No kiddin’, jay?
Some reporter somewhere does the footwork/research while the rest make a living on his/her efforts?
I think I’ve seen this scam somewhere before…….hmmmmmm
thinkin’…
thinkin’…
By TN Gelding
February 6, 2009 2:00 PM | Link to this
Change might be inevitable, but it sure is slow.
By DB, Gwinnettian
February 6, 2009 2:01 PM | Link to this
Andy, how’s the NewsCorp-owned NY Post doing?
For that matter, how about the Moonie Times? Surely it’s turning a profit, right? did it ever?
By RealityKing
February 6, 2009 2:09 PM | Link to this
Jay may not always have a newspaper to express his liberal views in.., but at least he can find some comfort in knowing that we can’t take away his shoes.
By DB, Gwinnettian
February 6, 2009 2:09 PM | Link to this
Might want to add, Andy, that the NYTimes piece you quoted (but didn’t actually cite…golly, wonder why?) has the WSJ forced to shed 25 positions, and share backoffice space with the lowly NY Post.
Yeah, those RW rags, they’re goin’ gangbusters.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 6, 2009 2:13 PM | Link to this
I’m gonna miss the paper as “paper” but change is also coming to all media.
It’s their own fault.
My favorite net news sites didn’t come into being until after the bumblings of the Bush Administration became too big to ignore and yet the main stream media continued ignoring them.
Many millions of us lost faith in news outlets as ownership became more and more consolidated.
In order to keep access, many media figures sold their souls to the Bushies, leaving a great big hole where news and information used to be.
We the people responded.
By mm
February 6, 2009 2:15 PM | Link to this
Jay,
I cancelled my subscription to the local paper in Jax, FL last week. Why?
I couldn’t find anything to read. I had seen all of the articles the day before on the web. The paper was chock full of full page ads. And the worst part, they kept publishing the garbage columns of Coulter and Malkin. It definitely had turned into a rightwing rag.
I would gladly pay a small monthly fee for an online addition of the AJC. Save the trees. And maybe the fee will keep the cheapo wingnuts off your blog.
By Mike
February 6, 2009 2:16 PM | Link to this
There is an interesting read about the factors that contributed to the newspapers demise here:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/02/authors-of-their-own-doom/print
In the case of the AJC, they exacerbated the trend against print with the nasty partisan rhetoric of their extremely liberal pundits. Constantly demonizing conservatives as greedy racists in one of the reddest states in the country was just bad business. I subscribed for years until I just got tired of being called a bad person by the AJC’s editorial staff for daring to disagree with their narrow-minded views. I am not alone in this and it speaks to why the AJC’s circulation drops have significantly exceeded the national trend.
By Chad Harris
February 6, 2009 2:28 PM | Link to this
The mayor should fund a $100-$200 laptop program for an XO from the One Laptop per Child Program or comparable netbook for every person in the town who can read.
That way, they have access to thousands of news sources—and one thing to tell the major is that AJC with the exception of occasional editorials now imports all of its national and international news from wire services or other papers.
If the catatonic putz Buddah Purdue were more than a cretin block of wood, they could take the money wasted every year on obscure crap no one cares about to aggrandize some bonehead cracker in some South or North Georgia town and fund a program like this.
The Clown show continues. Rethuglicans blathering the same old crap of tax cuts. Yep they worked so well during the eight years of the Chimpy administration didn’t they?
598,000 Jobs lost by the Bushie administration in January. What a performance. 10,000 homes lost per month. What a performance.
The Paul Krugman Zombie banks just grow and grow don’t they?
On the Edge
“A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to economic recovery. Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old clichés about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts.
It’s as if the dismal economic failure of the last eight years never happened — yet Democrats have, incredibly, been on the defensive. Even if a major stimulus bill does pass the Senate, there’s a real risk that important parts of the original plan, especially aid to state and local governments, will have been emasculated.”
Looking at Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonally adjusted numbers for nonfarm jobs (defined as those not involving farm work, general government, private households, or nonprofit organizations serving individuals), in its 8 years (from January 2001 to January 2009 (est.)), the Bush Administration created 2,111,000 jobs or 21,990/month. 150,000 to 200,000 per month would be expected to accompany an economic expansion or, in other words, 14.4 million to 19.2 million over the course of an 8 year Presidency.
Under Bush, the economy also lost 4,401,000 manufacturing jobs. These are jobs that traditionally had good wages and benefits and at the end of the Bush Administration accounted for only 12.71 million of the nation’s 134.6 million nonfarm jobs (or 9.4% of them). Bush lost twice as many of these good paying manufacturing jobs during his time in office as he has created jobs of all other kinds. In all, the US lost 25.7% of its manufacturing jobs under Bush.
By jasper
February 6, 2009 2:29 PM | Link to this
It’s been weird. I’ve had a newspaper on my front lawn all of my life. I let my AJC subscription lapse after Arianna Huffington got on the op-ed this past fall. The good news is that at least I had a newspaper to throw-up on.
Now I’ve gotten used to not having a paper. Glad I’m doing my part for the environment. The pay on line idea won’t work and you know it. Too many free sources out there. Not to mention TV online.
Its been a fun ride Jay, and thanks for this blog. Who would have thunk computers would eliminate the newsprint jobs. Doesn’t feel like progress does it?
By carter is a Fool
February 6, 2009 2:34 PM | Link to this
Mike has it right. I also canceled my subscription when the narrow minded views took over first the editorial page and then the whole paper. This is why the AJC has dropped in circulation even faster than the national trend.
The trend for newspapers and traditional print media is down and the AJC out performing the rest of this media in the downward spiral.
Mrs Godzilla is still infected with BDS (Bush Delusional Syndrome) and has even invented a new problem that our former President was responsible for declining newspaper sales. It seems that she needs a BoogeyMan to blame everything on.
I did read the entire piece and it is well written. The problems of the AJC are magnified by their narrow minded reporting and viewpoints that are irrelevant to most Georgians.
By gttim
February 6, 2009 2:42 PM | Link to this
One interesting thing I read about this that has stuck with me: The newspapers were never in the business of selling newspapers, they were in the business of selling eyeballs. Most media does not really sell their media, they sell eyeballs. The question becomes how to continue to make advertising money in this new medium. I don’t think anybody is going to survive on subscription costs alone.
By Davo
February 6, 2009 2:43 PM | Link to this
The reason newspapers are failing is because the mass media business is utterly saturated. Most of the ‘news’ is free; Creative Loafing type regional papers, internet, TV,…etc.
Having said that, alot of what is out there is totally irrelevant. I probably know more about Brittany Spears than my own state representatives by shear osmosis (a fact I’m not proud of). Under the constant barrage of cr@p some things just happen to stick. That said, no newspaper is going to pass up on a juicy story involving some hollywood airhead if it knows it will sell extra copies. So it dumbs down its readers, who in turn look elsewhere to find either more competant reporting or more inane and pointless gossip.
It is ashame but I have to admit, the ever-shrinking Sunday AJC is becoming less and less informative. Rarely is there an international story which I’m not already aware of, and most regional stories are barely a byline. The rest is advertisements and comics from the 1940’s.
Govt intervention here would be as great a moral hazard as it is anywhere. Aint it funny though that Bookman is against it when it hits closest to his heart and wallet but willing to champion intervention for any other industry.
By Taxpayer
February 6, 2009 2:52 PM | Link to this
Good story, Jay. Our local paper has taken numerous steps to stay afloat over the years as well. They’ve been sold several times and they’ve even changed the size of the paper. They’re set up in a little hole in the wall with just barely enough room to move around. And, on top of that, they always have extras available for free. I guess that’s because they have a minimum run requirement that exceeds the customer base. You guys need to set up something with the library system or something to get subscriptions out to the little towns and maybe give them permission to print a local copy, on 17x22 or some other smaller size (like a print on demand system) for all the old-timers that hang out in the barber shop, etc. You just need to start tinkering with different approaches.
By the way, if it were not for those worthless Republicans out there — the racists, the “we don’t need no rules and regulations” idiots, the “we don’t need no steenking taxes” bums, and other such scum — you would not be in this mess. These stupid Republicans dare to call themselves “conservatives”. I throw my virtual shoe at the lot of you who soil the name, “conservative”. Now, go back to your bogus “family values” and your jars of peanut butter. Eat hearty.
How was that? Good. I thought so. 8>)
By Mike
February 6, 2009 2:55 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer -
Stop whining.
By Redneck Convert
February 6, 2009 2:55 PM | Link to this
Well, there’s alot of reasons I don’t get the newspaper:
You can buy a can of Skoal for what it costs to buy two copys of newspapers.
You don’t pile up a big mess that’s got to be took to the trash. I can use my PC to get the news and never need to take out a bunch of papers.
None of the papers anymore are Conservative enough to suit me. Far as I’m concerned, they are all librul. They promote this equal rights junk and crybaby about the poor, etc. I don’t want my money going to help out a bunch of librul writters that want to raise my taxes.
The missus never learned how to read so there’s no point in bringing a paper home.
We don’t have a bird or anything that needs to do You Know What on a paper.
Fox News don’t come in paper form.
Anyhow, the AJC can go under far as I’m concerned. There’s suppose to be lots of shovel jobs in this stimulation bill. Maybe Bookman can get one of those. Wooten’s too old to do one of them or he could have one too. Heck, he can’t even get up in time to write a morning column.
Have a good day everybody.
By DebbieDoRight
February 6, 2009 3:01 PM | Link to this
[[The crisis in journalism is in part because reporters have no longer chosen to be objective, but now display their bias in their reporting. The news is slanted way to the left as evidenced in last year’s presidential campaign. Chris Mathews has tingly feelings running up his leg every time Obama speaks. Yikes. Hardly objective.]]
Not NEARLY as objective as say, Fox News?
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 6, 2009 3:04 PM | Link to this
carter is a fool
it would be lovely if you would post using the same name all the time…..personality disorder perhaps?
would you care to explain the rise of the news on the “internets”?
By Chad Harris
February 6, 2009 3:05 PM | Link to this
Obama said he was shutting down Gitmo trials and ole Jidge Pohl got a little confused. Gitmo is not part of an Independednt Third Branch. It makes up its own rules; it incarcerated hundreds without charges indefinitely. It allowed worthless heresay evidence and torture evidence. The heresay was bought with some of the dollars pi$$ed away by the Bush administration.
Jidge Pole has been shut down and charges have been dropped against the defendent in the Gitmo Kangaroo Court. It’s closed down Jidge Pohl. Pack up your illegal bags and ship out.
The case being prosecuted is that of Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi citizen of Yemeni descent accused of planning the October 2000 Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole warship, which killed 17 service members.
It will now be prosecuted in a federal court instead of the idiot Gitmo court puahed by fat man Cheney.
News Flash to the family members of the Cole. We have a court system in place. It’s far from perfect but it doesn’t allow heresay and torture products as evidence.
And from Bank America (the Bank that took TARP money and spent it on bonuses and $10 billion on a Superbowl party:
Paul Kelleher: Yes, I’m calling to inform you that my mom died on the 24th of January.
Bank of America Estates representative: I’m sorry. Oh, it looks like she never even missed a payment. That’s too bad. Well, how are you planning to take care of her balance?
PK: I’m not going to. She has no estate to speak of, but you should feel free to just go through the standard probate procedure. I’m certainly not legally obligated to pay for her.
BOA: You mean you’re not going to help her out?
PK: I wouldn’t be helping her out — she’s dead. I’d be helping you out.
BOA: Oh, that’s really not the way to look at it. I know that if it were my mother, I’d pay it. That’s why we’re in the banking crisis we’re in: banks having to write off defaulted loans.
By Mike
February 6, 2009 3:07 PM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight -
Of course FoxNews is a joke. Don’t we need to set a higher standard than that?
How about a news source that isn’t dominated by conservatives or liberals for a change. You know, a source that will actually report the facts without twisting them to fit a partisan lens?
The problem is even worse with newspapers which generally hold a monopoly in the town in which they operate. At least between MSNBC and FoxNews you can watch them both and glean some truth in between the spin. There is no such opportunity for local papers.
By The GodBlogger
February 6, 2009 3:09 PM | Link to this
I am the future of newspapers.
By Taxpayer
February 6, 2009 3:10 PM | Link to this
If the paper were delivered free of charge, the Republicans would still be complaining about it. They would want someone to bring it indoors and read it to them and them dispose of it for them — for free. The minority party needs to get used to a new way of life that does not involve getting their way for free any more. Pay as you go should apply directly to everything that a Republican asks for.
By Mike
February 6, 2009 3:12 PM | Link to this
Chad Harris -
Do you think that your juvenile vulgarity adds any weight to your argument? Or is this just another way for you to vent your mindless rage?
By Mike
February 6, 2009 3:13 PM | Link to this
GodBlogger -
I am all for that! You can’t be any worse than what we have gotten from the AJC.
By Eric
February 6, 2009 3:14 PM | Link to this
I would be opposed to any fees. I’m already paying enough for the Internet. Doesn’t the AJC already receive a fee/royalty from the Internet provider?
By The GodBlogger
February 6, 2009 3:17 PM | Link to this
No, i meant i got a paper delivery route, AND i can do these funny things with my fingers and my lips…..
Jklol
By Copyleft
February 6, 2009 3:18 PM | Link to this
Newspapers are stuck in a paradox as well as a time-warp.
On the one hand, everyone complains that they offer “fluff” instead of serious reporting. On the other hand, entertainment always earns MUCH bigger bucks than dull, dry old humdrum news. People say they want journalism, but what they tune into and pay for is sensationalism.
Then there’s the time-warp factor. We’re still putting plant squeezings on tree pulp and handing it around by truck? And CHARGING for it? Nonsense. It’s the freakin’ 21st century—news is 100% online, and 100% free. Any other model is doomed to failure.
By Mike
February 6, 2009 3:21 PM | Link to this
Copyleft -
How does one make money on a “100% free” product when advertising revenues are not capable of covering expenses?
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 6, 2009 3:21 PM | Link to this
DAMN THAT LIBERAL MEDIA
D’UH
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 6, 2009 3:23 PM | Link to this
DOUBLE DAMN THAT LIBERAL MEDIA
Double D’UH
By Mike
February 6, 2009 3:25 PM | Link to this
“By Eric February 6, 2009 3:14 PM | Link to this I would be opposed to any fees. I’m already paying enough for the Internet. Doesn’t the AJC already receive a fee/royalty from the Internet provider?”
Nope. Not a penny.
By Bosch
February 6, 2009 3:28 PM | Link to this
Every time I’ve seen a poster here talk about how the subscriptions to the AJC are going in the tank, I usually ask, what about the other print news media or magazines - no one ever answers. Or I ask if they know the number of hits they get per day on their website - again, no one ever answers.
That’s because they are all going down because of the Internet.
I even heard a Congresswoman from TN make the same absurd assumption about the NY Times about a year ago.
I buy Sunday papers because I need them for the fireplace - I don’t read them.
And, can any of you AJC critics out there tell me what is so bad about the AJC? What is it exactly that makes it so liberal?
By Copyleft
February 6, 2009 3:28 PM | Link to this
Mike: That’s the perennial Internet-business question, isn’t it? So far, nobody’s found an answer.
But as far as the consumers are concerned, the choice is made. We’re getting our news online, and we’re not paying for it. The people have spoken!
By Taxpayer
February 6, 2009 3:31 PM | Link to this
You got that right, Mrs. G. Those no good liberal papers and their liberal reporters. When are they gonna go after Obama. After all that hounding of Bush. 8>)
Republicans are such idiots. But, you gotta love ‘em. Like Saxby — he’s such a good lap dog for the sugar industry.
By DB, Gwinnettian
February 6, 2009 3:32 PM | Link to this
“And, can any of you AJC critics out there tell me what is so bad about the AJC? What is it exactly that makes it so liberal?”
They published Arianna Huffington on the op-ed page, once, apparently.
By AJC/DNC Management
February 6, 2009 3:38 PM | Link to this
Aahhh, yes, even McBushie is turning into a full fledged Con-
{{{{“$50 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts — all of us are for the arts,” McCain said. “Tell me how that creates any significant number of jobs? After-school snack program is probably a good idea. Do we really want to spend $726 million on it?”}}}}
No wonder Oblahmi is whining, even the “reachers” are keeping their hands to themselves.
ew
By TW
February 6, 2009 3:40 PM | Link to this
Mrs. G - expectation of the left is always higher than that of the right.
Says it all, really.
By Taxpayer
February 6, 2009 3:43 PM | Link to this
If you want to increase subscriptions for the AJC, the Republicans claim that all you need to do is include a full-page color photo of Sarah Palin or Ann Coulter in a bikini…with a rifle…a big rifle…a really big rifle. Republicans…can’t live with ‘em.
Dick. It’s safe to come out from under the bed. That bad, bad, bad, bad, 16-year old “terrorist” that you tortured is not going to come after you.
By Bosch
February 6, 2009 3:49 PM | Link to this
DB,
Oh, well that explains it.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 6, 2009 3:50 PM | Link to this
McCain: Stay the Course!
By Mike
February 6, 2009 3:51 PM | Link to this
“By Copyleft February 6, 2009 3:28 PM | Link to this Mike: That’s the perennial Internet-business question, isn’t it? So far, nobody’s found an answer.
But as far as the consumers are concerned, the choice is made. We’re getting our news online, and we’re not paying for it. The people have spoken!”
Well, gee. I hope that the people speak soon and decide that they don’t feel like paying their mortgage any more. I’d like that monkey off my back.
Just because we want stuff for free doesn’t mean we get stuff for free. That’s just basic common sense. Somebody’s got to pay the bills or the business goes under, regardless of what the people want.
By Ty Webb
February 6, 2009 3:54 PM | Link to this
What’s next for newspapers? Maybe other “reputable” papers will take their cue from the AJC, and start selling Obama merchandise.
By JAY BOOKMAN
February 6, 2009 3:57 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer. I’ve seen Ann Coulter in person. Ann Coulter in a bikini would not be a pretty sight.
However, I leave the question of Sarah Palin to your own imaginations, which I’m sure are more than adequate for the task.
By jasper
February 6, 2009 4:22 PM | Link to this
Mrs G,
With inexperience and liberal credentials at an all time high in the whitehouse, I would hope the mm scrutinze this administration with zeal nonpareil.
Other than that your link is laughable. Yeah, that’s what I remember about the Bush/press relationship. It was a love fest. Surprising that they didn’t try to sweep him into a 3rd term.
Get real. this is all part of the “we have to look like we’re being hard on Obama, so John Q. doesn’t think we’re in the tank”. And they’re trying to blame this change of heart on Bush. No wonder you like the article.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 6, 2009 4:32 PM | Link to this
jasper
Yes, sir, scrutiny is good. Iam all for it.
I suspect your memory on the Bush Press relationship is faulty….or at the very least short term.
Your “expertise” on the matter will certainly be considered against that of the Center for American Progress and Media Matters. Talk about getting real.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 6, 2009 4:43 PM | Link to this
More of that damned liberal media
and we helped theses jerks out….
By Swami Dave
February 6, 2009 4:47 PM | Link to this
Jay:
Good post that highlights some of the challenges that currently exist in the “print media”. I think that the wide-swath “their problem is that they are too liberal” claim over-simplifies some of those problems, but it does in some manner lead in what is likely the relevant problems of the environment.
In an environment where news consumers get snippets immediately (through television, radio, online content, etc), it is a largely uncompetitive plan to provide similar information hard-copy that is at least 12-24 hours old. This problem would only exacerbate for outlets that produce alternate-day or weekly copy. It would be especially difficult if the breadth of content was similar to the material that one could get immediately.
Frankly, print media cannot compete in the realm of news “snippets” that give header and 2-3 paragraphs of content. The consumer can get that from the “talking head” or blog poster a day earlier.
The solution might be more breadth of detail about the things being covered as opposed to highlights. In facilitation of the online material, a similar model might be to clearly identify the news item and material for it, but expand comment on the topics to a wider audience (inviting their participation).
As someone already shared, the AJC is selling eyeballs (and I would argue preferably engaged eyeballs) over paper.
Just some quick thoughts. -Swami Dave
By jasper
February 6, 2009 4:51 PM | Link to this
My expertise needs go no further than every NYT op ed piece for the past 7 years, and every other liberal rag about to go bankrupt.
It wasn’t media scrutiny with Bush, it was media activism. And now they’re trying to sell us on their own revisionist theory of a “cozy” relationship. Don’t you remember all of the articles on “Bush’s war with the press” in 05.
Geez, what are you drinking, I need some of that. And just so happens its happy hour.
tootles.
By Paul
February 6, 2009 4:57 PM | Link to this
Jay 3:57
That is a visual I do not need, thank you very much.
I’d read the Time piece this morning. This was telling:
“There is, however, a striking and somewhat odd fact about this crisis. Newspapers have more readers than ever. Their content, as well as that of newsmagazines and other producers of traditional journalism, is more popular than ever — even (in fact, especially) among young people.
The problem is that fewer of these consumers are paying. Instead, news organizations are merrily giving away their news. According to a Pew Research Center study, a tipping point occurred last year: more people in the U.S. got their news online for free than paid for it by buying newspapers and magazines”
Rather sounds like going to the cinema and the owner’s out front, passing out DVDs of the movies showing inside. Then he wonders why no one is buying tickets.
Or, as they said back in grandma’s day: “Who’s going to buy the cow if he gets the milk for free?”
‘Sounds as if there’s been a collective lemming mentality on a par with the Wall Street geniuses over how to adapt the business model to the new medium (Internet). The answer of the management geniuses? Give it away.
Hopefully, unlike those folks, media management hasn’t been taking bonuses to reward their nonperformance.
I’d advise charging for content, where ever you put it. If it has value, charge. If it doesn’t, give it away.
Hi Bosch!
5 hours 5 minutes
By @@
February 6, 2009 5:32 PM | Link to this
Because the Pakistani people are disenchanted with their new government, President Zardari released A.Q. Kahn, who, in 2004 confessed to his involvement in the proliferation of nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya in hopes that……?
Security! Kahn can’t leave home without it.
Thbbpppt
By deegee
February 6, 2009 5:39 PM | Link to this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWtHEmVjVw8
By RW-(the original)
February 6, 2009 6:13 PM | Link to this
The dead tree era of newspaper publication is over. It’s good that the AJC has decided they’re a web site that also happens to put out a paper, but the decisions that were made trying to save the paper pretty much kill any chance of making a go of it as a web site if the model is to charge for it. The decision to reprint news from other sources to such a huge extent gives the AJC nothing to offer that can’t be had elsewhere and trying to compensate for the lagging circulation by raising prices just compounded the problem.
The answer lies in advertiser support. Like it or not, you’ll never have enough independent content to charge for a web site based on news of the day. If one really took the mindset that “we’re a web site that happens to print a paper” then you would make the print edition widely available for as little as possible, including putting it out for free and ending all home delivery, and use it to promote the web site where the consumer could find expanded stories and interaction.
Once you got to the web site you would have the standard ads you have on the screen now, but also charge a premium for ads that would run before the expanded story would load. Even then it’ll only work if you truly have some content that can’t be found elsewhere.
A fee based site for everyday news is a loser of an idea and trying that really would put the AJC out of business.
By Paul
February 6, 2009 6:37 PM | Link to this
RW-(the original) 6:13
Hope if they try it they at least comp you -
done laughing yet?
By RW-(the original)
February 6, 2009 7:01 PM | Link to this
Paul,
When I filled out my app for the conservative writer position one of the topics I said I’d like to tackle would be ways, other than just hiring me, to save the AJC.
By Eric
February 6, 2009 8:02 PM | Link to this
“To Mike” Well the AJC gets advertising income from the Internet—is what I meant. Look at all the ads we have to see to scroll through the news. So no, I would not pay additional money to view the AJC!
By james woodham
February 6, 2009 9:00 PM | Link to this
I too lamented no longer being able to purchase the ajc print edition. I do detest reading the “paper” online and I will never pay $$$ for an online “newspaper”. If it comes to that I hope you do indeed go out of business.
By Copyleft
February 8, 2009 9:44 AM | Link to this
Mike: You’re missing the point. A mortgage is a contract; a newspaper is not.
People have decided they simply don’t want to pay for news any more, and if none is available for free, they’ll do without. That’s the death sentence for newspapers.