I have read newspapers for many years now and am not looking forward to the day I can't walk out my door each morning and get the daily paper. So how can newspapers survive; what are they doing wrong?
I used to read the Wall Street Journal. It was an excellent news-paper. They've gotten lazy since their first allegiance is to News Corp. and its [not the paper's] profits, with their editorial staff second, reporters third, support staff fourth, and readers way down the list. The only reason to read it now is for daily financial results that are hard to find on the Internet [yes, there are a few of those].
I now subscribe to the Financial Times of London, US edition. One of the big differences between the WSJ and FT is that WSJ will publish a press release as news, something they rarely did before Murdoch. FT will receive a press release, research the story, and print the details behind the press release. Without research and investigative reporting, plus reporters on the scene to observe and report, papers have little reason to exist.
Publications that have devolved into "-papers" need to get their act together and be "news"-papers, if they aren't already gone. Firing the people who report the news and the rest who enable readers to get it is what's killing newspapers. Why did the Baltimore Sun/LA Times fire so many important employees during good times when their profits were over 30%? What does this bad behavior have to do with news? Can't blame that on Internet competition. How many Internet-only reporters [not commentators] will be covering your local council meetings? None?
************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
