Pulitzer's Legacy : The Decline of Print in America

[MelissaB]

Pulitzer's Legacy : The Decline of Print in America
Newspapers are cutting jobs left and right while wondering why their circulations are down. Maybe it's because they refuse to tell the truth?

By Matt Hutaff Dec 6, 2005

The Los Angeles Times announced yesterday it would close the doors on its Chatsworth plant and consolidate production into three downtown facilities, eliminating 110 jobs. This news comes on the heels of the Tribune Company's decision to cut 85 Times newsroom jobs from its workforce in November.

...snip

It appears it doesn't pay to publish.

Except it does. Despite the gnashing of teeth from traditional media about soaring costs, newspapers do turn a profit... just not enough of one for its shareholders. Newspaper chain Knight Ridder posted a 19% increase in earnings last year -- impressive by any Wall Street standards -- yet even that draws ire from investors. And while subscriptions and advertising revenue are down (a trend that started decades ago), those reading the paper are among the most lucrative and desirable demographics in the United States -- affluent, educated men and women.

So I find it amusing when I hear editors bemoan the state of print journalism. Cutting jobs to maximize corporate profits only result in crappier papers that survive in the short-term. Blaming the downturn of print's prominence in daily life on "the current business climate" is just deflection.

Heads up, Jeff: the reason people are abandoning both print and televised media is that they are no longer amused by the lies you continue to peddle about the state of our nation. They find the truth elsewhere and see your whitewash jobs as obvious and tired. Perhaps if you devoted some of your reporters to actually reporting how events really unfold you'd regain some of your readership.

...snip

The press has no one to blame but themselves for their disintegrating readership. People are tired of reading bullshit and even more tired of a disgraced institution propping itself up with passable reporting three years after the fact. They've moved on to better sources of information. And no amount of reorganization or job cutting will make a newspaper a viable source of news to someone who has tasted the real deal.


More: http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/01032_pulitzer_legacy__decline_print_america.html

[madeline_con]

1. Well, that and why buy a paper if you have internet access? n/t

[Oeditpus Rex]

2. 'the real deal'

"better sources of information."

Because if it's on the internets, it must be true. :eyes:

[Octafish]

3. Newspapers once were the best thing that happened to democracy.

Then they started absorbing one another and in turn getting absorbed by larger media conglomerates.

Read Ben Bagdikian for details.

Why are newspapers important?

For one, they can serve as the communal touchstone, where the members of a town or region can meet to discover what's important to THEM.

For two, the papers can print information in detail that makes it easier to know and understand the issues of the day.

Thirdly, a real newspaper is the storehouse of ideas, news and opinion that are needed for a republic to function and a democracy to survive. Consider that the only business mentioned by name in the U.S. Constitution is a free "press."

Too bad the newspapers, like most every other institution in the U.S., has been co-opted by the big money turds.