Newspapers are drying up (Cops/Squeezer where you at)

[Vehicle]

All true TK but advertising will never be profitable for online traditional newspapers.

[Cops]

I just rely on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to give me all the news I need to hear every day.

I'm glad I understand the difference between news and pundits.

[Cops]

How do you all feel about so many newspapers going under? Cops/Squeezer I know you two are media heads, specifically into journalism so your opinions as well would be appreciated.

Progress or die, that's the bottom line. Don't expect people to pay for online news, they can get it somewhere else for free. There has been statistics and reports out for the past several years noting that print was becoming less and less lucrative.

The main issue I see, at least is print media is more less an old mans club that refuses to adapt or change. Print journalists are being told, "listen we need to start creating more online content". That includes online newscasts and stories in the form of 1-2 minute packages. Do these journalists actually want to adapt or change? Not really. I helped with a seminar at Sheridan College (My school) to help bring some of print journalists from Metroland (media giant) up to speed. Unfortunately 90% don't give a shit about learning new technology and the other 10% suck really bad at it. Training those people was met with complete resistance.

What's going to happen? Those journalists could potentially lose their job to young kids such as myself who are semi decent at editing and camera. Not everyone of them is going to lose their job, but the market for print is rough. Media in general is a poop industry right now, however it'll turn around in 4-5 years.

[Epinephrine]

I just rely on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to give me all the news I need to hear every day.

I think you're trying a little TOO hard. Why am I the only one who's noticed?

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

You're not the only one who's noticed. Most of us are just bored with Kthx's "Johnny One-Note" trolling on a whole.

[Squeezer]

seriously, I don't want to sound like I know what I'm talking about because I'm likely to be screwed by the death of the newspaper in a few years, but I trust the media-savvy of my generation to take news in a whole different direction. We have the technology and the training, all that remains is for it to catch and our generation to come of age and actually start caring about news sources. I think we'll come up with new ideas, it's just that no one knows what those ideas are or where they'll come from just yet.

[Vykromond]

Why am I the only one who's noticed?

http://forums.trenchwars.org/showpos...4&postcount=30

[Cops]

seriously, I don't want to sound like I know what I'm talking about because I'm likely to be screwed by the death of the newspaper in a few years, but I trust the media-savvy of my generation to take news in a whole different direction. We have the technology and the training, all that remains is for it to catch and our generation to come of age and actually start caring about news sources.

Agreed, media is passing into the hands of the younger generations. I think someone mentioned that this is symbolic as baby boomers are leaving the work force, and so should their rigid way of covering news.

It's kind of a forceful thing if you think about it, half the old timer journalists have no clue how to use technology. I don't even look at the keyboard when I type, think about your parents when they try to use a computer. It actually blows my mind how much we're becoming involved in new technology, and to some extent how we're actually getting good at it.

[Epinephrine]

There was a really great article about this on the New York Times the other day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/op...ml?ref=opinion

I agree with that article. I think the age of local papers is sadly over. Only the largest will be able to survive online, but there will still be enough competition for it to be viable. Meanwhile local news will change. Either local papers will purely deal with local issues and perhaps feature some international news from the majors, or they will be replaced by prominent online local sources of news. All those bloated sections in the daily paper will be gone, and we'll see more barebones stuff which is what people want to read anyway.

News will still happen, it just won't be like before.

[Cops]

Mississauga News is an affiliate of Metroland, I believe we have over 700,00 people in my city? The way the paper survives is by dumping a shit load of advertisements into their paper. It's not a bad idea, they've also got an online news cast (looks like shit), and a couple reporters/cameraman that wouldn't know a fucking tripod if it hit them in the dick.

Will this paper die? Nah, but I hope I get someones job. Print journalism is going to be hit harder locally then it will nationally, thank god the CBC might shrink but won't crumble.

[Troll King]

I think the smaller commuter papers will have more legs than the larger dailies. Those small, free papers that are usually distributed at bus and subway stations can be relevant longer because they're targeted towards the daily commuter. People will still pick them up and read on the way to work because they are convenient due to their small size, distribution system and cost. And because they're usually owned by the larger papers, they have much the same content in a condensed form.

The question is whether they can leverage enough advertising to survive. I'm not sure, but I think they'll be around a bit longer than the traditional broadsheets.

[Vykromond]

I think the smaller commuter papers will have more legs than the larger dailies. Those small, free papers that are usually distributed at bus and subway stations can be relevant longer because they're targeted towards the daily commuter. People will still pick them up and read on the way to work because they are convenient due to their small size, distribution system and cost. And because they're usually owned by the larger papers, they have much the same content in a condensed form.

The question is whether they can leverage enough advertising to survive. I'm not sure, but I think they'll be around a bit longer than the traditional broadsheets.

i agree with this guy

[kthx]

How am I trolling, I am just glad the liberal media has to beg for money from the president and congress they played lap dog to during the elections. It is hilarious.

[Galleleo]

I was about to mention that TK, as far as I know Metro is doing pretty well and it is a free paper.

[Epinephrine]

Now that I think about it, I think we're entering a great period of change.

In the old days, the best newspapers had the best writers, the most in-depth coverage and the most intelligent analysis. That reality was further magnified by TV news and the ascent of the idea of 'action news' ("coming up at 6, police chase, fire burns down 2 houses and how to protect your kids from kidnappers"), which especially appealed to the suburban and scared demographic.

Unfortunately with new technology, the most important revenue streams of traditional newspapers, the classified and jobs sections are becoming completely irrelevant. Meanwhile, the news that gets reported in newspapers is becoming increasing irrelevant to most of the younger generation, not because the actual news itself is unimportant, but because of the slant of the writers (mostly old guys who complain about how the world is today and don't understand the changing world as Cops has alluded to).

I think the very top publications will still have a place in the world as they still do have excellent journalism, and also have the scope and reach to recruit the very best. But increasingly as our generation gets older, and gets more interested in the 'important issues of the day', we too will demand something better than just random blogs or celebrity news sites.

I think in 5-10 years time, we'll start seeing some real powerful online-only news sites with a real following, which will be both technologically plugged into the world, and also intelligent, well-written and truly informative more than any lone blogger could ever be. I just don't think that it's feasible to have infinite tiny news blogs/sites that everyone checks every day (no matter how many RSS feeds you subscribe to, it's not the same). No one has that much time to continuously find new blogs and new sources, and no singular person/blog/individual site can have the sufficient personal resources to produce the same quality of information that a large well-funded organization could.

In 20 years time, these websites, will be powerful entities unto themselves, possibly having public national and world-wide forums where people all over will actually debate the issues of the day. I can imagine sites where politics are discussed by citizens and you have forums where people will get articles posted based on 'online reputation' and ideas will be debated relentlessly by our older selves much like how we debate things at a rudimentary level here on this forum.

Whether or not these sites will be competing with or supplanting traditional media is hard to say, although I bet they will be competing with it. Traditional media isn't going away anytime soon even if many of the lesser ones fail. At the same time, a lot of the work that traditional media currently does will and is already becoming increasingly irrelevant, stuff such as movie/food/car critics, specialty sections of the paper, stock tables, etc.

*Yes I realize I stole my idea from Ender's Game, but hey that's a good book.