OT/The local newspaper is headed toward RIP status
 

Today and tomorrow, hundreds of journalists for Gannett will stage a one-day strike to protest what the company has done to local newsrooms across the country. The local newspaper as we know it is dying. One Gannett paper, the Eugene Register-Guard, has six reporters. Six. The paper barely covers local news anymore in favor of regional news from another Gannett paper in Salem. It writes about Oregon road games by watching the game on TV.

My old paper, the Florida Times-Union, has gone from a high of more than 200,000 circulation in 1997 to 14,793 late last year, when the count was taken. This from a metro area of more than 1.6 million. I was fortunate enough to retire from the news business after 35 years, seeing the writing on the wall. But many of my former reporters and editors haven't been so lucky.

This is a crisis that no one seems to care about. Even the mayor of Eugene, whose office no longer has to answer questions from local reporters, called it "bad for democracy."

I have no answer. And journalism schools keep pumping out graduates. Beats me as to why someone would choose it as a career, but more power to them.

Americans
 

are lulled into a sleepy state of mind either too rich to have to care or working too hard to have enough energy to understand what is going on or too busy curbing the freedom of others. Being informed is a choice and most of us are all cozy in our silos and don't give a crap. It's not about wok. It's about waking up.

I agree with both of the above.

While my local newspaper is still in print, it recently shifted from local delivery to "in your mailbox" at the end of the day. There is no Monday edition, and the Saturday and Sunday editions are combined for Saturday delivery.

None of which has anything to do with the loss of local news coverage, which we fortunately still have.

People are foolishly getting their news from social media "groups" rather than the more objective print journalism that is hanging by a thread.

I have worked on the advertising side of the publishing business for many years, and it's beyond depressing how private equity scumbags keep buying up these local papers and strip-mining them for short-term profit, rendering them unfit for long-term survival, in direct contradistinction to the needs of the community.

I will tell you from personal experience that the "finance" people in charge of these publications are the absolute stupidest, most utterly incurious, and totally irresponsible losers capitalism has ever vomited up.

Who can say what is to be done, but I have to say it definitely feels like way too little, way too late, to try saving institutions that this country's leadership class has decided aren't valuable enough to maintain. Power to the strikers here, but I mean, what is even left to defend at this point?

Anyway, if you'd like to read the magnum opus on this subject, here it is: https://deadspin.com/the-adults-in-the-room-1837487584

As someone in the industry, I can attest that every single word in the above is absolutely true.

When we moved to Baltimore years ago, we got the morning and evening Sun on a daily basis. The Sun today is a skeleton of its former self. You can read it in about 5 minutes. Later, when I started working in D.C., you could buy the Washington Post at a newstand price of $.25. Today it is $2.00 and the Sunday paper is $5.00. With the internet, most people are reading online stories and advertising dollars for newspapers are way down. As a result, a lot of writers have been let go and sections of the paper either eliminated or combined. I used to really like the sports section. But with most games being played at night, and too late to print results, the sports pages are not to me worth reading.

We still have a subscription to the Post (at half price because I am old), because I like holding it in my hand and reading it and doing the crossword puzzle. But the future of printed newspapers looks bleak to me,

This has been going on for a long time, sadly.

Back in the nascent days of the Internet, Craigslist was the culprit sucking advertising from local Bay Area papers such as the Bay Area Guardian and the SF Weekly. Now, with the advent of social media, local papers have fared even worse. Not to mention the concomitant loss of attention from having Twitter and Facebook as your "news source." Reading an actual news article takes a certain amount of concentration, and, sadly, many people lack it.

I switched from crafting adjectives to sculpting triceps a long time ago. But I still love journalism. There's nothing like a hot cup of coffee and the morning paper.

In my town (population 90,000, outside a metro area that itself has a daily paper on the decline) the local paper went through the process described above. It was a weekly, so not exactly a “in the moment” source of information, but the closure left us with virtually no local news. Paper was slowly gutted, regionalized, and then shut down.

There is now a move afoot to create and fund a non-profit news site. Money has been raised to start hiring staff including an experienced editor. Remains to be seen whether it will work but I’ll gladly subscribe once it’s up and running in hopes it will be successful.

Most newspapers of all sizes dug their own graves. Far too few intrepid reporters.
Way too much insightful, interesting, and probing content to be found elsewhere.
My local paper is now essentially a five-page pamphlet of rehashed information.

This is a good discussion, but let's keep the politics out of it.

my apologies
 

I tried to neutralize my previous post.

And on the positive side ...
 

Our town had lost it's local paper a few years ago, but a new newspaper, called the Concord Bridge, has recently sprung up. It appears to be thriving, and has the support of the local businesses, who support the newspaper through print ads. The interesting thing about the paper is that unlike the Gannett style papers, this new newspaper covers only stories and events in (or related to) the town of Concord.

Also, the local "big city" newspaper, the Boston Globe, is still managing to keep its head above water. It has shrunk over the past years, just like other newspapers, but it has done a good navigating the transition to an online subscriber based revenue stream, and now has over 200,000 online subscribers. The owner of the paper (John Henry, who also owns of the Boston Red Sox baseball team) is strongly dedicated to keep the Boston Globe relevant, both from a journalistic and financial standpoint.

I've been a long-time print subscriber to a local tabloid, the New York Daily News. But I'm always now on the verge of canceling my subscription. I read the paper in ten minutes or less while I drink my coffee.

The paper used to have some excellent investigative journalists, and a top-notch sports section. Since it was acquired by Tribune Publishing and then by Alden Capital, much of the old staff of veteran journalists was let go. Now even the recent Devils-Rangers playoff series wasn't covered by anyone on the staff. They just used the AP reports. Most of the time they don't cover baseball games from the previous evening.

The old muckraking spirit seems to have disappeared. Local politicians get away with astounding nepotism and corruption and it's hardly ever covered. Only a very small local newspaper in Long Island wrote about George Santos's background before he was elected.

Pfffft. I worked for the largest magazine publisher in the world. Seven printing plants churning out millions every week. That publisher, Time Life, is gone. Poof.

Craigslist killed newspapers a long time ago.

I think one solution is to tightly restrict access to the web versions of newspapers before the paywall kicks in. Hopefully that would entice readers to subscribe.

I know advertising was a big contributor to newspapers' revenue but how they can cover that in the internet age is something I don't have the answer to.

I still subscribe to the local paper but wrestle with renewing every time it comes up.
- My subscription is significantly more expensive than years past with less content.
- Subscriptions significantly down with no sign of recovery.
- Ad revenue is also significantly down with no sign of recovery.

It's a business model that has not adapted to how people receive their news (good or bad).

You can lament the situation, but I do not believe it will improve.