Not reading a newspaper?
Patty
read a book that you don't like and I thought about this recoreded
message I hear when I call for the 97th time to ask where are
newspaper is- cause it's not in the box and it got me to thinking
about newspapers. The recorded message says something like "miss a
minute miss a lot" well yeah that's why I want to know where my
newspaper is... but anyway just a couple of days ago I read a tirade
from some journalist about newspapers and how they should just die out
already etc. He was vehement about this and though you may have
discussed this I for one would miss my morning newspaper. I mean I
can't imagine a world without newspapers though I suppose it will
happen. There was another man who declared the Panda a lost cause and
we should just let them die out. Yeesh. I don't know which would be
sorrier. A world without Panda's or a world without newspapers.
Who'd a thought that we'd even have to consider either?
Patty
STJensen
> There was another man who declared the Panda a lost cause and
> we should just let them die out. Yeesh. I don't know which would be
> sorrier. A world without Panda's or a world without newspapers.
> Who'd a thought that we'd even have to consider either?
What world do you live on? You think us losing the panda might be
less important than losing newspapers?! What world do you live on?
As for newspapers dying out, it is inevitable and it is a good thing.
As for being inevitable, you can access news stories on the net the
moment they're posted. By the time the newspaper gets published and
distributed, it is old news. And if you use things like Google News,
you can access more than one article about the same news event. See
it from different perspectives. Learn more of the full story.
Balanced partisan reporting.
As for the death of newspapers being a good thing, I am not an
environmentalist but have you ever thought what a waste of trees
newspapers are? A few minutes read and it is trashed. By the next
day, it is of no value. What I'm surprised is that environmentalists
haven't gone on a campaign against newspapers. It is a ripe almost-
undefendable target.
Scott
ia...@notcox.net
It seems to have escaped your notice that much of that news you read for
free on the 'net is produced by news organizations that get most of
their (declining) revenue from newspapers. There will be far less
original news material on the web after all those papers die and their
journalists have to find other employment. I don't see that as a 'good
thing'.
I like google news myself, but its parasitic, and without its hosts, it
too will die.
Ian
Joan in GB-W
"Patty" <plidd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:74752249-45dd-4724...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
I love my morning newspaper, Patty, and would . . . make that will hate to
lose it, as I surely will in another year or two. It has become smaller and
smaller year after year and eventually it will simply disappear. And I will
miss it while I am having my morning cup of coffee.
I would also miss Pandas, but have faith enough that they will survive if
only in zoos.
Joan
Lynn Allen
> but anyway just a couple of days ago I read a tirade
> from some journalist about newspapers and how they should just die out
> already etc. He was vehement about this and though you may have
> discussed this I for one would miss my morning newspaper.
I used to miss my morning Free Press after I moved to California. Tried
the LA Times for a bit, but my new husband didn't read them and they
just stacked up and up and up...Also they didn't have the right comics.
So gradually my routine evolved to get news online, comics also, I
learned to live without the Sunday feature sections, picking my reading
of interest from magazines or online. Sometimes now I'll pick up a
stray newspaper in a restaurant, but mostly the loss is when you REALLY
need some newsprint for a messy job. The info I still get.
The mainstream media is taking a licking lately in their lack of
honesty and their bias in even choosing what is going to be reported.
The scandal that no mainstream outlet even reported on the ACORN tapes
until after Congress de-funded them (at that point they kinda had to
explain the whole thing to people) is shameful. Those of us who read
the blogs, though, followed it from the beginning.
The newspapers and the other media are killing themselves. They become
less and less trustworthy and less and less relevant as they go on. If
they manage to reinvent themselves in the blogosphere, some of them
might make it. For instance, if I were a newspaper reader now, I'd
subscribe to something on my Kindle.
--
--
Lymaree
Stanley Moore
"STJensen" <recreati...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b52320c-1b5f-4c1b...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Scott
***********************************************
I believe most newsprint is made from sustainable trees. After logging new
trees are planted which as they grow absorb CO2. I believe newspapers are
doomed much as buggy whip makers lost their work when autos came in. Time
marches on and it is useless to push against the river. I will be 61 soon
and most folks much younger than I do not read the paper. The Houston
Chrinicle which I subscribed to for 30 years has become a shodow of itself
and sells on the newstand of $1. It's losing ad revenue which is the
lifeblood of newspapers. I tired it on Kindle but found I didn't really read
it because it was awkward to navigate it. Too bad but that is the way the
world works. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
Lois
"Patty" <plidd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:74752249-45dd-4724...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
I get up every morning, eat half my breakfast, have a cup of coffee and read
the newspaper. Then I eat the rest of my breakfast, have another cup of
coffee and work 2 crosswords and a cryptoquote. If the newspaper is late it
disrupts my whole morning and I am very cranky. Terrible to be so set in my
ways I guess but I have been doing this every morning for 12 years now. The
paper is about half the size it use to be and I suppose eventually will
completely disappear but I don't think I will be around to see that. My
parents read the paper every day and I have been doing it for about 55
years. I have never been able to understand people who never read a
newspaper. I guess it's more understandable now since there are so many
other sources of news. 50 or 60 years ago that wasn't so true and I think
people missed a lot by skipping the newspaper.
Lois
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 4485 (20091006) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4485 (20091006) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
Larisa M
I've never read the newspaper. I get my news online. Mainstream
media has pretty much destroyed all the credibility it used to have.
I don't trust it, and I don't particularly want to read biased
propaganda peddled as "news".
Never mind all the environmental issues involved with manufacturing
paper (even if it's recycled - it still takes energy and water and
various materials to manufacture), printing things on that paper,
having tons and tons of drivers drive around flinging these papers
onto people's lawns in the morning (think of all that gasoline), and
then having everyone throw it all away the next day. Such a waste.
LM
P.S. And really, I've found that my blood pressure and my state of
mind have considerably improved since I stopped following the news
altogether...
Pogonip
>
> Sorry about following my own post, but this I can't resist. I've just
> been watching the news on the local TV station. Appears that
> Canberra's chief envelope opener officiated at the presentation of a
> new journalism scholarship to one of the students at a local
> university. It commemorates a favourite son journalist who spent 40
> years in print and electronic media here in Canberra and the honour is
> thoroughly deserved, because he was a real pro and one of the best I
> can recall.
>
> However, the talking heads reading the story or commenting on the
> event talked repeatedly about how this guy was such an ornament to the
> "journalism industry" and how, hopefully, the scholarship would
> attract the brightest and best to the "journalism industry",
> yaddayaddah. Right there, I realised, is the nub of the problem that
> has been driving me nuts for years. These peanut brains genuinely
> seem to believe that _they_, journalists, are the end, and not just
> the means to an end.
>
> Can you imagine a doctor talking about the doctor industry, coal miner
> talking about the coal miner industry, or a truck driver talking about
> the truck driver industry?
>
> Personally, I always thought that these people worked in the news or,
> if you must, the entertainment industry.
>
> They should get a sense of proportion and get over themselves.
>
> Mique
Television newsreaders are not journalists. They just read what's on
the teleprompter, giving it some inflection and emotion, often totally
inappropriate for the content. (As in Bright Cheery Voice, "Can you
tell us how you felt when you learned your child was ripped into 73
pieces by the rampaging alligator?" Big Smile.)
News today is driven by press releases. Maybe followed up with a phone
call or two. That's about it.
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/
STJensen
> It seems to have escaped your notice that much of that news you read
> for free on the 'net is produced by news organizations that get most of
> their (declining) revenue from newspapers. There will be far less
> original news material on the web after all those papers die and their
> journalists have to find other employment. I don't see that as a 'good
> thing'.
Yes, this is the common rebuttal given by the newspaper industry. But
look at what is being developed now. Reporters who have been laid off
are starting up their own news blogs. New journalism graduates, after
not being able to get a job on newspapers, are doing likewise. This
is a natural trend.
Also, really look at the newspapers. Only a very tiny bit of their
news content is actually made by them. The VAST majority of it is AP,
UPI, and syndicated material. And even what little original content
they do produce, an overwhelming amount is thanks to public relations
firms. Some lazy reporters don't even try to hide this and simply
slap their names on PR releases as if they're news articles.
> I like google news myself, but its parasitic, and without its hosts, it
> too will die.
No, it would start pulling from news blogs ... and, in fact, is
starting to do that already. Unlike newspapers, news blogs greatly
benefit from the increased traffic.
Scott
STJensen
> I'm not sure that anyone has read newspapers just for news since radio
> and TV became common place. I think the benefit of good print
> journalism was mainly that there was time and space to analyse an
> issue thoroughly, and with a degree of though, something sadly missing
> from all but the rarest electronic journalism, and exceptionally rare
> and hard to find in cyber-journalism.
Actually, the thing that keeps main stream reporters in check is
blogs. Blogs have time and time again caught main stream media lying,
distorting facts, and only reporting half of the story. And look at
the New York Times. It doesn't even report news its partisan
perspective doesn't like, as was the case with Van Jones and ACORN.
This got so blatant that they even ran a Op-Ed piece about it. Of
course, they don't think they did anything wrong, that their shit
doesn't stink, that they're not a partisan newspaper, blah, blah,
blah. Oh, what they are doing is assigning an editor to monitor cable
news and blogs so they don't miss something in the future. *LOL*
> But, sadly, the economics of running a large daily quality paper are
> probably such as to send it into extinction long before the Panda.
I don't think there's ever been a quality newspaper. Read up on the
history of newspapers. It isn't pretty. The phrase "yellow
journalism" was about newspapers long ago. Long before TV, radio, and
blogs came about.
Scott Jensen
STJensen
> Never mind all the environmental issues involved with manufacturing
> paper (even if it's recycled - it still takes energy and water and
> various materials to manufacture), printing things on that paper,
> having tons and tons of drivers drive around flinging these papers
> onto people's lawns in the morning (think of all that gasoline), and
> then having everyone throw it all away the next day. Such a waste.
Excellently said!
Scott Jensen
Lynn Allen
> Right there, I realised, is the nub of the problem that
> has been driving me nuts for years. These peanut brains genuinely
> seem to believe that _they_, journalists, are the end, and not just
> the means to an end.
The people who make TV shows know that their products is eyeballs, not shows.
The journalists seem to have forgotten, or never known, that theirs is
the same. Eyeballs on the ads the media sells.
--
--
Lymaree
Francis A. Miniter
Well, not following the news at all has a clear end
position: Sarah Palin. Do not go that direction!
Right now we have a paradigm that allows you to get free
news on line. Newspapers cost money; internet news services
do not. But in a very short while, the people that run the
newspapers are going to realize that they will have to
charge for the internet content or go broke, as newspaper
use decreases and can no longer subsidize the internet
publication.
As it is now, you can check with the websites of NY Times,
Washington Post, etc., etc., to see who got the story right.
But if you need a subscription to each of those entities'
websites, then you are quickly going to find that it is too
expensive to get your news at all.
I truly believe that with the shift from paper news to
internet news, the paradigm must inevitably shift. The only
question is whether the news servers can garner enough
advertising to keep the cost down. Note that when you read
a newspaper serially (page by page) you are exposed to all
the ads. But on-line, you can select articles on a random
search basis and avoid all the ads. How then does a news
source make advertising work so as to keep the cost down?
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
Nancy2
> we should just let them die out. Yeesh. I don't know which would be
> sorrier. A world without Panda's or a world without newspapers.
> Who'd a thought that we'd even have to consider either?
>
> Patty
For me a computer screen, TV screen or Kindle will never, ever,
replace a real paper newspaper or book. I hope I'm gone before
newspapers go away for good.
(I almost agree with the "Pandas are a lost cause" guy. It's real
tempting. Survival of the fittest, and all that. Note I said,
"Almost.")
Wes Struebing
wrote:
<snip>
>
>However, the talking heads reading the story or commenting on the
>event talked repeatedly about how this guy was such an ornament to the
>"journalism industry" and how, hopefully, the scholarship would
>attract the brightest and best to the "journalism industry",
>has been driving me nuts for years. These peanut brains genuinely
>seem to believe that _they_, journalists, are the end, and not just
>the means to an end.
>
>talking about the coal miner industry, or a truck driver talking about
>the truck driver industry?
>
>Personally, I always thought that these people worked in the news or,
>if you must, the entertainment industry.
>
>They should get a sense of proportion and get over themselves.
>
donnit?
Oh, and they have a sense of proportion, Mique. It's just that it
should be a LARGER proportion...
(we may disagree, sometimes vehemently in our "politics", Mique, but
you'll get no disagreement from me on what you just said. Though it
makes finding those rare joys - like the journalist you mentioned that
I snipped above - a real breath of sunshine.)
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
ia...@notcox.net
> On Oct 6, 6:00 pm, "i...@notcox.net" <i...@notcox.net> wrote:
>> It seems to have escaped your notice that much of that news you read
>> for free on the 'net is produced by news organizations that get most of
>> their (declining) revenue from newspapers. There will be far less
>> original news material on the web after all those papers die and their
>> journalists have to find other employment. I don't see that as a 'good
>> thing'.
>
> Yes, this is the common rebuttal given by the newspaper industry. But
> look at what is being developed now. Reporters who have been laid off
> are starting up their own news blogs. New journalism graduates, after
> not being able to get a job on newspapers, are doing likewise. This
> is a natural trend.
Do you have any idea how much bloggers make? The vast majority could not
support themselves, let alone a family, on what they can make. Web
advertising just is not as profitable as newpapers.
> Also, really look at the newspapers. Only a very tiny bit of their
> news content is actually made by them. The VAST majority of it is AP,
> UPI, and syndicated material. And even what little original content
> they do produce, an overwhelming amount is thanks to public relations
> firms. Some lazy reporters don't even try to hide this and simply
> slap their names on PR releases as if they're news articles.
They don't do a huge amount of local content, but without them how would
I know whats going on in my county at all? All I'd have left then is the
free throwaway rag put out by Republican free-traders.
>
>> I like google news myself, but its parasitic, and without its hosts, it
>> too will die.
>
> No, it would start pulling from news blogs ... and, in fact, is
> starting to do that already. Unlike newspapers, news blogs greatly
> benefit from the increased traffic.
>
> Scott
I don't think the web model is fully there yet, and when it is, it will
cost us more money than it does now. Murdoch seems prepared to go behind
a subscription veil, and the survivors may have to do that too. I love
the huge resource the web is, but I fear we will all have diminished
variety in the end.
Ian
ia...@notcox.net
> On Oct 6, 6:30 pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
>> I'm not sure that anyone has read newspapers just for news since radio
>> and TV became common place. I think the benefit of good print
>> journalism was mainly that there was time and space to analyse an
>> issue thoroughly, and with a degree of though, something sadly missing
>> from all but the rarest electronic journalism, and exceptionally rare
>> and hard to find in cyber-journalism.
>
> Actually, the thing that keeps main stream reporters in check is
> blogs. Blogs have time and time again caught main stream media lying,
> distorting facts, and only reporting half of the story. And look at
> the New York Times. It doesn't even report news its partisan
> perspective doesn't like, as was the case with Van Jones and ACORN.
> This got so blatant that they even ran a Op-Ed piece about it. Of
> course, they don't think they did anything wrong, that their shit
> doesn't stink, that they're not a partisan newspaper, blah, blah,
> blah. Oh, what they are doing is assigning an editor to monitor cable
> news and blogs so they don't miss something in the future. *LOL*
I didn't realize you had an agenda. I disagree with you but this is not
the thread for it, and I know its futile anyway.
Ian
Andrew Barss
: On Oct 6, 6:00�pm, "i...@notcox.net" <i...@notcox.net> wrote:
:> It seems to have escaped your notice that much of that news you read
:> for free on the 'net is produced by news organizations that get most of
:> their (declining) revenue from newspapers. There will be far less
:> original news material on the web after all those papers die and their
:> journalists have to find other employment. I don't see that as a 'good
:> thing'.
: Yes, this is the common rebuttal given by the newspaper industry.
One thing I have never understood about that argument is this:
is there solid evidence that newspaper advertising was actualy worth what
they charged for it? Do local stores gain enough more profit to make it
worthwhile to advertise in a local paper, or was that just a
self-sustaining myth?
I mean, either it's worth X dollars to Y readers to
see a block of news, or it isn't. This has nothing to do with the
physical vs. virtual medium of delivery. Maybe what's happening is that
the near monopolies that newspapers and network TV news shows had is
vaporizing, and so they can't blatantly overcharge for ads they way they
could before.
-- Andy BArss
Patty
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks Ian. I was really just lamenting the fact that some things
will not be around anymore. Wasn't firing shots nor did I expect to
get shot at (figuratively). I wasn't speaking to whether the content
was good, bad, or indifferent, with newspapers only that I would miss
having the physical thing to read and not sure I understood the
response about the Panda but I would miss them too.
Patty
Stanley Moore
Scott
*********************************************************************************
The problem with news blogs is there is no editorial control like you get
from a newspaper. IOW any old thing can pass as news, every inacuracy or
even falsehood can appear. Not that current editors are much good but news
based on blogs seems to be a regression to the rabid newspapers of the 19th
century which had many competing papers all of which were extremely
scurrilous. Take care
Stanley Moore
"Andrew Barss" <ba...@basil.u.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:hak1l5$i6r$2...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
One peice of evidence you can find in your mailbox. Almost every day I get
ads. flyers, brochuers etc. bundled with my regular mail. There things used
to appear folded into my newspaper. So it appears some businesses are
switching more to mail delivered advertising. Someone must think it
worthwhile. As for display ads in the papers when I read one regularly i
mostly ignored them unless I was in the market for something specific. For
instance I would go over the Saturday paper papge by page when I was looking
for furniture or some specific item of clothing, Take care
Lynn Allen
>
> The problem with news blogs is there is no editorial control like you get
> from a newspaper. IOW any old thing can pass as news, every inacuracy or
> even falsehood can appear. Not that current editors are much good but news
> based on blogs seems to be a regression to the rabid newspapers of the 19th
> century which had many competing papers all of which were extremely
> scurrilous. Take care
Sorry, Stanley, but recent events have proved that the "editorial
control" is more likely to be repressive of news than ensuring quality
reporting. The papers have extensive agendas, as do all news sources.
When they were the sole (or with TV) source of news, their bias was
invisible. Now it's blatantly obvious, because blogs post (checkable)
facts that contravene what the papers report, or cover issues that the
papers don't even bother to print.
At least online one can go to multiple sources and build a picture
where all the biases cancel each other out.
--
--
Lymaree
Stanley Moore
"Lynn Allen" <ly...@NOT-semiotics.com> wrote in message
news:4ace...@news.bnb-lp.com...
But do many folks actually do that? I expect thsoe who frequent the
Huffington Post never darken the door of Fox News for example. Just as in
the 19th century people will follow the papers (blogs) that suit their own
predilections and rarely if ever search out contrasting views. I agree with
you that current editors are not up to snuff of say 50 years ago and I doubt
it wll improve. Take care
Joan in GB-W
"Stanley Moore" <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:r4OdnSx8samcjlPX...@giganews.com...
>
> One peice of evidence you can find in your mailbox. Almost every day I get
> ads. flyers, brochuers etc. bundled with my regular mail. There things
> used to appear folded into my newspaper. So it appears some businesses are
> switching more to mail delivered advertising. Someone must think it
> worthwhile. As for display ads in the papers when I read one regularly i
> mostly ignored them unless I was in the market for something specific. For
> instance I would go over the Saturday paper papge by page when I was
> looking for furniture or some specific item of clothing, Take care
> --
> Stanley L. Moore
I love the small ad sections, rather like booklets, with various coupons in
the Sunday newspaper. I go over them carefully and cut out the ones I want.
Joan
Andrew Barss
: I think we could pretty much take it as a given that major business
: enterprises know more about their own businesses than outsiders. While
: I'm not sure whether the same applies to the local small businesses
: that advertise in the local papers, I'd be absolutely amazed if the
: major national advertisers don't know to the last red cent exactly how
: much their advertising dollar returns in sales.
Okay, then if
a) traditional advertising was enough to sustain large news teams at
major newspapers and TV stations, and
b) there is now a preference by some people to get their news on a
computer monitor instead of a TV or a physical newspaper, then
c) I really don't understand the idea that the shift to the newish medium
of the web could/would/has financially undermine(d) the existence of
serious news.
Ads can be displayed just as easily on a computer monitor as on a TV
screen, yes?
- Andy Barss
Lynn Allen
> But do many folks actually do that? I expect thsoe who frequent the
> Huffington Post never darken the door of Fox News for example. Just as in
> the 19th century people will follow the papers (blogs) that suit their own
> predilections and rarely if ever search out contrasting views. I agree with
> you that current editors are not up to snuff of say 50 years ago and I doubt
> it wll improve. Take care
No doubt some/most people read what pleases them. This has always been
the case. In my youth, Detroit had two papers. The morning FreePress
was more liberal, the afternoon News was conservative. Everyone knew
this, and the vigorous competetion between them served to keep both
papers more or less honest when it came to reporting facts, and more
centrist in editorial than might have otherwise been the case. Some
people read both (plus the NYTimes and sometimes the Chicago papers)
but most read the one they liked the best.
As newspapers struggled, they thinned down, started putting out
"combined" weekend editions, and ended up merging entirely. Now there's
a pathetic remnant of the Freep left. I don't even know if they deliver
any more. I sincerely doubt that this remnant has anywhere near the
integrity or scope of the old competition days. I'm morally certain
they don't employ enough fact checkers to really do the job.
As for balance online, I *never* accept the first source I find on
anything to be true. I always search for corroboration, and
corroboration from a source different from the first, if possible. I'm
my own fact checker, and I'm willing to accept when some dearly held
belief turns out not to be true, on closer examination. I hope that
many others operate the same way.
Of course, my minor was in Journalism, and I know how hard it is to get
even the simplest story true to fact. Most people think it's a simple
matter. It is not.
--
--
Lymaree
Pogonip
They used to be worth a lot more than the price of the paper, but the
quality of coupon offerings has diminished, as well. ;-)
Francis A. Miniter
The problem, as I mentioned in another post in this thread,
is that you tend to read a newspaper serially - from page to
page - so that all of the ads are in your face. By
contrast, you read internet news by random selection, so you
do not see most of the ads.
Also, online I may like to look up news on CBS, NY Times,
Washington Post, The Guardian, etc. - but as it is right
now, I can look at all of them without having to pay a
penny. It is all subsidized by their other services, e.g.,
newspaper ads and television ads.
Mary
> >news:r4OdnSx8samcjlPX...@giganews.com...
>
> >> One peice of evidence you can find in your mailbox. Almost every day I
> >> get ads. flyers, brochuers etc. bundled with my regular mail. There
> >> things used to appear folded into my newspaper. So it appears some
> >> businesses are switching more to mail delivered advertising. Someone
> >> must think it worthwhile. As for display ads in the papers when I read
> >> one regularly i mostly ignored them unless I was in the market for
> >> something specific. For instance I would go over the Saturday paper
> >> papge by page when I was looking for furniture or some specific item
> >> of clothing, Take care
> >> --
> >> Stanley L. Moore
>
> > I love the small ad sections, rather like booklets, with various coupons
> > in the Sunday newspaper. I go over them carefully and cut out the ones
> > I want.
>
> > Joan
>
> They used to be worth a lot more than the price of the paper, but the
> quality of coupon offerings has diminished, as well. ;-)
To the point where I put them directly into the recycling wheelie
bin. They're nothing but a nuisance to me.
Mary
Jim Gysin
Mike Burke sent the following on 10/8/2009 5:29 PM:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:42:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
> <ba...@basil.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>> Okay, then if
>>
>> a) traditional advertising was enough to sustain large news teams at
>> major newspapers and TV stations, and
>>
>> b) there is now a preference by some people to get their news on a
>> computer monitor instead of a TV or a physical newspaper, then
>>
>> c) I really don't understand the idea that the shift to the newish medium
>> of the web could/would/has financially undermine(d) the existence of
>> serious news.
>>
>> Ads can be displayed just as easily on a computer monitor as on a TV
>> screen, yes?
>>
>
> If the local newspaper market is any guide, the real advertising money
> is in the classifieds.
Craigslist has destroyed the classified ad economy here in the states.
In fact, it's probably responsible for more lost revenue than any other
Web-related consideration.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
John Oliver
<fami...@comcast.net> wrote:
>The problem, as I mentioned in another post in this thread,
>is that you tend to read a newspaper serially - from page to
>page - so that all of the ads are in your face. By
>contrast, you read internet news by random selection, so you
>do not see most of the ads.
I read the newspaper page by page but ignore the ads unless I'm
planning to buy something. So if I want a new TV, I'll look at ads for
TVs.
--
John Oliver
jdol...@westnet.com.au
AIM or MSN jdoliver98
Stanley Moore
"Lynn Allen" <ly...@NOT-semiotics.com> wrote in message
news:4ace...@news.bnb-lp.com...
That last is most certainly true. I have never seen a newspaper article to
be completely accurate for the times I knew the facts of the case. Others
have told me the same. A former boss's father was tragically killed and he
said the papers got his name wrong, the cause of death wrong, and other
material facts wrong. Take care
Pogonip
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:11:48 -0500, "Stanley Moore"
> <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> That last is most certainly true. I have never seen a newspaper article to
>> be completely accurate for the times I knew the facts of the case. Others
>> have told me the same. A former boss's father was tragically killed and he
>> said the papers got his name wrong, the cause of death wrong, and other
>> material facts wrong.
>
> the journalists concerned got nearly every relevant fact wrong. And,
> having taken one of them (the second incident) to task on the matter,
> the response was, more or less, who cares.
>
> Mique
Why do they always want to know your age? It has no bearing on the
story, in most cases, but they go through so much to make sure that you
tell them. Then they print it. Even if the rest of the story is
inaccurate.
Wes Struebing
wrote:
Lost revenue for newspapers, I assume you mean? Obviously craigslist
is a going concern, true?
Wes Struebing
'Way back in the dark ages, my folks (and even my first wife and I)
used to wait for the Wednesday paper to check the ads and snip
coupons.
Of course, now one can print coupons from a web ad, but somehow it's
not the same.
Stanley Moore
"Pogonip" <nob...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:4ace...@news.bnb-lp.com...
Yeah it wiould be nice if they knocked a few years (decades) off but NO they
get that part right. <G> Take care
Wes Struebing
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"STJensen" <recreati...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:b7d3a85d-e8bb-4b82...@m18g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
>On Oct 6, 6:00 pm, "i...@notcox.net" <i...@notcox.net> wrote:
>> It seems to have escaped your notice that much of that news you read
>> for free on the 'net is produced by news organizations that get most of
>> their (declining) revenue from newspapers. There will be far less
>> original news material on the web after all those papers die and their
>> journalists have to find other employment. I don't see that as a 'good
>> thing'.
>
>Yes, this is the common rebuttal given by the newspaper industry. But
>look at what is being developed now. Reporters who have been laid off
>are starting up their own news blogs. New journalism graduates, after
>not being able to get a job on newspapers, are doing likewise. This
>is a natural trend.
>
Perhaps true, Stanley (and I believe you're mostly right), but the
grounding, backup and resources aren't there for the startups as there
is for the established news outlets, be they tree-killers of
bit-pushers.
>Also, really look at the newspapers. Only a very tiny bit of their
>news content is actually made by them. The VAST majority of it is AP,
>UPI, and syndicated material. And even what little original content
>they do produce, an overwhelming amount is thanks to public relations
>firms. Some lazy reporters don't even try to hide this and simply
>slap their names on PR releases as if they're news articles.
>
>> I like google news myself, but its parasitic, and without its hosts, it
>> too will die.
>
So, too would "real" papers. Without that "host", the paper, too,
would die
>No, it would start pulling from news blogs ... and, in fact, is
>starting to do that already. Unlike newspapers, news blogs greatly
>benefit from the increased traffic.
>
>Scott
>
>*********************************************************************************
>
>The problem with news blogs is there is no editorial control like you get
>from a newspaper. IOW any old thing can pass as news, every inacuracy or
>even falsehood can appear. Not that current editors are much good but news
>based on blogs seems to be a regression to the rabid newspapers of the 19th
>century which had many competing papers all of which were extremely
>scurrilous. Take care
In other words, they're going back to being political tools. Too
often, I fear you are right. Even hard news comes with a noticeable
slant, anymore.
barbara fister
> Never mind all the environmental issues involved with manufacturing
> paper (even if it's recycled - it still takes energy and water and
> various materials to manufacture), printing things on that paper,
> having tons and tons of drivers drive around flinging these papers
> onto people's lawns in the morning (think of all that gasoline), and
> then having everyone throw it all away the next day. Such a waste.
>
> LM
It's not the paper I will miss, it's good journalism. And nobody yet has
figured out how to pay people to spend the time to write and edit
well-researched stories in a subscription-free environment where
advertising is much cheaper.
In Minnesota, MinnPost is a non-profit grant-sustained project that
produces better writing than either of the twin cities dailies, but it's
going to be hard to scale.
http://www.minnpost.com/
If you're interested, the State of the News Media is an annual
assessment of the news industry - quite a good roundup of the issues.
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/
barfly
whose father was a newspaper reporter and editor who started out age 12
as a "printer's devil" - there's a job that no longer exists!
Lynn Allen
>> Both times that I have directly or indirectly featured in the media,
>> the journalists concerned got nearly every relevant fact wrong. And,
>> having taken one of them (the second incident) to task on the matter,
>> the response was, more or less, who cares.
>>
>> Mique
>
> Why do they always want to know your age? It has no bearing on the
> story, in most cases, but they go through so much to make sure that you
> tell them. Then they print it. Even if the rest of the story is
> inaccurate.
It's the one thing that's easy to quantify. Names get spelled (or
heard) wrong, one person's single guy is another's father-of-three (he
tells one reporter he's single, the other he has kids & is divorced),
other details slip & slide. Then there's quoting. Unless you're a
shorthand wiz, you never get all of it. Of course, now I guess people
can record things on their cellphone or pda and get closer, but trying
to properly paraphrase someone who wabbles and wanders and Ummms their
way through questions is a trick in itself.
Even when you try really really hard, getting anything right is tough.
Age, though, that's easy. ;)
--
--
Lymaree
Jim Gysin
Wes Struebing sent the following on 10/8/2009 8:01 PM:
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:45:36 -0500, Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike Burke sent the following on 10/8/2009 5:29 PM:
>>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:42:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
>>> <ba...@basil.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, then if
>>>>
>>>> a) traditional advertising was enough to sustain large news teams at
>>>> major newspapers and TV stations, and
>>>>
>>>> b) there is now a preference by some people to get their news on a
>>>> computer monitor instead of a TV or a physical newspaper, then
>>>>
>>>> c) I really don't understand the idea that the shift to the newish medium
>>>> of the web could/would/has financially undermine(d) the existence of
>>>> serious news.
>>>>
>>>> Ads can be displayed just as easily on a computer monitor as on a TV
>>>> screen, yes?
>>>>
>>> Ah, now I see what you're saying.
>>>
>>> If the local newspaper market is any guide, the real advertising money
>>> is in the classifieds.
>> Craigslist has destroyed the classified ad economy here in the states.
>> In fact, it's probably responsible for more lost revenue than any other
>> Web-related consideration.
>
> Lost revenue for newspapers, I assume you mean?
Yes. People don't like to pay for something that they can get for free.
> Obviously craigslist
> is a going concern, true?
It seems to be, but I don't claim to follow it that closely.
Joan in GB-W
"Lynn Allen" <ly...@NOT-semiotics.com> wrote in message
news:4ace...@news.bnb-lp.com...
As long as they don't ask me my weight, I am OK with any question.
Joan (age is . . . well, ageless at this point)
Mary
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:11:48 -0500, "Stanley Moore"
>
> >That last is most certainly true. I have never seen a newspaper article to
> >be completely accurate for the times I knew the facts of the case. Others
> >have told me the same. A former boss's father was tragically killed and he
> >said the papers got his name wrong, the cause of death wrong, and other
> >material facts wrong.
>
> the journalists concerned got nearly every relevant fact wrong. And,
> having taken one of them (the second incident) to task on the matter,
> the response was, more or less, who cares.
Ah, that Bike Murke is such a picky bastard.
Mary
David Johnston
<ba...@basil.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
Any blog that had the kind of readership to match that of even a major
newspaper these days, would be totally filled with teh crazy.
Francis A. Miniter
It is hard to say with some of these internet operations. I
recently heard that Facebook just had its first profitable
year. It took eBay a good while to get profitable. A lot
of investment money has been dumped into internet
businessess on the hope that they will find a way to make money.
ia...@notcox.net
> STJensen <recreati...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : On Oct 6, 6:00 pm, "i...@notcox.net" <i...@notcox.net> wrote:
> :> It seems to have escaped your notice that much of that news you read
> :> for free on the 'net is produced by news organizations that get most of
> :> their (declining) revenue from newspapers. There will be far less
> :> original news material on the web after all those papers die and their
> :> journalists have to find other employment. I don't see that as a 'good
> :> thing'.
>
> : Yes, this is the common rebuttal given by the newspaper industry.
>
>
> is there solid evidence that newspaper advertising was actualy worth what
> they charged for it? Do local stores gain enough more profit to make it
> worthwhile to advertise in a local paper, or was that just a
> self-sustaining myth?
>
> I mean, either it's worth X dollars to Y readers to
> see a block of news, or it isn't. This has nothing to do with the
> physical vs. virtual medium of delivery. Maybe what's happening is that
> the near monopolies that newspapers and network TV news shows had is
> vaporizing, and so they can't blatantly overcharge for ads they way they
> could before.
>
> -- Andy BArss
I used to advertise an apartment for rent in the WashPost for $60 to
perhaps $80 for a weekend - just two pithy lines!
Now I use craigslist.org for free. It works better too. I found a new
tenant one time in 20 minutes.
Ian
ia...@notcox.net
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:45:36 -0500, Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike Burke sent the following on 10/8/2009 5:29 PM:
>>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:42:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
>>> <ba...@basil.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, then if
>>>>
>>>> a) traditional advertising was enough to sustain large news teams at
>>>> major newspapers and TV stations, and
>>>>
>>>> b) there is now a preference by some people to get their news on a
>>>> computer monitor instead of a TV or a physical newspaper, then
>>>>
>>>> c) I really don't understand the idea that the shift to the newish medium
>>>> of the web could/would/has financially undermine(d) the existence of
>>>> serious news.
>>>>
>>>> Ads can be displayed just as easily on a computer monitor as on a TV
>>>> screen, yes?
>>>>
>>> Ah, now I see what you're saying.
>>>
>>> If the local newspaper market is any guide, the real advertising money
>>> is in the classifieds.
>> Craigslist has destroyed the classified ad economy here in the states.
>> In fact, it's probably responsible for more lost revenue than any other
>> Web-related consideration.
>
> Lost revenue for newspapers, I assume you mean? Obviously craigslist
> is a going concern, true?
craigslist mostly survives on donations, and some real estate revenue, I
think, but most people can use it for free.
Pogonip
> It is hard to say with some of these internet operations. I recently
> heard that Facebook just had its first profitable year. It took eBay a
> good while to get profitable. A lot of investment money has been dumped
> into internet businessess on the hope that they will find a way to make
> money.
>
eBay was profitable from the very beginning. Pierre Omidyar went after
venture capital, then put it in the bank and didn't touch it. I think
it's still there. eBay has always been cash rich. From when the
quarters were mailed to Pierre's condo and he hired a student to count
it and deposit it, until now.
ia...@notcox.net
> On Oct 7, 9:36 pm, "i...@notcox.net" <i...@notcox.net> wrote:
>> STJensen wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 6:30 pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure that anyone has read newspapers just for news since radio
>>>> and TV became common place. I think the benefit of good print
>>>> journalism was mainly that there was time and space to analyse an
>>>> issue thoroughly, and with a degree of though, something sadly missing
>>>> from all but the rarest electronic journalism, and exceptionally rare
>>>> and hard to find in cyber-journalism.
>>> Actually, the thing that keeps main stream reporters in check is
>>> blogs. Blogs have time and time again caught main stream media lying,
>>> distorting facts, and only reporting half of the story. And look at
>>> the New York Times. It doesn't even report news its partisan
>>> perspective doesn't like, as was the case with Van Jones and ACORN.
>>> This got so blatant that they even ran a Op-Ed piece about it. Of
>>> course, they don't think they did anything wrong, that their shit
>>> doesn't stink, that they're not a partisan newspaper, blah, blah,
>>> blah. Oh, what they are doing is assigning an editor to monitor cable
>>> news and blogs so they don't miss something in the future. *LOL*
>> I didn't realize you had an agenda. I disagree with you but this is not
>> the thread for it, and I know its futile anyway.
>>
>> Ian- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Thanks Ian. I was really just lamenting the fact that some things
> will not be around anymore. Wasn't firing shots nor did I expect to
> get shot at (figuratively). I wasn't speaking to whether the content
> was good, bad, or indifferent, with newspapers only that I would miss
> having the physical thing to read and not sure I understood the
> response about the Panda but I would miss them too.
>
> Patty
Me too. I cherish my physical newspaper every day, and fell its such a
great thing to open my door and be able to pick it up off the ground!
Pandas are sweet too, and Sechuan province, where many of them live, has
a special place in my heart too for their wonderful food. One day I will
go there and stuff myself with their food, and go play with the pandas.
STJensen
> Wes Struebing wrote:
> >>> money is in the classifieds.
> >>
> >> Craigslist has destroyed the classified ad economy here in the
> >> states. In fact, it's probably responsible for more lost revenue
> >> than any other Web-related consideration.
Yes, for the average daily newspaper, its bread-and-butter used to be
its classified ad section. That disappears shortly after Craigslist
opens for a city. And Craigslist is continuously growing into smaller
and smaller markets.
> > Lost revenue for newspapers, I assume you mean? Obviously
> > craigslist is a going concern, true?
Very much so. It is the most sited reason for the trouble that
newspapers are in by the newspapers themselves. They simply cannot
compete. It used to be that the classified section in newspapers were
their biggest sections. Now major city newspapers barely have any
classified ad sections.
> craigslist mostly survives on donations, and some real estate
> revenue, I think, but most people can use it for free.
No, it is solely supported by the paid ads for its nine major markets
(as of 2008) and is it very profitable. Or rather, its CEO Jim
Buckmaster once said in 2006, it is as profitable as it wants it to
be. Here's two links to articles about it. Note that their titles.
"Newspaper Killer"
http://tinyurl.com/5mhwcj
"Just an Online Minute ... Stunning Wall Street, Shunning Profits"
http://tinyurl.com/yffu3np
Scott
Steph
price to a ridiculous amount. So a few months ago, I went to Sunday only
and surprisingly don't miss it that much. I found that most of the time
I had already either read the news online or had seen it on TV. Now it's
easier to get ready for work in the morning since I don't have a paper
to dawdle over. And I'm saving a chunk of money, too. The local paper
tripled their renewal rate, which is what drove me to going to Sunday
only delivery for $1 a week. I always try to find a coupon in the ads
that I will use for at least a dollar which makes me feel like I'm
getting my money's worth. :-)
Steph
In article
<74752249-45dd-4724...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Patty <plidd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So I was thinking about the discussion about not having enough time to
> read a book that you don't like and I thought about this recoreded
> message I hear when I call for the 97th time to ask where are
> newspaper is- cause it's not in the box and it got me to thinking
> about newspapers. The recorded message says something like "miss a
> minute miss a lot" well yeah that's why I want to know where my
> newspaper is... but anyway just a couple of days ago I read a tirade
> from some journalist about newspapers and how they should just die out
> already etc. He was vehement about this and though you may have
> discussed this I for one would miss my morning newspaper. I mean I
> can't imagine a world without newspapers though I suppose it will
> happen. There was another man who declared the Panda a lost cause and
> we should just let them die out. Yeesh. I don't know which would be
> sorrier. A world without Panda's or a world without newspapers.
> Who'd a thought that we'd even have to consider either?
>
> Patty
Fran Read
> Why do they always want to know your age? It has no bearing on the story,
> in most cases, but they go through so much to make sure that you tell
> them. Then they print it. Even if the rest of the story is inaccurate.
Joanne, we think alike in so many ways!
Fran (who has been saying that about newspapers for years)
Fran Read
Mary
Hahahahahaha!!!! You're good, Mary.
Fran
Pogonip
We are cousins. Your branch of the family went to the southern
hemisphere. Mine were more stay-at-home types, at least
hemispherically. See? You knew there was a logical explanation, didn't
you? ;-)
Jim Gysin
Francis A. Miniter sent the following on 10/9/2009 9:12 PM:
That's a valid point in general, but I don't think that it applies in
this instance.
Fran Read
> We are cousins. Your branch of the family went to the southern
> hemisphere. Mine were more stay-at-home types, at least
> hemispherically. See? You knew there was a logical explanation, didn't
> you? ;-)
This makes perfect sense to me.
Fran
Pogonip
From what I've seen of my cousin's genealogical workings, if you go
back far enough, it's bound to be true. If anyone came from the British
Isles, anyway. Sheesh, some of those guys got around!!!
Andrew Barss
: Larisa M wrote:
:> Never mind all the environmental issues involved with manufacturing
:> paper (even if it's recycled - it still takes energy and water and
:> various materials to manufacture), printing things on that paper,
:> having tons and tons of drivers drive around flinging these papers
:> onto people's lawns in the morning (think of all that gasoline), and
:> then having everyone throw it all away the next day. Such a waste.
:>
:> LM
: It's not the paper I will miss, it's good journalism. And nobody yet has
: figured out how to pay people to spend the time to write and edit
: well-researched stories in a subscription-free environment where
: advertising is much cheaper.
This is interesting:
http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/11/why-mainstream-media-is-dying.html
-- Andy Barss
K Barrett
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 21:17:19 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
> <ba...@mint.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>> This is interesting:
>>
>> http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/11/why-mainstream-media-is-dying.html
>
>
> Mique
Bravo!
K Barrett
Jr@Ease
Weary, Over Many a Quaint and Curious Forgotten Post, s/he wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent.
And was I the only one who had to highlight the text to read it?
John P
David Johnston
<ba...@mint.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
When it comes to stories about computer hardware, online culture,
virus alerts and the like, online people have a home field advantage.