All the news that’s fit to print?

No Gravatar

Things have been changing.  The Ann Arbor News is no longer a daily- but exists on the web.  Newsweek has basically disappeared (but would probably still be on the newsstands- at least today- had Sid Harman not met his demise.) The Washington Post makes a profit- because it owns for-profit schools.  Everywhere we turn, we hear that our news delivery is changing.

Most of you know that magazines and newspapers don’t get printed because of our subscription fees.  Now, wait, don’t get me wrong.  If we don’t read the magazines and papers, they wouldn’t get printed.  But, that $12 subscription to Fortune- for a year’s subscription- that’s not making TimeLife any money.  They make their money from the advertising companies place in that magazine hoping you and I will notice it.

That makes it tougher for these companies when you and I read their articles on the web.  When we click on the Washington Post website, for example, the article we want to read is surrounded by big, colorful ads.  Because someone has to pay to make the Post want to post these articles for free.

Newspapers

Oh, wait… They’re not doing that anymore.  Just like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, we can only see a certain number of articles each month before we get locked out.  Sometimes, we can only see the first paragraph, other times, just the headlines.

And, it’s not just the newspapers.  Many, many professional journals won’t let non-subscribers view their wares.  However, those journals don’t make money from advertising, which is the case for the newspapers.  They make their money from subscribers- but, most likely, from libraries, whose subscription rates are astronomical. (This has led to a protest, as I’ve reported.)

So, it shouldn’t surprise anyone, given the Great Depression that we’ve just experienced, that a sea change occurred this year.  For the first time since the New York Times began publishing its newspaper 162 years ago (1851), we- the readers- whether via print or digital (you know- the iPad, the Android, or via eMail)- now contribute more money to the New York Times coffers than do the advertisers.   Let that sink in for a moment or two.

That’s right.  An annual subscription to the New York Times now runs $ 660- or $837 for those of us who don’t live in the New York Metropolitan area.  And, if you think that’s steep, consider this- it costs $ 2.50 to buy the Times (Monday to Saturday) at a news stand- whether you buy it in Times Square, the US Capitol, or MacArthur Park in LA.  It skyrockets to $ 5 on Sundays in New York or $ 6 elsewhere.

Before you think that the Times is getting rich off of us, let me remind you that the operating profits for the Times (and Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune [no longer co-owned with the Washington Post], all part of the publishing group) are down- way down.  There was a drop of 60% for Q3 2012, when compared to Q3 2011, alone!

But, this phenomenon exists everywhere.  It’s why the Ann Arbor News no longer publishes its newspaper every day.  Just Thursday and Sundays.  (You know- it’s the big food section, when the local grocers all fill the paper with their inserts, and the Sunday advertising supplements that make the paper the big bucks.) The New Orleans Times Picayune ceased printing its paper completely on 30 September 2012.

Now, no matter what the NY Times tells us, what the Ann Arbor News tells us- or any of these print magazines, you know it means that they are going to have fewer reporters.  Less experienced reporters.  Because they need to cut the salaries they pay, which is the biggest single cost for their operations.

It’s why the TV news operations don’t have as many reporters, as they did before.  Because some ding-dong forgot that they get their airwaves for free to provide us with news as a public service.  (You know- quid pro quo.)  Even the cable news companies have been chintzing on the news.  Where we hear a reporter telling us what happened in Mali- while reporting from Egypt.  Or, describing the floods in Djakarta, while sunning him/herself in Australia.  Or, when MSNBC runs reality shows (really? You think telling me about various criminals in jails is reality?) for hours on end on weekends and overnight.  Where CBS news overnight repeats itself –for an hour or two.  Or, NPR repeats the Morning show.

No, now that we are the prime source of their revenue, these news organizations are going to have to answer to us.  They are going to have to report the news –  or we just won’t pay.

Just so you know, I do read the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post every day.  The Alexandria Times and the Alexandria Gazette weekly (that’s when they publish).  Plus the Long Beach Press Telegram, the LA Times, Detroit Free Press more than thrice a week.  Plus a few others, like USA Today (about the best business section, outside of the WSJ), HaAretz, among others, about 10 times a month…
And, hot, breaking news.. The New York Times reported this morning that it had been under attack from Chinese sources for four months.  Since it reported on the corruption and private amassing of wealth in the families that run China.  They eradicated the attacks yesterday.  (So did I- this blog has been attacked by marauders for 45 days.  They have been repulsed, as well.)
Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter
Share

10 thoughts on “All the news that’s fit to print?”

    1. The good thing (besides the price), Janette, is that the USA Today provides reasonably good business news. (I understand it’s sport section is also above average.)
      And, I am not disagreeing that the news business will have to change- but I am not sure that Kindle is the way to go either….

  1. Information is a cut throat business! I am happy you have pushed off your attackers…it amazes me that people cyber attack like they do. I guess it shouldn’t people have sent others to their death for less than a blogs worth of information.

    And as strange as this may sound. As I read this I kept thinking. “The price of information is high, but the price of ignorance is higher.”

    Great blog, Roy.
    Lisa Brandel recently posted..Don’t Stay On The Porch by Lisa Brandel

    1. I fear, Lisa, if advertising revenue does not pick up, the price of information will go sky high! And, then, information (such as it may be) will be available from those who are providing propaganda and not facts. Oh, wait- that’s already true- it’s called the INTERNET!

  2. That really is amazing to think the New York Times gets more from subscribers than from advertisers.
    Thank god we have the BBC, which I’ve noticed seems to go the other way with reporters, sending lots of reporters all around the world to broadcast from places where the BBC already has perfectly competent reporters who could just as well be linked to from the studio.
    Cheers, Gordon
    The Great Gordino recently posted..Is Your Goal Achievement Plan Still A Blank Page?

    1. Yes, the BBC does provide fine news reporting – which I get (on this side of the pond) for two hours after midnight and a short program (30 minute) on TV. Sigh…We take what we can get.
      Thanks for the reminder, Gordon.

  3. Not so long ago – well, maybe half a dozen years ago, a dozen tops – I used to recollect all the newspapers I could before a field trip. Not intentionally, all my reading is digital. I used to feel bad about it but, now that you mention that you read all those papers, I can guiltless claim that I don’t need to read them because I follow Cerebrations.
    Gustavo recently posted..The scientific method in everyday life

Comments are closed.