I'm DOOMED

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 12:09 PM GMT
    This is where I work... so this is scary, hilarious, and not all that far from the truth. I'm freaked out!


    Boston Globe Tailors Print Edition For Three Remaining Subscribers
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 2:00 PM GMT
    The internet. This is happening all around the country. I used to be a paperboy in the 'old part of my town.' When I first started, I had over 80 papers to deliver--that was over ten years ago. A friend of the family is the current paper boy... there are only 50 customers now. Old people die. It seems younger people, like me, get their news off the internet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 2:48 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 saidThe internet. This is happening all around the country. I used to be a paperboy in the 'old part of my town.' When I first started, I had over 80 papers to deliver--that was over ten years ago. A friend of the family is the current paper boy... there are only 50 customers now. Old people die. It seems younger people, like me, get their news off the internet.


    The Internet has simply brought competition. I think there's also an increased recognition that traditional newspapers (and for that matter broadcast news) have acted as self appointed filters to the news imparting bias both in the actual reporting and what gets reported. I think one can make the argument that based on some of the news forms today it is worse than it was before but the reality is that people are able to get and process more news than ever before.

    People have come to realize that they were paying more for the paper and distribution networks rather than news itself. Worse, what news they were getting didn't provide the whole picture. (for the record, I have a WSJ online subscription that I pay for but I also skim the Globe and Mail and The Record (a local paper) in hard copy though am thinking of dropping the Globe).

    It's not about the medium - it's the quality of the news.

    Have a look at these numbers:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aCqhUGHclxxs&pid=20601087

    Top 25 U.S. Newspapers’ Average Weekday Paid Circulation

    Circulation %Change
    Rank Newspaper as of March ‘10 (Year-over-Year)
    ================================================================
    1 Wall Street Journal 2,092,523 0.5
    2 USA Today 1,826,622 -13.6
    3 New York Times 951,063 -8.5
    4 Los Angeles Times 616,606 -14.7
    5 Washington Post 578,482 -13.1
    6 New York Daily News 535,059 -11.3
    7 New York Post 525,004 -5.9
    8 San Jose Mercury News 516,701 N/A#
    9 Chicago Tribune 452,145 -9.8
    10 Houston Chronicle 366,578 -13.8
    11 Philadelphia Inquirer 356,189 N/A#
    12 Arizona Republic 351,207 -9.9
    13 Newsday 334,809 -9.1
    14 Denver Post 333,675 N/A#
    15 Minneapolis Star Tribune 295,438 -7.7
    16 St. Petersburg Times 278,888 -1.5
    17 Chicago Sun-Times 268,803 -13.9
    18 Cleveland Plain Dealer 267,888 -8.1
    19 Oregonian 263,600 -1.8
    20 Seattle Times 263,468 N/A#
    21 Dallas Morning News 260,659 -21.5
    22 Detroit Free Press 252,017 -13.3
    23 San Diego Union-Tribune 249,630 -4.5
    24 San Francisco Chronicle 241,330 -22.7
    25 Newark Star-Ledger 236,017 -17.8
    ================================================================
    Source: Audit Bureau of Circulations
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 2:50 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 saidThe internet. This is happening all around the country. I used to be a paperboy in the 'old part of my town.' When I first started, I had over 80 papers to deliver--that was over ten years ago. A friend of the family is the current paper boy... there are only 50 customers now. Old people die. It seems younger people, like me, get their news off the internet.
    ]


    icon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gif

    Stomp stomp ....puts hands over ears " lalalala I can't hear You" icon_cry.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 3:00 PM GMT
    Riddler is right and wrong. Newspapers do a lot of filtering, yes, and some can say that there is bias inherent in that. The Internet is the extreme opposite. It is largely unfiltered, unedited, and not fact checked. There are exceptions to the newspaper generalization and certainly to the internet generalization (some websites are indispensable to me). But in the US, newspapers remain the main source of ORIGINAL reporting, sponsored overwhelmingly by print advertisers. That goes for the websites of those newspapers, most of which remain free to readers but are heavily subsidized by revenue from the print product. As that revenue oozes away slowly, so does the reporting that is critical to an effective press... thus the news gets dumber and dumber. Of course websites will eventually start charging for content as print revenue disappears, because there is still a huge market for the original reporting. We are just stuck in between right now with no revenue from online, dwindling revenue from print, and only the beginnings of plans to make readers pay for the stuff they read online. This is largely misunderstood by consumers of news, when they say "I just get my news online." Where do they think the news comes from? It doesn't just materialize on your computer screen.

    For someone who loves the newspaper business and has been passionate about it since starting college, it's very sad.

  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Jun 08, 2010 3:40 PM GMT
    it could be worse; you could be a poet icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 3:53 PM GMT
    calibro saidit could be worse; you could be a poet icon_wink.gif



    Some poetry might make me feel better. What you got for me?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 4:11 PM GMT
    cheer-up-prom-crash.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 4:12 PM GMT
    Awwww Josh... you sure know how to cheer a bud up. Thank you!

  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Jun 08, 2010 6:06 PM GMT
    DjDorchester said
    calibro saidit could be worse; you could be a poet icon_wink.gif



    Some poetry might make me feel better. What you got for me?



    hmm... most of my poetry is rather depressing, but this one is a somewhat optimistic love poem that was written about an experience i had with a fellow rj member...


    the noise of talk


    ray lamontagne
    was the only witness
    to two-stepping in an island kitchen
    that belonged to neither of us

    we lugged and plugged in a dirty microwave
    a cooling key lime pie
    both of which we packed in the morning
    we should have worried about neighbors

    finding us squatting
    but that thought was lost
    when we held each other in the ambient stereo
    pivoting with the caution the darkness
    in a house not your own

    you never looked as delicate as when
    and into the smell condensed
    milk we humming the music
    believing

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 6:09 PM GMT
    holy shit.... that picture is aweful i dont even want to quote it
  • mybud

    Posts: 11837

    Jun 08, 2010 6:26 PM GMT
    Ya...your fucked.........just kidding man......I raffed
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 6:28 PM GMT
    Roccoe said
    conscienti1984 saidThe internet. This is happening all around the country. I used to be a paperboy in the 'old part of my town.' When I first started, I had over 80 papers to deliver--that was over ten years ago. A friend of the family is the current paper boy... there are only 50 customers now. Old people die. It seems younger people, like me, get their news off the internet.
    ]


    icon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gif

    Stomp stomp ....puts hands over ears " lalalala I can't hear You" icon_cry.gif


    Old people... Like 70+

    I like old people! Nothing wrong with being old... they are great story tellers!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 6:30 PM GMT
    Voice22 saidholy shit.... that picture is aweful i dont even want to quote it


    It's obviously fake lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 7:35 PM GMT
    DjDorchester saidRiddler is right and wrong. Newspapers do a lot of filtering, yes, and some can say that there is bias inherent in that. The Internet is the extreme opposite. It is largely unfiltered, unedited, and not fact checked. There are exceptions to the newspaper generalization and certainly to the internet generalization (some websites are indispensable to me). But in the US, newspapers remain the main source of ORIGINAL reporting, sponsored overwhelmingly by print advertisers. That goes for the websites of those newspapers, most of which remain free to readers but are heavily subsidized by revenue from the print product. As that revenue oozes away slowly, so does the reporting that is critical to an effective press... thus the news gets dumber and dumber. Of course websites will eventually start charging for content as print revenue disappears, because there is still a huge market for the original reporting. We are just stuck in between right now with no revenue from online, dwindling revenue from print, and only the beginnings of plans to make readers pay for the stuff they read online. This is largely misunderstood by consumers of news, when they say "I just get my news online." Where do they think the news comes from? It doesn't just materialize on your computer screen.

    For someone who loves the newspaper business and has been passionate about it since starting college, it's very sad.


    News isn't going away. The fact is that newspapers have tried charging online for content and the only company that has been able to monetize is the Wall Street Journal. There have been plenty of unforced errors though. The levels of fact checkers have let absurd mistakes through (e.g. http://gawker.com/5525783/the-washington-post-cannot-tell-obama-from-malcolm-x ) - rightly or wrongly undermining the idea the layers and layers of fact checkers are worth anything. I mean there are days that the corrections page of the NYT rivals its cartoon pages for comedy. Newspapers have slowly lost the trust of its readers.

    Newspapers are simply also getting disintermediated - people are increasingly empowered to report on their own. Look at the fall of Helen Thomas brought to you buy some Rabbi with a flipcam. This to me is a great development. Yes there's a lot of crud in them intertubes but trust is hard fought and earned online. Further, posting it online allows for a much larger group and intellectual diversity to pick ideas and poor reporting apart. Politically, rightly or wrongly journalists also simply do not reflect the views of the mainstream public as the Pew Poll shows - and the public notices - except now they have more of a choice.

    Firms die out so that others rise. Whether or not the Journal reflects market demands more than the other newspapers in the US remains to be seen but obviously a lot of people still think that what they report has value.

    Also let's not forget all the legacy costs of newspapers from pensions to the presses. One trend that a lot of new web startups are trying to capitalize on is geolocational services and making the internet a lot more local. You would think that newspapers would be perfect for this gap. What should be scarier for newspapermen is the fact that of the small businesses I know who serve local markets (e.g. car dealerships), they are increasingly turning online to reach their customers cheaper and more effectively.

    To give you another example - there was a large local fire while I was travelling overseas. Yes there were those who forwarded me links to the local newspaper but more sent me the youtube links.

    To survive I suspect most newspapers will have to undergo a massive rethink of their assets (e.g. instead of selling ad services for just their print editions, why not offer local businesses ad services for other online content providers). I doubt they will, and with all due respect, while I do think there will be survivors, most will not. And they will not be missed.

    PS - it's crap like this that do not endear newspapers to their readers:
    http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/06/new-york-times-forces-apple-to-pull-popular-pulse-ipad-newsreader/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 7:43 PM GMT
    yall see wut happens when ppl like satyrihommie sexycollegestudbitch abelianzero riddlerquestiondude78 and ursulamajor pop up with a post?......it just elevates the thread value score icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 10:18 PM GMT
    joshnyz saidyall see wut happens when ppl like satyrihommie sexycollegestudbitch abelianzero riddlerquestiondude78 and ursulamajor pop up with a post?......it just elevates the thread value score icon_cool.gif


    Riddler is suggesting that the future of news gathering is in "user-submitted content." God help us all, if that's the case. It would be just one more move in the direction of "Idiocracy." If you haven't seen that movie, see it.

    He is only correct in identifying the problem. He is not correct in his prediction for the future. NYTimes.com may lose some viewers when it switches to a paid-content model, but it will be a short-term hit with long-term success. And it will set into motion paid models across the interweb. Edited, thoughtful news gathering will always have a market... people will pay to read it and watch it, and advertisers will pay to get their message next to it.

    Sometimes I think people fail to appreciate the role the media plays in society. Is it perfect? No. But without it, good luck to the democracy! So say "good riddance" all you want, luckily there are enough smart people around to understand the impact the loss would have. Is already having.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 10:53 PM GMT
    DjDorchester saidRiddler is suggesting that the future of news gathering is in "user-submitted content." God help us all, if that's the case. It would be just one more move in the direction of "Idiocracy." If you haven't seen that movie, see it.

    He is only correct in identifying the problem. He is not correct in his prediction for the future. NYTimes.com may lose some viewers when it switches to a paid-content model, but it will be a short-term hit with long-term success. And it will set into motion paid models across the interweb. Edited, thoughtful news gathering will always have a market... people will pay to read it and watch it, and advertisers will pay to get their message next to it.

    Sometimes I think people fail to appreciate the role the media plays in society. Is it perfect? No. But without it, good luck to the democracy! So say "good riddance" all you want, luckily there are enough smart people around to understand the impact the loss would have. Is already having.


    You're only partially right. The idea though that journalists are inherently better adapted to providing sophisticated stories is a fairly arrogant one at best considering the expertise that most journalists lack. Often times it becomes obvious on issues like financial or science reporting - particularly local papers. As far as it comes to reporting online, surprise - journalists are bloggers too. There are plenty of highly intelligent people who both deliver and consume said content - as an example - the VCs/tech bloggers do a far better job than any general newspaper.

    The wholesale dismissal of user generated content is another reflection of the simple lack of understanding of what drives the internet and why so many newspapers are dying. Sure you can point to the crud, but then you do get high quality content as well. What has changed more than anything is that it's become more of a two way conversation. Newspapers have done a horrible job at understanding and exploiting these ideas.

    If anything high quality user generated content on the internet is far more responsive and often more accurate than some newspapers. Look at what the press chose to publish and pursue in politics like John Edwards. The real grunt work was done by... the National Enquirer. It's problems like this that have eroded the trust the public has in newspapers and journalists like yourself. Sorry, you may reminisce of an age where newspapers were the primary source of information to their readers, but I'm pretty sure you're in the minority as circulations show.

    As I've noted, there will always be and there is a large market for high quality original content and local news. The market is just signalling that newspapers aren't and haven't been providing it. Some newspapers and their host institutions will survive but only those who recognize what content has value to their readers.

    PS NYT has tried various online paid models largely unsuccessfully but I suspect you're already aware of this.

    PPS Just because newspapers die... http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/25/aol-now-employs-4000-journalists-but-only-500-are-full-time/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 11:08 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    DjDorchester saidRiddler is suggesting that the future of news gathering is in "user-submitted content." God help us all, if that's the case. It would be just one more move in the direction of "Idiocracy." If you haven't seen that movie, see it.

    He is only correct in identifying the problem. He is not correct in his prediction for the future. NYTimes.com may lose some viewers when it switches to a paid-content model, but it will be a short-term hit with long-term success. And it will set into motion paid models across the interweb. Edited, thoughtful news gathering will always have a market... people will pay to read it and watch it, and advertisers will pay to get their message next to it.

    Sometimes I think people fail to appreciate the role the media plays in society. Is it perfect? No. But without it, good luck to the democracy! So say "good riddance" all you want, luckily there are enough smart people around to understand the impact the loss would have. Is already having.


    You're only partially right. The idea though that journalists are inherently better adapted to providing sophisticated stories is a fairly arrogant one at best considering the expertise that most journalists lack. Often times it becomes obvious on issues like financial or science reporting - particularly local papers. As far as it comes to reporting online, surprise - journalists are bloggers too. There are plenty of highly intelligent people who both deliver and consume said content - as an example - the VCs/tech bloggers do a far better job than any general newspaper.

    The wholesale dismissal of user generated content is another reflection of the simple lack of understanding of what drives the internet and why so many newspapers are dying. Sure you can point to the crud, but then you do get high quality content as well. What has changed more than anything is that it's become more of a two way conversation. Newspapers have done a horrible job at understanding and exploiting these ideas.

    If anything high quality user generated content on the internet is far more responsive and often more accurate than some newspapers. Look at what the press chose to publish and pursue in politics like John Edwards. The real grunt work was done by... the National Enquirer. It's problems like this that have eroded the trust the public has in newspapers and journalists like yourself. Sorry, you may reminisce of an age where newspapers were the primary source of information to their readers, but I'm pretty sure you're in the minority as circulations show.

    As I've noted, there will always be and there is a large market for high quality original content and local news. The market is just signalling that newspapers aren't and haven't been providing it. Some newspapers and their host institutions will survive but only those who recognize what content has value to their readers.

    PS NYT has tried various online paid models largely unsuccessfully but I suspect you're already aware of this.

    PPS Just because newspapers die... http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/25/aol-now-employs-4000-journalists-but-only-500-are-full-time/


    Take a look through the Pulitzer Prize winners for this year, last year, and all the previous years for important, agenda-setting, corruption-spotting, story-telling journalism and count the number of them that are not newspapers or their online editions. You could count them on one hand. The Globe won one a few years ago for blowing open the clergy sex abuse scandal and coverup that led to the archbishop of Boston to step down, and is still echoing around the world to this day. I stand by achievements like that as proof that professional journalists are valuable and that newspaper staffs are the ones producing that kind of reporting. Call it arrogance, but check out pulitzer.org for yourself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2010 11:24 PM GMT
    DjDorchester saidTake a look through the Pulitzer Prize winners for this year, last year, and all the previous years for important, agenda-setting, corruption-spotting, story-telling journalism and count the number of them that are not newspapers or their online editions. You could count them on one hand. The Globe won one a few years ago for blowing open the clergy sex abuse scandal and coverup that led to the archbishop of Boston to step down, and is still echoing around the world to this day. I stand by achievements like that as proof that professional journalists are valuable and that newspaper staffs are the ones producing that kind of reporting. Call it arrogance, but check out pulitzer.org for yourself.


    It's sort of like a circular reference to look to an industry organization to reinforce the validity of the industry.

    A different point of view: http://bigjournalism.com/rbluey/2010/05/23/the-pulitzer-boards-mysterious-aversion-to-rupert-murdoch-and-the-wall-street-journal/

    I've never said that professional journalists aren't valuable. I've also referenced an article pointing out that AOL has hired 400 professional journalists full time. Whether or not the news comes from newspapers is irrelevant and it's the circulations that provide the true tale of the value that they offer (or rather don't). You're only as good as your last scoop - and the competition for scoops is so much bigger now all the while, many newspapers continue to thumb their noses at readers wanting to be the gatekeepers of news while continuing to erode the trust placed in them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2010 12:58 AM GMT
    You can come hide in my bed if you want *nods*
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Jun 09, 2010 1:04 AM GMT
    lilTanker saidYou can come hide in my bed if you want *nods*


    Ok.


    Oh. You weren't talking to me where. Never mind.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2010 1:16 AM GMT
    That is a really fucking nice poem - kudos.


    calibro said
    DjDorchester said
    calibro saidit could be worse; you could be a poet icon_wink.gif



    Some poetry might make me feel better. What you got for me?



    hmm... most of my poetry is rather depressing, but this one is a somewhat optimistic love poem that was written about an experience i had with a fellow rj member...


    the noise of talk


    ray lamontagne
    was the only witness
    to two-stepping in an island kitchen
    that belonged to neither of us

    we lugged and plugged in a dirty microwave
    a cooling key lime pie
    both of which we packed in the morning
    we should have worried about neighbors

    finding us squatting
    but that thought was lost
    when we held each other in the ambient stereo
    pivoting with the caution the darkness
    in a house not your own

    you never looked as delicate as when
    and into the smell condensed
    milk we humming the music
    believing

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2010 2:25 AM GMT
    DjDorchester said
    joshnyz saidyall see wut happens when ppl like satyrihommie sexycollegestudbitch abelianzero riddlerquestiondude78 and ursulamajor pop up with a post?......it just elevates the thread value score icon_cool.gif


    Riddler is suggesting that the future of news gathering is in "user-submitted content." God help us all, if that's the case.
    He is only correct in identifying the problem. He is not correct in his prediction for the future.
    Sometimes I think people fail to appreciate the role the media plays in society. Is it perfect? No. But without it, good luck to the democracy! So say "good riddance" all you want, luckily there are enough smart people around to understand the impact the loss would have. Is already having.




    no dayv....u getting it all wrong. when i say those bitchez add value to threads they post in i dont mean to say they be right or wrong.....maybe yo hommie ass is right on this one and riddlerquestiondude78 gotz it all f'd in the a' ...or maybe hes right....so what who cares?...lolz ...i aint got a problem with ppl who be having different opineeuns
    tumblr_kt6h2fxure1qzvl3lo1_400.jpg

    what i meantz by the comment is that whenever a thread need rescuing u can count consistently on those 3 bitchez...plus the 2 new addishuns to debate shit orderly intelligentlay and with thoughts that be coming from the bwainz instead of from picked up vomit that was subsequentlay ingested.

    i aint saying i agree with what these bitchez post....they dont agree on thingz either between demselves.....but they can have a conversashun that elevates the brain value of the thread. and that shitz rare not only on the interwebz but on the flesh n blood world too.....so i like those 3 bitchez cuz smart is sexy....and the 2 nominated bitchez cuz they demonstrate they are worth of joining them other 3 bitchez.....lolz ..

    well....except i had to ignore ursulamajor's poem he done post above....cuz dat was just unnecessarily gay... icon_twisted.gif

    now out of the 5 bitchez....id only fuk the sexy collstud bitch

    oops wrong thread icon_twisted.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2010 2:41 AM GMT


    If you haven't seen it, you might find this interesting:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/06/how-to-save-the-news/8095/