> I asserted that product "A" was declining because product "A" had > declined in quality. That the decline in quality was caused by sharp > staff cut backs and forced retirements of their most talented > producers. I further asserted that maintaining the quality of the > product was the responsibility of management.
I don't think it's that simple. > Others asserted that product A's decline was due to the ascendency of > product "B" and that A's management was powerless. You asserted that "B" had no bearing on the situation, an assertion unsupported by fact. I assert that the Internet (oops, "B") is an extremely disruptive technology for publishing and they are still wrestling with how to cope and adapt to it. I agree that journalism has been in decline for some time now, probably longer than when I earned my undergrad degree in Journalism in 1990. A good number of the students in the program were idiots and clueless as to current events at the time. That didn't bode well from my view. Who knows how many of them went on to a career in journalism, but it was slim pickins for talented and informed writers. Are newspapers powerless? No, but publishers are clearly in a bind and not sure how to sell their product in a medium that expects information for free. If your market is inexorably shrinking, all the "good management" in the world won't grow your product. (An interesting take here: http://tinyurl.com/5t8uq9) > I note that product "A" was declining prior to the wide availability > of product "B." > I note that product A's poor management existed prior to the wide > availability of product "B." Actually, you noted no such thing. You provided no timeline for your theory. > Are the defenders of A's poor management suggesting that time travel > was involved in the decline of product "A"? No one is defending "poor management." That's you arguing with mythical posters in your head. This is more sophisticated than chicken or egg. Did the cuts precipitate the decline or did the decline precipitate the cuts? It's likely a combination and a self-reinforcing dynamic, but circulation has been sharp decline since about 2003, when "B" was in wide availability. (Newspaper circulation absolutely peaked in the 70's and has been declining since). It's important to note that I have no horse in this race, other than role as a passive observer of news and journalism. I don't watch broadcast news, as I find it to be a very sub-standard product, filled with shouting heads and information-poor, endlessly repeated stories. I like newspapers and print in general, as it is a very practical medium to carry information with you without resorting to an complicated electronic device and is more information-rich than broadcast. But, it's clear that many people get their news primarily from broadcast sources and, increasingly, online. I originally posted this to perhaps generate a discussion of the impact of technology (and how it's changing culture as well) on the news industry, newsmags specifically, but it's hard to do that when you have someone who is intent on pushing their ideological narrative as the answer to all things. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
