Media and the Internet

New Orleans recently became the largest metropolitan area in the country without a daily newspaper. The Times Picayune, New Orleans' paper for 175 years is cutting delivery and sale of the newspaper to Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays. (The cut to three dyas a week won't take effect until the Fall.)

The company that owns the Times Picayune owns several other papers and has done essentially the same thing in smaller towns, but New Orleans is the largest city to date (so far as I know) to be without a daily newspaper. The company will now focus, obviously, on a digital format through its website Nola.com. (It's a wretched site.)

What's your opinion on news and media in general with the internet? Is this going to happen everywhere eventually? Are newspapers obsolete and it is high time this happened? Do you read the paper?

 

I was only just thinking of this the other day.

Part of my morning internet cycle includes two or three news websites. There's the two main Sydney ones that I read, and if I have the time I'll check out a website like BBC for world news. Because of that, there's no real need for me to read a newspaper. It's been years since I've purchased one, and the only time I read the paper is during my break at work, and that's because they have the daily suscription.

In Sydney (I believe it is also available in other states), there is also another newspaper that is freely provided to those making the commute (I've only seen it on trains) to work in the city. It's targeted at a much younger audience, and while there are news stories (world news, sport, finance) the majority of this newspaper contains fun features such as people trying to hook up with people they see during their day-to-day travels, as well as another section dedicated to people sharing funny things they overheard on the train/bus etc. Whilst I don't travel to the city for work, and mainly only for a night out, I always enjoy grabbing a copy, and probably enjoy this newspaper moreso than the other ones. It's much more focused on the lighter side of news, and I find it much more interesting, although that is a significant representation on my approach to world affairs and news in general.

 

Jesus, it pains me whenever I hear morons talking about newspapers aren't important. They ARE important, because they are one of the last sources of things we like to call "facts". Larger newspapers seem to take certain sides, but at least they have a good habit report things that actually happen. Comparing a real journalist to an internet journalist is like comparing a degree from Columbia to a degree from Regent: not allowed, not a contest.

The internet and TV are practicially an entire joke when it comes to news nowadays. People turn to "Opinion news" nowadays, and gone are the great fact-based reporters like Mike Wallace and Dan Rather (who was fired for reporting facts). People want to be told what to think nowadays, so they read racist, two-faced lying sociopaths like Matt Drudge or listen to clowns like Keith Olbermann.

Not. News.

Now, the internet has news sites to check out, but only if they ARE fact-checkers. Too many are not, and because of this we have more debates about facts nowadays than ever.

PLEASE don't kill newspapers. They still have at least one traditionalist fan here.

 

I will always be a fan of and prefer print media over their electronic counterparts. I love the experience of holding a paper on Sunday morning as I'm sipping my coffe. I like the smell of a new book. I like holding it and flipping the pages with my thumb while I'm reading it. I've cancelled magazine subscriptions because they went to an online only format.

I just don't understand you kids and your electronic world.

 

No, they really aren't. The local newspapers in my area, like the San Francisco Chronicle or the San Jose Mercury News, are as ruthlessly biased as any Internet political blog. And their grasp of the "facts" is just as tenuous and riddled with errors. There is literally no difference between their quality of writing and reporting and some jerk-off writing an angry rant.

But it's even worse than that.

Not only do newspapers suck, but they're boring and irrelevant, too. They "report" on stories of local, drug-addicted 65 year-old undergoing rehab. Of some idiot "festival" being held at a local school. Maybe someone actually cares about this. I certainly don't, and neither do most people.

Do you want me to start naming the dozens of high-profile print journalists who simply made shit up? Does Jayson Blair ring a bell?

By the way, most Internet news is written with sources from the AP and Reuters. I trust those two agencies a hell of a lot more than some two-bit hack for the local rag.

Without getting too far off-topic, your last line is complete bullshit and you know it. Rather was fired for using what was very clearly a forgery in his rabid anti-Bush campaign. It's a bad sign when your bosses and friends, who are about as hyper-liberal and anti-Bush as they come, think what you did was a major violation of ethics, and you should be fired.

As for Mike Wallace, the guy was VERY biased in his reporting; are you kidding me? He was a pioneer and great at what he did, but he is literally the grandfather of the reporter trying to push an angle.

Let's stop deifying old reporters. I've read and seen their work. Most of them are every bit as biased, deceitful, and full of shit as the talking heads today. Others were even worse, since they held a MONOPOLY on the news back then. That's never a good thing.

On, the contrary, PLEASE kill newspapers. Good riddance. Let news sites on the Internet grow their reputations through the quality of their reporting and insight, not because they have a monopoly over reporting in the local area like newspapers did.

 

I know exactly zero people who read a newspaper for the news, let alone subscribe to one. Both my parents and grandparents use Ipads for the news, using various sites. They all canceled the paper subscriptions years ago due to price hikes and increased ads, also because they learned what the Internet was and how to use it.

Newspapers are dead, most just refuse to acknowledge it.

 

I was just checking the front section of My San Francisco Chronicle this morning. All the foreign news stories were tagged line Asociated Press, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times. It would seem to me that they are using the same sources as your internet sites except for the local stories. The internet sites are probably going to use the stories written by the Chronicle for their websites. There really are not that many Journalists out there. As far as the papers opinion on a subject in the editorial page, well that is what it is there for.

I grew up working newspapers, delivering them as a child and working in the printing during my college years. The reporters and editors I knew tried very hard not to let their bias show in stories that they were reporting on. I still think that most large daily print newspapers have that mindset.

Focus: I do think that internet news and print news can coexist. The newspapers are going to have to put an emphasis on the local news that the internet is not going to cover, and add value and depth to the headline stories that the internet will always be able to report first. Locally, the newspapers have an online page that is only available to print subscribers. You go to the site for the headlines and then can read deeper into the stories the next day when the paper is delivered.

I think the death of newspapers will be craigslist and auction sites. Classifieds have always been the big money maker for all newspapers and now that is mostly nonexistant.

 

Is it possible that you just have shitty newspapers? Or is this you just presenting facts as opinion again?

A local newspaper reporting on local news? Stop the fucking presses! I doubt it's occurred to you that reporters can't choose what decides to happen any given day. Most news websites aren't going to be reporting on your local news unless there's a massive shooting somewhere. Also, it seems rather presumptuous to group a lot of other people's feelings on newspapers with yours. Based on how you've presented yourself here, your tastes seem to be beyond the mainstream.

Try checking out your paper some time. I'm willing to bet a lot of the news you're reading online shows up in the paper too. Where do you think Reuters and the AP started publishing anyway?

I agree with you on killing newspapers, but not local content. They're outmoded ways to get news to you. Put it all online. The amount of people not on the internet are so few that it doesn't make sense to keep running them.

 

If newspapers were killed off, where would I get cheap wrapping paper or box packing material? Oh, the horror!

All kidding aside, I know a few people that still read the paper daily, but for me, I'd rather use the internet. Hell, chances are it's on my facebook feed before I even look up any news sites.

 

Where we live, we're served by two major local papers, The Dallas Morning News, and the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram. While the DMN is a better paper overall, the Star Tele provides better coverage of our specific local area within the DFW metroplex, so that's been the local paper we've subscribed to (and both provide the NY Times crossword puzzle, which is my primary interest). Well, the annual subscription renewal arrived a few weeks ago and it's risen to $299/year, so we canceled. When they called about our cancellation, my wife told them very clearly their paper wasn't worth $299/year, so they offered it to us for $99. I don't read it other than the "Irish sports page" or an article she points out to me. But I do think the Star-Telegram is headed to a 3-4 days/week publishing schedule. Subscriptions are down, resulting in fewer ad pages, and thus, less revenue. I don't think they can survive as a daily.

We also receive the Wall St. Journal, but for free. A few years ago, I had frequent flyer miles that were about to expire and was offered free subscriptions as a way to use the points rather than let them lapse (not enough for a flight, and not many other options to use them) and one of the subscriptions was for 26 weeks of the WSJ. They haven't stopped delivering it since. They keep sending us solicitations for a subscription, we ignore them, and the paper continues to be delivered. I like the WSJ, despite it's right-wing leanings, but I wouldn't pay for a subscription. I could easily do without it.

We also get the NY Times delivered on Sunday, which is the favorite in our house. The Sunday Review is my wake-up read that morning, followed by the first section, the book review and of course, the crossword puzzle (which we photocopy so everyone gets a copy). That subscription also gives us a digital Times subscription, so my wife and I read the Times the rest of week on our iPads or our desktops at work. I also use the NPR app on my iPad for stories of interest or interviews I may have only heard in part while driving.

 

Newspapers are really the only print media that I don't feel very sad about changing to solely digital media. This is almost solely based on my feelings, which are very important. I only read my news online, or get it from The Daily Show and Colbert Report. I like to read the news throughout the day, and every now and then I find the comments on something valuable, or at least entertaining.

But, I do think newspapers have more value on a local level. It's an important part of the community, to me, to be able to read about all of the little local stories and to keep tabs on events and talk about high school sports or whatever. It wouldn't be the same if local news was solely online. Again, I don't have any serious argument for this. It's just my feelings.

 

Oh shut up. There isn't an evil conspiracy to "present facts as opinions", whatever the hell that even means. (Were you trying to accuse me of "presenting opinions as facts" but, as usual with you, failed?)

Anyone who isn't a complete idiot can readily distinguish which parts of my post above were facts and which were my opinion. I'm not going to start adding qualifiers every sentence just because you're too stupid to distinguish between them.

This is all besides the point. I'm just not interested in the "local news" that they choose to report. And judging by the dwindling newspaper subscription rates, I'm not the only one.

So you agree with me, but had to write a douchey line-by-line response, anyways? Okay.

On a related note, I love that conventional newspapers now have to put their content online and compete with other news sources for clicks, views, and ad revenue. For all the people pining for the golden days of newspapers, you do realize that we're talking about a massive corporate monopoly with an interest in spreading propaganda?

At least now people have a wide range of choices for their news. Choice is generally a good thing.

 

I think the big story here is that people in New Orleans can read. I'm surprised they have a paper that beta delivered any day of the week, let alone 3. Is it just a bunch if pictures or something?

 

Newspapers are politically slanted, 90% of the time to the left. So are the major networks and (to a far lesser extent, especially in the last couple years) CNN. They just present their bias in a far more subtle manner than Fox and MSNBC do.....which makes them more dangerous. Anyone can watch Fox or MSNBC (or listen to talk radio, or read a political blog or "alternative" weekly paper) and see the obvious bias. Some asshole screaming about how Obama/some Republican is a Communist/racist is pretty hard to miss. A lot of it is shtick and Fox and MSNBC do it on purpose to attract viewers who want to see that kind of thing (they're not even really trying to advance an agenda as much as they are trying to make money--hell, they benefit from the "opposing" side doing well in elections, Fox's ratings are better when a Democrat is President). Old media (traditional newspapers and ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN) is just as biased but disguises their propaganda as legitimate news reporting--because they really are trying to advance a certain political agenda. I say good riddance to them.

 

I think we can all agree that all media is biased to some degree. The idiots at cable news networks are only the most obvious. It's up to us as people to exercise critical thinking skills in EVERYTHING we read/watch. If we can do that, then we should be able to determine(as much as we can) what's bullshit and what's not.

As for me, put me in the for-newspapers crowd. Not because I think they are more objective than other media(although the argument could certainly be made, depending on the newspaper), but because mankind was not made to stare at a screen all day. Between my laptop and my iPhone, I spend FAR too much time staring at a lighted screen as it is. That's also why I'll never get a Kindle or anything like it, even though I read constantly.

 

Kindle uses e-ink, which is different than what is on your computer monitor or phone. It's a lot easier and more relaxing for your eyes. Personally though, I am completely fine with computer screens. One advantage is that I can zoom in to make text as large as I want, while a lot of print media suffers from being done in overly small font.

 

I like my Sunday paper, and I don't think it's going away, any more than radio went away when tv came around or that beta/vhs/dvd destroyed the movie industry.

I have used my local paper to find a job or three, sell a bunch of stuff, buy a car, clip coupons (plus one for poverty), and find out about shit like concerts, shows, farmer's markets, local exhibitions and even a visiting museum exhibit. There is not a website counterpart that contains that information (yet). Also, my local paper has a lot of detailed coverage of high school sports, which although I don't like or follow, makes a lot of people happy. It's certainly possible that the paper's attention to local sports has paved the way for a few students to go to college on the basis of their consistent appearance in the paper. Also, I think a lot of people subscribe because they have been in that paper at one point or another. I got a brief write-up for doing Peace Corps, I was mentioned when I graduated university and high school, and my mom sent in a picture of me in Indonesia that got ran. The community aspect of the paper is HUGE and has done a lot for participation in communal events, city planning and participation in local government, which is rare for this part of the country.

My paper is well edited, even making the biased opinions sound entertaining and mildly humorous and it never takes itself too seriously.

The bottom line is the local paper here is well-done, and so locally focused that it can't be easily replaced.