Fewer Reporters Equals Less News
By Scott Reeves Jul 21, 2008 11:15 am
Sky also blue, grass green, say experts.
A study released Monday by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism raises a basic question: What would we do without experts?
The study found that continued cuts in newspapers nationwide are eroding content.
Now, who could've imagined that?
The real questions are: How did newspaper publishers miss the importance of this gizmo called the Internet, and what’s going to replace the newsgathering ability of newspapers if future cuts reduce them to little more than throw-away circulars?
The study offers neither insights into prior mistakes in the newspaper industry or solid tips for future action. But it offers this gem: Newspaper publishers must “find a way to monetize the rapid growth of Web readership before newsroom staff cuts so weaken newspapers that their competitive advantage disappears.”
Hmmmm, what competitive advantages do newspapers hold? Newspapers do a good job telling readers what happened yesterday, but much of that information is available for free on the Internet - and in real time, as the geeks say.
Stock quotes, baseball scores, weather, news flashes, commentary, election polls -- you name it -- are just a few keystrokes away.
“American newspapers are narrowing their reach and their ambitions and becoming niche reads,” the study says.
The Internet can slice news and interests 1,001 ways and much more cheaply - so this is probably another dead end for newspapers.
For example, no newspaper company would attempt anything like Minyanville.
Here’s hoping newspaper publishers figure something out in a hurry: Without newspapers to gather the news, what would all those bloggers on tricycles do except comment on each other’s spelling mistakes and lousy grammar?
The newspaper death spiral looks like this: Newsprint costs continue to increase, the price of oil drives up distribution costs and advertising and circulation revenue plunges. This means endless cutbacks in the newsroom. The result: Decreased newsgathering ability, fewer pages and fewer reasons for anyone to buy a newspaper.
Electrons are cheap - non-union, too. In short, electronic distribution hold all the cards. Stories and statistics can be instantly updated on the Internet, whereas newspapers are published once a day.
Is there any reason to believe that cutbacks won’t continue at major newspaper companies, including McClatchy (MNI), Gannett (GCI) or even the New York Times (NYT)? Newspaper companies continue to be evicted from the New York Stock Exchange (NYX) as they fall below listing requirements.
Newspapers have strong brand names, but their websites continue to capture only a small portion of the revenue lost by the decline in print advertising. Even classified advertising, once a huge moneymaker for newspapers, has evaporated as advertisers go online and everyone flocks to Craigslist. Auto and real estate, hammered by the current tough times, are also moving online.
This is sad, because reading the Washington Post (WPO) and the tabloid New York Post (NWS) is one of the great pleasures in life.
The survey was conducted online by Princeton Survey Research Associates International between January 29 and February 29. It includes responses from 259 newspapers.
An online survey, eh? Never mind - the dead tree media are in no mood for irony.
The study found that continued cuts in newspapers nationwide are eroding content.
Now, who could've imagined that?
The real questions are: How did newspaper publishers miss the importance of this gizmo called the Internet, and what’s going to replace the newsgathering ability of newspapers if future cuts reduce them to little more than throw-away circulars?
The study offers neither insights into prior mistakes in the newspaper industry or solid tips for future action. But it offers this gem: Newspaper publishers must “find a way to monetize the rapid growth of Web readership before newsroom staff cuts so weaken newspapers that their competitive advantage disappears.”
Hmmmm, what competitive advantages do newspapers hold? Newspapers do a good job telling readers what happened yesterday, but much of that information is available for free on the Internet - and in real time, as the geeks say.
Stock quotes, baseball scores, weather, news flashes, commentary, election polls -- you name it -- are just a few keystrokes away.
“American newspapers are narrowing their reach and their ambitions and becoming niche reads,” the study says.
The Internet can slice news and interests 1,001 ways and much more cheaply - so this is probably another dead end for newspapers.
For example, no newspaper company would attempt anything like Minyanville.
Here’s hoping newspaper publishers figure something out in a hurry: Without newspapers to gather the news, what would all those bloggers on tricycles do except comment on each other’s spelling mistakes and lousy grammar?
The newspaper death spiral looks like this: Newsprint costs continue to increase, the price of oil drives up distribution costs and advertising and circulation revenue plunges. This means endless cutbacks in the newsroom. The result: Decreased newsgathering ability, fewer pages and fewer reasons for anyone to buy a newspaper.
Electrons are cheap - non-union, too. In short, electronic distribution hold all the cards. Stories and statistics can be instantly updated on the Internet, whereas newspapers are published once a day.
Is there any reason to believe that cutbacks won’t continue at major newspaper companies, including McClatchy (MNI), Gannett (GCI) or even the New York Times (NYT)? Newspaper companies continue to be evicted from the New York Stock Exchange (NYX) as they fall below listing requirements.
Newspapers have strong brand names, but their websites continue to capture only a small portion of the revenue lost by the decline in print advertising. Even classified advertising, once a huge moneymaker for newspapers, has evaporated as advertisers go online and everyone flocks to Craigslist. Auto and real estate, hammered by the current tough times, are also moving online.
This is sad, because reading the Washington Post (WPO) and the tabloid New York Post (NWS) is one of the great pleasures in life.
The survey was conducted online by Princeton Survey Research Associates International between January 29 and February 29. It includes responses from 259 newspapers.
An online survey, eh? Never mind - the dead tree media are in no mood for irony.
No positions in stocks mentioned.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(6)
Reply
2008-07-21 12:32:58
A Welcome Death
I must admit I am enjoying every declining tick in the newspaper stocks. Most major newspapers are biased, arrogant and filled with lies.
Two institutions consistently score lower approval ratings than our President- the Democratic-controlled Congress (currently pulling 1/3 his approval rating) and the MSM.
That should tell us all something.
"Pinch" is vaporizing billions of dollars of his family's money and the American public will be the benefactor.
The interesting thing about all this is how well Rupert Murdoch's papers are doing. Either he's a much better manager than most of his peers or the American public prefers to get its news from him.
Two institutions consistently score lower approval ratings than our President- the Democratic-controlled Congress (currently pulling 1/3 his approval rating) and the MSM.
That should tell us all something.
"Pinch" is vaporizing billions of dollars of his family's money and the American public will be the benefactor.
The interesting thing about all this is how well Rupert Murdoch's papers are doing. Either he's a much better manager than most of his peers or the American public prefers to get its news from him.
2008-07-21 12:58:13
A Perfect Example
The NYT showed today (once again) it cares more about political favoritism than giving its readers both sides of the story.
After the NYT printed an Obama editorial, John McCain submitted one. However, it was rejected.
Who rejected it? An editor who previously worked for the Clinton Administration. Why did he reject it? It "didn't mirror Obama's piece".
Well, duh. See, the two authors are running against each other. They belong to DIFFERENT political parties. They don't "mirror" each other. Their positions are in OPPOSTION. See, that's because we live in a TWO-PARTY DEMOCRACY.
It will be reprinted in other outlets (primarily the Internet, of course). Not a single word of the editorial will be changed, and just as many (if not more) people will read it.
So, how does this effect the NYT? More cancelled subscriptions, fewer readers, more charges of bias, lower revenues, more NYT job losses, a further erosion of stock valuation, etc.
Amazing. It's almost like the NYT WANTS to fail. Is it any wonder the liberal newsprint media is dying?
After the NYT printed an Obama editorial, John McCain submitted one. However, it was rejected.
Who rejected it? An editor who previously worked for the Clinton Administration. Why did he reject it? It "didn't mirror Obama's piece".
Well, duh. See, the two authors are running against each other. They belong to DIFFERENT political parties. They don't "mirror" each other. Their positions are in OPPOSTION. See, that's because we live in a TWO-PARTY DEMOCRACY.
It will be reprinted in other outlets (primarily the Internet, of course). Not a single word of the editorial will be changed, and just as many (if not more) people will read it.
So, how does this effect the NYT? More cancelled subscriptions, fewer readers, more charges of bias, lower revenues, more NYT job losses, a further erosion of stock valuation, etc.
Amazing. It's almost like the NYT WANTS to fail. Is it any wonder the liberal newsprint media is dying?
2008-07-21 13:04:10
newsprint's niche
There is one niche where the local newspaper is without peer - that's right, local news. This is even true when you consider the Internet - I doubt I could assemble anything like the coverage of the 5 county, 500+ named township area my local paper covers, even if I Googled for 24 hours straight. If the old-style 'paper has a competitor in this space, it is the local TV station, who has (I am guessing) the advantage of 'mindshare'. The 'paper's advantage, OTOH, is the comprehensive nature of their coverage. On the third hand (^_^), the advertising revenue stream the 'paper is watching seep away is much greater than whatever rate they can get for web ads, on a price-per-letter basis. Plus, the TV station is hardly losing revenue - certainly not at the same rate - so the 'paper is relatively disadvantaged in the local news battle.
bottom line ? Local news. Do you care ? Where will you get it ? Is it worth paying for ?
bottom line ? Local news. Do you care ? Where will you get it ? Is it worth paying for ?
2008-07-22 09:10:42
Less Real News?
It's kind of scary to think of what we would be reading in newspapers if the research was taken from bloggers. I found very interesting a similar subject written by the CEO of 5WPR, <a href="http://ronntorossian.com/?p=155"> Ronn Torossian</a>. In his blog, he mentions how reporters are now using blogs to research stories or phenomena. My concern is that the next time I read an article in the paper, I'll need to ask myself if blog posts have anything to do with a reporters' research or influence.
2008-07-22 11:19:40
Newspapers Don't Realize 'Net's Importance...
.. More like newspapers had trouble figuring out how to make 'NetNews PAY... plus, they were afraid CHANGE would eventually toss them out of their cushy jobs... they might even have to go back to WORK... I enjoy newspapers, but they're dinosaurs... like snail mail...
.. Rupert Murdoch is NOT an American, he feels no compunction to telling Americans the truth about anything because he is not one of us, his foreign-owned Faux News and newspapers tend to print paid lies of the Bush jr. administration because there is more money in lying than in telling the truth... just ask the Talk Radio paid liars...
.. Actually, it's SCARY that most of the media felt compulsed to go along with the Bush jr. lies leading to the unnecessary BushWar on Iraq... eventually resulting in 5,000 dead and 50,000 horribly wounded U.S.Troops that the Bushies would rather sweep under a rug than take care of properly... on top of 3,000 dead New Yorkers on 9/11 and the damaged ones who died later...
.. Rupert Murdoch is NOT an American, he feels no compunction to telling Americans the truth about anything because he is not one of us, his foreign-owned Faux News and newspapers tend to print paid lies of the Bush jr. administration because there is more money in lying than in telling the truth... just ask the Talk Radio paid liars...
.. Actually, it's SCARY that most of the media felt compulsed to go along with the Bush jr. lies leading to the unnecessary BushWar on Iraq... eventually resulting in 5,000 dead and 50,000 horribly wounded U.S.Troops that the Bushies would rather sweep under a rug than take care of properly... on top of 3,000 dead New Yorkers on 9/11 and the damaged ones who died later...
2008-07-22 23:10:19
Less Real News?
Blogs have made a living by uncovering the mistakes of the printed/televised press.
My experience with blogs has shown me that blogs (the good ones) have more integrity, more honesty and more humility than the "mainstream" press.
I don't know why you are so negative towards blogs, but I think the better product offered by blogs is one of the main reasons why readership of traditional printed press has plummeted so far in such a short time.
My experience with blogs has shown me that blogs (the good ones) have more integrity, more honesty and more humility than the "mainstream" press.
I don't know why you are so negative towards blogs, but I think the better product offered by blogs is one of the main reasons why readership of traditional printed press has plummeted so far in such a short time.
Get real-time options trading ideas from Steve Smith, veteran options trader and newsletter author, plus let him show you the way to cut risk and boost your returns through the strategic use of options. Click here for a free 14 day trial to OptionSmith by Steve Smith.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved
















