Death of the Regional Newspaper Bureau in Washington

Over the years that I have been in Washington, many of the finest, most sophisticated and most dogged journalists I have known have been reporters in small newspaper bureaus, who have seen it as their mission to make sure that the politicians elected to represent their readers back home stay honest. This story by Jennifer Dorroh in AJR points to a trend in our business that should worry everyone:

“These days, all the major bureaus have space they’re renting out. We’ve all become landlords looking for subtenants,” says Condon, who was bureau chief when he accepted a buyout from the company, which closed the bureau after the presidential election.

“The real tragedy is that as more newspapers cut back, you’re not going to have anybody watching the congressional delegation,” he says. “In our case, we’re sure that there’s a certain former congressman who’s sitting in prison in Arizona who has got to be saying to himself, ‘Why didn’t Copley do this two years ago?’ Because he’d still be in Congress and he’d still be drawing millions in bribes.” (See Drop Cap, April/May 2006.)

“Nobody else would’ve gotten Duke Cunningham. USA Today, AP, New York Times, none of them would devote resources to a backbench, local San Diego congressman in that kind of detail,” he says. “It has to be the local paper.”

As newspapers grapple with the ever-growing pressure to cut costs, more and more of them come to view Washington bureaus as luxuries they simply cannot afford. During the last three years, newspapers – including those in San Diego, Orlando, Los Angeles, Toledo, San Francisco, Des Moines, Pittsburgh, Denver, Newark and St. Louis – have eliminated more than 40 Washington regional reporter positions through layoffs, buyouts or attrition. These were journalists who followed not the splashy national stories but their readers’ parochial interests in Washington. In November alone, Copley and Newhouse News Service shuttered their Washington bureaus, and Small Newspapers eliminated the position of Edward Felker, its lone Washington reporter, who covered six senators and seven House members from Minnesota, Illinois and Iowa.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • Joe Bftsplk

    I don’t have answers, but I have a question.
    Absent local newspapers, how do you create a demand for investigative reporting? I mean the kind of demand that gets someone to actually pay for it. After all, monitoring our leaders is the purpose of a free press, right?
    How ’bout some reality-TV hybrid between C-SPAN and the National Enquirer — “all scandals, all the time”?
    But I don’t want to create a demand for the scandals themselves.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    Here is what I believe. Newspapers hastened their own demise by putting their product online for free. Why in the world would I pay a dime for a newspaper if i can get the same information online whenever I want to? I mean it never made much sense to me as to why they did it but I think we are seeing the price they are paying now. And unfortunately there are not a lot of ways to unring that bell. The only thing i can think of is if every traditional newspaper banded together to either take the papers offline OR charge for online subscriptions. Mind you I would be leading the protests against such actions whilst calling the newspaper people all forms of vile creatures, but its the only way I can see them saving themselves

  • sqr1

    “Nobody else would’ve gotten Duke Cunningham. USA Today, AP, New York Times, none of them would devote resources to a backbench, local San Diego congressman in that kind of detail”
    .
    .
    Actually, TPM did. Kudos to Josh Marshall.
    .
    .
    But no question that America will be worse off with the loss of reporters.

  • Karen Tumulty

    KT here–

    Joe: ProPublica is doing it, on a foundation model, but I think that will be focused on big national inquiries, not keeping track of individual players. And while non-profits can be part of the picture, I don’t think they are the answer in the long run.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    KT-
    .
    We touched on this when we were talking with Jay Rosen.
    .
    It really looks as if this niche will have to be filled with citizen journalists blogging, if it is to be filled at all. That’s not an impossible hope. If you look, for example, at local CT blogs, you’ll see that there is good work being done. Or, at Phillip Anderson’s Albany Project.
    .
    But, as you said, how does this make anybody any money? Which was your shorthand for “What sustainable business model is there for local news coverage?” Still an open question.
    .
    It’s interesting that the article refers to Cunningham, because I don’t read the local San Diego newspaper. Josh Marshall, or one of the minions in his vast media empire does read that paper. That’s where I got my Duke Cunningham reporting.
    .
    Also, while we deliciously remember Jay Carney getting schooled by Josh, all he really did was notice that there was a rash of stories in different local papers–Albuquerque, St. Paul–that US Attorneys were being removed from office at an unprecedented rate. Without that original reporting, the Rove may well have been able to position vote suppression operations in a dozen purple states through the DOJ.
    .
    Without those stories, and his herding up his readers to look for others, there would have been no national story.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Watching the Minneapolis paper go down the tubes has been depressing. As a kid I carried, at different times, the M-Sat morning Tribune, the M-Sat Evening Star and the Sunday Tribune.
    They have cut back so harshly that the quality is painful. More and more NYT and WAPO stories fewer and fewer staff written.
    It’s not just investigative stories it is having local knowledge to inform a story.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    Think about this, if a newspaper charged just a dollar a month per subscriber then they would only need less than 500,000 subscribers month to month to pull in 5 mill a year which is a helluva lot better than giving it away for free I would think

  • rmrd

    I suppose one option is for a group of local newspapers to support DC reporting staffs. The downside is that the emphasis would be statewide rather than local city or county based reporting. The reporter(s) would have to cover the entire state delegation in the House and Senate.

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    “Nobody else would’ve gotten Duke Cunningham
    .
    Sorry, this is wrong. It was a reporter on the San Diego Union-Tribune (a Copley paper) IN SAN DIEGO who “got” Duke Cunningham. It was NOT the Washington bureau of Copley who discovered Cunningham’s crimes. Copley in Washington apparently missed the crimes massively corrupt Congressman had been doing FOR YEARS, right under the nose of DC journalism, including the Copley bureau in Washington. In addition, it was Josh Marshall at TPM who doggedly followed that story, including the firing of Carol Lam (the US Attorney) and the news bits leading to Dusty Foggo’s indictments and others.
    .
    I can’t recall that ANY mainstream journalist in DC EVER contrited a scoop to this story, despite the fact that the Dukester and others have been doing this under their nose for years. Perhaps someone can remind me otherwise.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    cross post. sqrl.
    .
    But I think I’m right on this. Josh didn’t do the initial original reporting, in my recollection. This is a huge issue. Traditional media folks believe the web is parasitic, destructively so, sucking the lifeblood from the host. I don’t think that’s entirely so–look at the Libby trial for an example of original reporting on the web. And look to the local blogs I referred to above.
    .
    But there is a lot of truth to this. All atrios does is watch the teevee, read the web and post links. If there weren’t people doing the actual reporting his blog really would be sucky. It is not clear there is a sustainable business model for some kinds of reporting. KT refers to local papers covering their congresscritter. But there’s also the question of foreign bureaus. It’s hard, if you’re a bean counter wanting to make the quarterly numbers, to justify having a bureau in Riyadh.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    Steve Bennen has an excellent piece up about the left wing blogs vs the right wing blogs and why right wing blogs are largely irrelevant.

  • Karen Tumulty

    KT here–

    I tried to get a link to the past winners of the National Press Club’s Robin Goldstein award, to give you a flavor of the quality of journalism that gets done by regional bureaus, but I couldn’t find a complete list. Robin herself–an Orange County Register reporter who died at a tragically young age of cancer–was a wonderful example.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Aha.
    .
    Thanks James.

  • sqr1

    sgwhiteinfla:
    .
    I disagree. Information wants to be free. Newspapers had two options:
    (1) charge for access to content (and go broke, because nobody will pay you); or
    (2) make money off online advertising revenue (which makes sense since ad revenue is what makes money for dead-tree editions, anyway).
    .
    If I had to point to something that journalists could do that would actually save their profession it would be to enforce their own ethical codes. What is killing the industry is the ability of media companies to package crap together and call it “news”. Where is the incentive to pay for quality, investigative journalism when you can simply drag a couple of people into a studio and have them argue for a few minutes on any topic of the day? Cable news is killing newspapers because TV is considered an acceptable medium for delivering information. But if journalists united and refused to treat cable news as anything other than the lousy infotainment that it is, if the actually refused to go on these shows (looking at you, Joe Klein), maybe things would be different.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    James LA
    .
    Actually I think that was the point the author (not KT) was trying to make

  • fourlegsgood

    Molly Ivins would weep at this news.
    ,
    It’s going on at the local level as well – less reporters means no one is doing the local government beat the way it should be done.
    .
    It really looks as if this niche will have to be filled with citizen journalists blogging, if it is to be filled at all. That’s not an impossible hope.
    .
    It’s no replacement for a vigorous professional press. Most bloggers have to hold down a day job.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Think about this, if a newspaper charged just a dollar a month per subscriber then they would only need less than 500,000 subscribers month to month to pull in 5 mill a year which is a helluva lot better than giving it away for free I would think
    .
    This has been tried. Failed. NYT, Slate among others. WSJ still works this way. But I cannot think of any other.
    .
    Advertising for an audience an order of magnitude or so more generates more revenue than a subscription fee. Not nearly the revenue of auto dealer ads and classifieds. But more revenue.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    sqrl
    .
    Don’t mean to be picking on you, but the teevee is not what we’re talking about here. It’s funny that the tradmed folks like to diss on the blogosphere for being parasitic, because so is the teevee and radio. The original reporting is still done by the newspapers. My local radio newsstation essentially reads the front page of the NYT aloud every morning.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    sgr1
    .
    Its easy to say that nobody will pay NOW because nobody has to. But if every single newspaper including the nationals were charging for access not all of us but many of us would gladly fork over a dollar a month for access to the newspaper. And again they wouldn’t HAVE to get everyone to pay, but if one person paid it would be more than what they are getting right now. Online advertising is cool but most of the time there isnt a lot of money to be made off of those ads. Right now here in Tampa we have two newspapers, the Tampa Tribune and the St Pete Times, one of them is 25 cents a day the other is 50 cents a day so a dollar a month is still a steal. Now optimally this should have happened initially before anybody ever had a taste of free access to newspapers but if they change course now there will be some grumbling but quite a few people will still pay 12 bucks a year for access. Don’t forget that 99 percent of bloggers base their blogging off of articles from a MSM source. Even if it was just bloggers having to pay for access again that would be money that the dead tree crowd aren’t getting right now

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    And I look at the person of the year banner and say “Tina Fey? WTF is up with that?”

  • fourlegsgood

    This has been tried. Failed. NYT, Slate among others. WSJ still works this way. But I cannot think of any other.

    There are no others. And while online revenue is growing, it’s not growing fast enough to replace print advertising losses.
    .
    The problem is especially acute for local papers.

  • James, Los Angeles

    Back in the olden days you didn’t have these regional chains who buy up a bunch of local papers and then suck the lifeblood out of them. Take McClatchy – fine, fine journalism, but massively mismanaged. Their CEO laid off 150 journos while taking an 800,000 bonus as he saw the value of his company decline by 35% in 2007. The journos suffer, but top managment is largely to blame. I think there will be a period where these regional chains will die off, hometown newspapers will spring up again and we will have vigorous competition for readers, whether on line, or print.
    .
    Meanwhile, the credibility of the nationals continue to erode and that trend is accelerating. People just don’t believe them any more, and without credibility, their product isn’t worth much. A period of shakeout of the truly mediocre is probably in order. No one should be sorry to see them go.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    sgw–
    .
    Yeah, but, you would have to form a newspaper cartel to do this. Because if everybody else charged for access, and the St Petersberg paper didn’t, the St Pete site would get all the traffic and lots of advertising revenue. If you can’t link (and, believe me, when the NYT went behind the wall, they lost a lot of readers. the op-ed people all hated the wall.), then you can’t send traffic there.
    .
    The internet really does want information to be free.

  • Joe Bftsplk

    4legs, thanks for mentioning Molly Ivins — I’d been thinking lately how she would have enjoyed seeing this election.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Thanks for highlighting this, KT. I don’t see how we get out of this. Money’s going to be tight everywhere for a while.
    -
    Please tell me that Michael was sent to time out as a consequence of turning in this bit of PR for a failed smear merchant.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    jay
    .
    You have to tie my post upthread together with that one.
    .
    The only thing i can think of is if every traditional newspaper banded together to either take the papers offline OR charge for online subscriptions.
    .
    The only way it works is if ALL newspapers do it. Otherwise people will just go to a different paper’s site and get their info. But if they COULD all get together then it WOULD work because people would have to get their news from somewhere and 12 dollars a year would seem like a steal. Bigger than that the bloggers could then charge for their blogs also especially a blog like huffpo that utilizes tons of different newssources. It would be one stop shoping for 2 dollars a month. Mo money Mo money Mo money Mo!

  • fourlegsgood

    Now optimally this should have happened initially before anybody ever had a taste of free access to newspapers but if they change course now there will be some grumbling but quite a few people will still pay 12 bucks a year for access.
    .
    Sorry, but that ship has sailed. And there’s good research that shows that the consumer mindset of online news being “inferior” (in an economic sense, meaning that consumers expect it to be free and will not pay for it) is pretty much set in stone.
    .

  • Karen Tumulty

    KT here–

    I think you guys need to look more at the financial model for local newspapers. In the old days, if you were selling your kids’ swingset or looking for a job, you went to the classifieds. Today, it’s Craigslist or Monster. And there were six or seven locally based department stores in every city, each of which ran a fell set of display ads. Now, they are all named “Macy’s.” The same is true for the grocery stores.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    jay
    .
    yes a newspaper cartel is what I am saying. Not advocating mind you but saying its the only thing that would work

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    James–
    .
    it seems to me this is tied directly to these companies going public. They have to make Wall Street margins, and the enterprise, if done properly, can’t do that. Without a beneficient master willing to accept single digit margins, it’s not sustainable. There really is no bottom line way to justify a Washington beat reporter for the Topeka Capitol=Journal. Or the Anchorage Daily News, which we have discovered to be a fine newspaper.

  • sqr1

    jayackroyd:
    .
    I understand. My point is that the impact of teevee should be discussed because it has a serious impact on the profitability of print journalism.
    .
    The late Neil Postman noted that the very medium of television is inherently ill-suited to providing information in an intelligent manner. Whether that is absolutely true may be up for debate. But it seems to be the mission of most cable news producers to prove Postman right.
    .
    If the message to Americans from print journalists was “That stuff you get on your TV? That’s not journalism.” then I believe more Americans would make the effort to consume print journalism.
    .
    For all the failings of Fox News in terms of bias and advocating a political agenda, what is perhaps even worse is that they simply practice terrible, terrible, terrible journalism.

  • trifecta

    Does anybody know what the newspaper business is doing like in Europe?
    I am biased of course, but I think the he said/she said model is doomed to failure.
    .
    The most engaged citizens tend to be liberal or conservative. Offering people a sprinkle of this and that, and making everything a balanced mush is not going to target the people interested in news.
    .
    Tis why I don’t understand how that D.C. and Northern Virginia can be so strongly democratic yet we get The Moonie Times and to compete with that we get Fred Hiatt over at the Post with Debbie Howell screaming over his shoulder that his paper is too liberal. It boggles my mind.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    KT
    .
    But its not just newspapers, its also magazines that are getting hit some which I don’t have to tell you. Thats why making people subscribe online, to me is the only answer for print media. But it would take a helluva effort of cooperation between competitors

  • Karen Tumulty

    KT here–

    Also, they were owned by megalomaniacal rich people–you know, just like God intended. Now it’s not ego or civic pride that drives investment decisions in local journalism, but the stock price and corporate overlords who live thousands of miles away and wouldn’t set foot in the community on a bet.

    Not that I’m getting bitter, or anything.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    fourlegsgood
    .
    Ok then explain to me what will happen if every print news source switched to pay to play tomorrow. Where would all the people seeking news go? Seriously I am all ears

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    In the old days, if you were selling your kids’ swingset or looking for a job, you went to the classifieds.
    .
    I did say this. This is the heart of the local paper’s business problem. I think what may happen is more papers going weekly. that’s the small market model now. My hometown paper is a weekly, in what was then rural and is now suburban Maine. Not the Portland paper, that everybody also gets.
    .
    And really being local. High school sports. A very big deal. There will still be a market for that coverage.

  • trifecta

    What about a bbc model? pbs but for papers.

  • James, Los Angeles

    jayack.
    yes, but you run the risk of the nightmare that LA Times is facing with Sam Zell “I haven’t figured out how to cash in a Pulitzer Prize” Zell has been one huge disaster after Tribune ruined the whole paper first. I hope the paper survives. One of the finest in the nation, until Tribune bought it.

  • trifecta

    I used to love me my LA Times. I subscribed when I was a teen still.
    Great metro and sports sections too. Their Calendar section for entertainment was also top notch. I think the Times gos short shrift in prestige compared to the Post and the NY Times.

  • fourlegsgood

    Ok then explain to me what will happen if every print news source switched to pay to play tomorrow. Where would all the people seeking news go? Seriously I am all ears

    Content would be bootlegged in a heartbeat.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    trifecta–
    .
    Yeah, that’s another model that worked here in the past. Dump the whole “balance” and “professional journalism” business and go back to advocacy. But, again, I think that means a reversion to a privately held, not joint stock corporation, model. Like the NY Post. Murdoch is perfectly happy losing money on that. Fox, FTM.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    sgw-
    .
    In the first place, this would be illegal.
    .
    In the second place, cartels are not sustainable. the benefits to defecting are too great.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    pbs runs ads trifecta.

  • trifecta

    I don’t like GE and Disney running news organizations. I am prissy I guess. I like the wealthy bored benefactor model. There are too many problems of conflicts when companies have so many fingers in so many pots. I don’t want ABC covering congress when congress is debating extending the copyright for Mickey Mouse. I don’t want GE run NBC covering a war when they are involved in defense subcontracting.
    The same applies to papers of course.
    .
    It would just be easier to break up television monopolies than of course with print because of the FCC.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    fourleggs
    .
    Here is what I feel you are missing about that. WHO CARES if it gets boolegged? If the newspaper orgs get a dollar off its online component its a dollar more than what they are getting right now. Unless the bootleggers can find a way to hack the paper’s website in a way that gives them free access, the newspaper will get revenue that they are not getting now.

  • fourlegsgood

    Also, part of the issue for newspapers (in selling online advertising) is that the advertisers don’t really understand what they’re buying. (this is what I hear from my friends in that side of the business)

  • trifecta

    They didn’t used to run ads Jay. I think beefed up local pbs outlets with web presences could be an interesting model. As part of their charter, make them cover local news, report on the local congress critters.

  • sqr1

    “It was NOT the Washington bureau of Copley who discovered Cunningham’s crimes. Copley in Washington apparently missed the crimes massively corrupt Congressman had been doing FOR YEARS, right under the nose of DC journalism, including the Copley bureau in Washington.”
    .
    I don’t think this can be emphasized enough. It doesn’t matter how many people you employ if you choose to ignore relevant stories.
    .
    Journalism isn’t technically a profession. But, like the practice of medicine or law, it isn’t always going to be profitable. And yet it still needs to get done. But as long as the practitioners peddle garbage that is profitable, there is no incentive to take the financial hits necessary to do the right thing.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    KT – A big chunk of the problem with newspapers and magazines is unrelated to editorial talent; it’s the cost of print production, home delivery, and the inefficiencies of advertising purchasing and distribution. What newspapers need right now has little to do with anything on the editorial side: they need smart publishers who can push through these tough times and emerge on the other side having captured regional advertising revenue for the online side and a plan to migrate in that direction. This is about cleaning up the balance sheet, not the front page.

  • fourlegsgood

    Here is what I feel you are missing about that. WHO CARES if it gets boolegged?

    Look, I don’t want to argue with you – but someone will ALWAYS find a way to get around a pay model. The horse has left the barn. Newspapers will have to find another business model.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    jay
    .
    I don’t know about the legality of it but I would bet there is a loop hole somewhere that would allow for it. Secondly what would the defect to? Would they want to go back to giving their copy away for free? Some how I doubt that. This would be the one time in the history of cartels where there would truly be no need for competition and the benefits would be obvious for sticking together on this one issue. Put it this way, news papers have always cost money. Might have been a nickle at one point might be a dollar today, but nobody every thinks twice about handing over money for a dead tree newspaper do they? Now what if we had always paid for online news sources? There would be nothing unusual about it. In one way or another we pay for news everywhere but the internet. Whether it be paying our electric bill to watch local tv stations on our paid for TVs or paying for dead tree newspapers and magazines. It really wouldn’t be all that radical to charge for online access except for the fact that has never been widely done before.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    sgw-
    .
    No, they tried this. They get more money from advertising to a very large audience than they do from a small subscription audience. Even the print editions don’t make their money from the subscription cost. The money is in advertising. The bottom has dropped out of advertising for local papers. For the reasons KT cites.
    .
    trifecta-
    .
    Yes it is a bad thing for a company that depends on government for making its money (IP re Disney, MIC re GE) to own media companies.

  • sqr1

    Re: Craigslist.

    There is no question that free services like Craigslist have cut into the profits of local papers. But like record companies over the past 15 years, newspaper owners have sat back and allowed technology to undermine their business model without a coherent response.
    .
    Sure, they would like to make money off of classifieds. But wouldn’t you rather give away the classifieds for free in order to drive traffic to your site and foster community good will?

  • sgwhiteinfla

    fourleggs
    .
    Lets use the music industry as an example. Everybody thought Napster would be the end of the music industry and it did in fact help cripple it some what but then a funny thing happened on the way to the dance. Those music companies started suing mofos for downloading their ish. What came out of that? itunes for 99 cents. People are now like “hey whats 99 cents, of course Ill pay that rather than be worried about getting sued” And now you have the music industry back to making money albeit not like they used to. Its the same premise. Instead of allowing something to be desiminated for free, you charge what seems little or nothing and not many people complain and you make at least SOMETHING off of the deal. Otherwise print media will have made itself obsolete by giving away its product for free

  • sqr1

    RE: pay-for-content
    .
    I’d also note that bloggers generally don’t like (and don’t link to) content that is hidden behind a subscription wall. Less links, less traffic, less revenue. Its robbing Peter to pay Paul.
    .
    More and more, the blogs are the electronic water-coolers of our age. What is the benefit for an investigative journalist (or a pundit) to be hidden behind a subscription wall and cut out of the public discussion? Who wants that?

  • sgwhiteinfla

    jay
    .
    I know that print editions get their money from ad revenues but I don’t think ads are the way to go online. I am not saying I am the average person but I can say that in the last year I don’t remember having clicked on an ad on a news website even once. So then what do you do? Now I know you keep saying its been tried before but it actually hasn’t. If the NYTimes charges for access but the NYPost doesnt I will just go to the NYPost. Or better yet I will wait for a blogger to put up a post about the NYTimes articles and read that. But if there ever comes a time where to read an online newspaper you have to pay no matter which paper it is there really won’t be any choice. And again when it comes to print news sources you already don’t have a choice and you never have. People are conditioned to pay for print media. They just would have to be conditioned for internet access to the same media sources. Again I am not advocating it because I would rather get my news for free. But if they want to save themselves that to me is the only way to go. Now we are up to post 54 and I can’t recall another option being bandied about to save print media from their downward spiral. I think that the print media serve a very good purpose and many times if we lose the dead tree editions then of course we will lose the online editions as well so I am all for saving these companies. The question is how. Can somebody tell me another option? That is other than letting that slimeball Rupert Murdock buy up all the companies.

  • fourlegsgood

    I don’t think a song that you can play over and over is equivalent to a newspaper article. Look, it’s a big problem and no one is sure where the answer is.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    sgr1
    .
    What would they do if they didn’t have a choice? Would they just say screw it, no news for me? Would they blog only about stuff that happened on their street? Or would they pay something like a dollar a month to have access to the news 24/7/365?

  • sgwhiteinfla

    OT
    .
    Somewhere John Boehner is busting a blood vessel!

  • FlownOver

    The fact that Sarah Palin has a degree in journalism tells us all we ned to know about the future of the profession. Me, I’m gonna take my BSJ and see if I can turn it into the world’s biggest spliff – just to ease the pain.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    OT again
    .
    JTP just won’t go away

  • fourlegsgood

    The fact that Sarah Palin has a degree in journalism tells us all we ned to know about the future of the profession.

    .
    Well. That’s tarring with a pretty broad brush.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    This guy should never get another job in political advertising
    .

    Still, for Davis, it was an exhilarating if frustrating experience. In addition to the McCain account, his firm oversaw ads for five Senate races, including the hard-fought Elizabeth Dole and John Sununu campaigns.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    FlownOver
    .
    puff puff pass!

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    sgw–
    .
    This is beginning to feel like the Monty Python argument sketch.
    .
    So this is my last comment on the subject. Both models (subscription wall and advertising) have been tried. Other than the WSJ, they have failed. Even models that tied access to subscribers of the print editions, like Atlantic, have failed. What I mean by “failed” is that these models failed to generate as much revenue as open access models generate.
    .
    The only subscription model that has had any success, and fits your “at least get something out of it” idea is the pay to avoid advertising that DailyKos and Salon, among others, offer. I don’t think this will work for a major publication, or a local community publication.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    jay
    .
    And this is MY last comment on the issue
    .
    I don’t believe you can go off of historical models because there was never a time when EVERY news source was subscription only. If you have an option to go to a different source which may not be as high a quality but is free most people will choose free. Again look at the history of print newspapers. They have always cost something and people have always payed for them. The reason they don’t now is because in large part they would rather get the news for free online than pay for it.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    trifecta–
    .
    Yes, some kind of local PBS/community blog/citizen journalism model may be what emerges. We’ve seen glimmerings of that. For example, the coverage of the CT senate primary on the web looked like that. The trouble is that covering corruption at the local VA hospital or, as KT, posted about, the doings of your congresscritter is not inside that budget scope.
    .
    There is a basic, deep, hard to get at problem with these enterprises run as for-profit entities in the current US for-profit climate. There is no way to justify, on the bottom line, the work required to investigate the illegal wiretaping story. It took Lichtblau and Risen an enormous amount of time to put that story together, and it ran, to what, six pieces? It’s not worth it. The paper net lost money on that story.
    .
    But.
    .
    If all the paper does is run stories that have a positive bottom line story by story, they’ll have eaten the brand. It’s because of this effect that walls are constructed between editorial and advertising. It’s why you hear people rattling on about the sanctity of journalism.
    .
    A joint stock company is not concerned about the ethics or social value of what it does. It is, sorry should be, concerned about maximizing shareholder value. (One of the epic fails of our generation is that the people ostensibly given the responsibility of maximizing shareholder value, don’t) If you interpret this on a quarterly basis, you end up with a product that deteriorates to the point that people won’t buy it. I happen to be watching this, live, here at home, where Mrs. J is pressed by her corporate masters to meet impossible targets with inadequate resources in an unrealistic timeframe. Sorta like KT or JK being told that, oh, besides providing the same copy you’ve been providing to the magazine, you also need to generate a couple dozen blog posts a week. Except, believe it or not, worse.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    By the way GG says Jane Hamsher will be on Rachel’s show tonight to discuss Brennan

  • jose

    Newspapers have to go online. The current revenue model doesn’t work anymore. They are losing more and more subscribers daily. Just like the music business, something new is required.

    Just for the heck of it.
    I’ve checking out various news sites for awhile and have been unable to find any single site that provided navigable information that covered all I wanted to see. Just like everone here, I have a number of sites I go to everyday to find the news. The NYTimes is the best but the majority of the good stuff is buried in 10 point. Locally, SF has but one serious paper online and it’s a poor copy of everybody else’s. It’s about 3 or 4 headlines and then it’s back to the buried in 10 point again.

    Somebody has to create a new model for news online. The ads will come (no ads = no retail).

  • Karen Tumulty

    KT here–

    I went away for a couple of hours hoping you guys would have figured this out for me.

    You’ve failed me!

  • trifecta

    Thinking back on the LA Times, I do recall how when they went after advertisers, heavy advertisers including I believe a car dealership and/or Macy’s bailed. That has always been a big concern of mine with advertiser financed news. There is a concern about not ticking them off. I think that our current model with large multinational corps owning media, financed by ads from other bif corps does have an inherent problem. It’s not just that a news organization would find it hard to criticize the corporation that signs their paychecks, I think it might be hard to criticize others. How often does ABC do exposes on GE, or Time Warner? Or NBC on Disney?

  • wvng

    KT. Yes, but we did get to “hear” jay say: “This is beginning to feel like the Monty Python argument sketch.”
    .
    No we didn’t.
    .
    Yes we did.
    .

  • wvng

    Speaking of which:

  • wvng

    KT, more seriously, at least there seems to be broad agreement that finding a viable model for local and regional news is essential. Of course that, plus $2.75, will get you a good cup of coffee.
    .
    No it won’t.
    .
    Yes it will.

  • wvng
  • wvng

    KT, somehow this YouTube that Sullivan posted seems really relevant to this thread:
    .
    When The Odds Are Against You -

  • sgwhiteinfla

    wvng
    .
    I just saw that video and its AWESOME. I showed it to my kids and they loved it!

  • wvng

    sgw, totally awesome, but the people in that little Zodiac were incredibly lucky. As was the penguin. :-)

  • wvng

    Oh, and sgw, no you didn’t.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    wvng
    .
    yes I did

  • davemc321

    I worked 20+ years for a Dallas newspaper with a strong regional reputation. Ten years ago, we had bureaus in Austin, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, DC and Mexico City. We were given time – 10 months and more – to examine/investigate topics that gave reader value that extended far beyond our circulation area. Today, there is a partial bureau in DC, a shortened staff in Austin and one person in Mexico City. The rest are gone.

    When I left with buyout 2 months ago, 23 people left with me. A month later, more than two dozen were laid off involuntarily. There had been two other RIFs in the same number of years. The luxury of letting people spend time to understand the complexities of a story and then put them into context for the reader was gone. Time is money and when you’re not filling spaces in the newsprint you’re costing the corporation money.

    That simply became reality. But here is the point, exactly at the time when newspapers should have marked themselves different from the web AND from TV by longer, sharply written explanatory pieces that, in the old adage, comforted the afflicted and afficted the comfortable, they flinched, cut staff and added more crap to the web.

    Sorry to bring the personal here, but there was a time when local and regional newspapers meant something, provided something valuable and necessary to the public. I’m not sure what they do anymore.

  • ivb3016

    As to the classifieds, when I worked for a university library, we always used to place an ad for a position in our local daily as well as in professional journals. We have a local graduate library school and thought it a good idea that might attract some people who might not be looking for a job at the moment. People tended to check the ads even if they weren’t in the market.
    .
    However, the Phila Inq kept raising classified rates until it was just not feasible for us to keep on advertising. It is part of the mind set of pricing to the highest possible profit while ignoring what the customer considers reasonable cost. I’m sure the same model applied to all the other classifieds which helped Craig’s List to take hold.

  • ivb3016

    And, as a newspaper subsciber who is so compulsive that while I am away my papers are being held and I will read through them when I get back, I am really dismayed by their decline.
    .
    They cut out the suburban coverage – there went local news apart from the city. Then they cut back of columnists and brought in more canned opinion. Now it is death by a thousand cuts. Each week seems to bring an announcement of some little thing gone. For example, a couple of weeks ago they said they would no longer have any tv listings in the daily paper except prime time, cutting morning, afternoon, and late night because they were in the Sunday section. However, a long time ago they cut the late night from the Sunday section and it was only in the daily paper. Endless stuff like this and finally there isn’t any reason to buy the paper.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Is Politico making money?
    .
    Politico is said to be making money on its print edition. Short run, distributed in DC.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    Newspaper Bailouts?: Seven legislators from the area served by The Bristol Press and The Herald in New Britain today wrote to the state Department of Economic and Community Development to ask for its help in preventing the closure of the newspapers. — (Link)

  • FlownOver

    fourlegs –

    Seriously, the Palin degree is the singular symbol of the trend of current American journalism. Facts bad, entertainment good – because facts bore and glitz sells. Public interest in scandals

    There are many dedicated, intelligent professionals like our KT, but I’m convinced the trend is away from reporting and toward infotainment – even (or particularly) in the purportedly serious media. The crap tends to push out the excellent, to the end that we get journalism fit only for the idiocracy. There will always be the talented, committed investigative reporter, but that role is increasingly seen as taking space/airtime away from the more profitable Britney Update.

blog comments powered by Disqus