Thursday, December 4, 2008
Media The News Hole
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Ugh:
Newspaper and newspaper groups are likely to default on their debt and go out of business next year—leaving "several cities" with no daily newspaper at all, Fitch Ratings says in a report on media released Wednesday."Fitch believes more newspapers and newspaper groups will default, be shut down and be liquidated in 2009 and several cities could go without a daily print newspaper by 2010," the Chicago-based credit ratings firm said in a report on the outlook for U.S. media and entertainment.
One day cities will regard daily papers the same way they regard large rep theaters, symphonies, opera houses, and (ugh) sports franchises—something a city that wants to be considered "world class" just has to have. And daily papers will, like theaters and opera houses before them, convert to non-profits, raise money from the civic-minded, squeeze subsidies from local governments, and limp along as charities, not businesses.
Share via
1
Maybe then they'll be allowed to run pieces critical of local corporations like Beoing and Microsoft instead of running corporate press releases unedited.
2
As a newspaper employee, I've been thinking about this recently, too. People (esp in Seattle) really want to support local people and local businesses, and most of those same people understand the importance of having dedicated journalists cover local and regional news, even if national and global is handled by other organizations. We need to market ourselves in that light, I think. Buying a subscription to the Times or P-I is practically a charitable contribution these days.
And yeah, some kind of community subsidy based on the importance of a newspaper to a city would sure help. Blah blah blah Blethens and how supposedly rich they are, but the Times sure isn't making them wealthier, these days.
And yeah, some kind of community subsidy based on the importance of a newspaper to a city would sure help. Blah blah blah Blethens and how supposedly rich they are, but the Times sure isn't making them wealthier, these days.
3
Newspapers can do a lot of different things: switch to weekly or semiweekly (cf. The Stranger); stop buying NYT and AP content and do meatier/tastier local reporting (a la Slog); embracing bias and becoming overt left/right megaphones; narrowing focus; learning how to use the Web for fun and profit.
I don't think the nonprofit approach is such a bad idea at all: it works for NPR, for instance.
I don't think the nonprofit approach is such a bad idea at all: it works for NPR, for instance.
4
Hehe. One of the funniest things about the newspaper collapse is that everyone all of the sudden becomes an expert on how to run the business.
Just because you read the newspaper, or just because it doesn't cater to your biases, it doesn't mean you know how to run a newspaper.
And no, this is not from a newspaper employee.
I'm just sad that many people out there don't care anymore about local coverage. (Not Slog readers, though)
Just because you read the newspaper, or just because it doesn't cater to your biases, it doesn't mean you know how to run a newspaper.
And no, this is not from a newspaper employee.
I'm just sad that many people out there don't care anymore about local coverage. (Not Slog readers, though)
6
@5
I hope newspapers eventually know how to use the Web...so far in Seattle, their lamest attempt is the Big Blog.
I hope newspapers eventually know how to use the Web...so far in Seattle, their lamest attempt is the Big Blog.
8
I buy the Baltimore Sun out of a sense of obligation. It's not the employees' fault that it's run by a Chicagoan. But you know what was THE major story on the Sun's website yesterday? An article about baking cookies over the holidays. WTF?
10
Fitch totally missed out on accurately rating mortgage-backed securities and all those lovely derivatives, without which our asset bubble economy couldn't have inflated so nicely and now burst so nicely. They are catching a very small portion of their due raft of shit for that, so I hope this newspaper rating outlook represents to some degree an overcompensation in the negative direction. But I suspect not. Bleaugh.
11
I'd care more about the demise of newspapers if it were easier to tell the difference between a typical local paper and The Onion.
12
Dan, this...
"One day cities will regard daily papers the same way they regard large rep theaters, symphonies, opera houses, and (ugh) sports franchises—something a city that wants to be considered "world class" just has to have. And daily papers will, like theaters and opera houses before them, convert to non-profits, raise money from the civic-minded, squeeze subsidies from local governments, and limp along as charities, not businesses."
...makes you sound like an idiot, and a particularly anti-philanthropic idiot, which you're not, of course.
All charities are businesses, which exist (some even thrive) because patrons find them good vehicles for community investment.
Also, your statement demonstrates a profound (and generally pervasive) misunderstanding of the extraordinarily potent economic benefits associated with having thriving arts, entertainment and recreational sectors inside major cities. These intuitions aren't feel-good accessories of "world-class" cities, they are drivers of innovation, commerce and, ideally, cultural distinctiveness. They, in part, make cities world-class.
Seattle wasn't world-class when it introduced the Opera, Ballet, and Symphony. As the Opera and Ballet became "world-class" organizations -- the Symphony cannot be said to be "world-class" yet -- Seattle was simultaneously becoming a world-class city.
The causal relationships of these simultaneities are not well understood by economists yet, but even the cursory economic research that has been completed has proven that there are complex and mutually beneficial economic exchanges between arts organizations and the communities they serve.
About newspapers, I know nothing.
"One day cities will regard daily papers the same way they regard large rep theaters, symphonies, opera houses, and (ugh) sports franchises—something a city that wants to be considered "world class" just has to have. And daily papers will, like theaters and opera houses before them, convert to non-profits, raise money from the civic-minded, squeeze subsidies from local governments, and limp along as charities, not businesses."
...makes you sound like an idiot, and a particularly anti-philanthropic idiot, which you're not, of course.
All charities are businesses, which exist (some even thrive) because patrons find them good vehicles for community investment.
Also, your statement demonstrates a profound (and generally pervasive) misunderstanding of the extraordinarily potent economic benefits associated with having thriving arts, entertainment and recreational sectors inside major cities. These intuitions aren't feel-good accessories of "world-class" cities, they are drivers of innovation, commerce and, ideally, cultural distinctiveness. They, in part, make cities world-class.
Seattle wasn't world-class when it introduced the Opera, Ballet, and Symphony. As the Opera and Ballet became "world-class" organizations -- the Symphony cannot be said to be "world-class" yet -- Seattle was simultaneously becoming a world-class city.
The causal relationships of these simultaneities are not well understood by economists yet, but even the cursory economic research that has been completed has proven that there are complex and mutually beneficial economic exchanges between arts organizations and the communities they serve.
About newspapers, I know nothing.
13
@3
NPR works if you keep your brain in a jar of formaldahyde, maybe. The only thing worse that taxpayer subsidized leftwing propaganda masquerading as objective news is really lame drool-dripped taxpayer subsidized leftwing propaganda masquerading as objective news.
NPR works if you keep your brain in a jar of formaldahyde, maybe. The only thing worse that taxpayer subsidized leftwing propaganda masquerading as objective news is really lame drool-dripped taxpayer subsidized leftwing propaganda masquerading as objective news.
14
What are these newspapers you guys keep railing about?
Are they as funny as the Daily Show?
If not, why not?
P.S.: If you fire your cartoonist you're not long for this world ...
Are they as funny as the Daily Show?
If not, why not?
P.S.: If you fire your cartoonist you're not long for this world ...
15
Unfortunately @1, given non-profits' sycophantic tendency to slap the name of anyone who coughs up more than 20 bucks on a plaque, I seriously doubt non-profit newspapers would respond any differently; after all, there really wouldn't be all that much difference between an "advertiser" and a "sponsor".
17
Why can't they be like you? Really, I'm serious.
Free to readers. Gets you picked up. I also bet if they spiced up their papers with some porn ads and profanity, just a little, their ad revenue would climb. Oh, but we don't really want that. Can you imagine The Times competing with The Weekly? They think they're a family paper. Bah!
Free to readers. Gets you picked up. I also bet if they spiced up their papers with some porn ads and profanity, just a little, their ad revenue would climb. Oh, but we don't really want that. Can you imagine The Times competing with The Weekly? They think they're a family paper. Bah!
18
If the Times and PI fail, I think The Stranger should look into a daily edition. The weekly could still focus on in-depth features and coverage of arts and media, while the daily edition could focus on the kind of daily news reporting that's found in the Slog. What's missing with the Slog model is actual professional investigative journalism, and doing that right would mean hiring some people with experience working for dailies. But they're going to be out of jobs anyway.
The question is how to make it work financially. The big thing would be to abandon the "family newspaper" model and accept the same kind of vice-ridden advertising that fuels the weekly business model, along with more traditional newspaper advertising. And hell, maybe it's possible to charge a fee if you include a page 3 photo. Basically, this would have to operate under the New York Post/British daily tabloid business model. They're still doing well, aren't they?
The question is how to make it work financially. The big thing would be to abandon the "family newspaper" model and accept the same kind of vice-ridden advertising that fuels the weekly business model, along with more traditional newspaper advertising. And hell, maybe it's possible to charge a fee if you include a page 3 photo. Basically, this would have to operate under the New York Post/British daily tabloid business model. They're still doing well, aren't they?
21
@6: Slog might rulez, but how much cash does it generate for the Stranger? As big a pile as the P-I Soundoffs generate for Hearst?
I thought not.
@5: Those of us with families to support who're being pink-slipped in the middle of a fierce recession, do appreciate having had the opportunity to serve you.
I thought not.
@5: Those of us with families to support who're being pink-slipped in the middle of a fierce recession, do appreciate having had the opportunity to serve you.
22
A bunch are going to fail, that much is obvious. But I honestly think someone with a better business model will step in fill the vacuum. Shit, I went to school in a rust belt town in upstate New York and they still managed to put out a simple 35 cent daily. I'm sure someone in Newark can figure out how to do it.
23
Two things come to mind (first the snarky):
You can always read USA Today.
But seriously...
If the Seattle Times and the P-I had two very different points of view, I would say save them both. But having read them both most of my life, mostly on line these last few years, I don't find them different, they even often use identical headlines since most of their National and World news comes from the A.P.
If we want a decent daily paper in Seattle, the two papers should merge and we should keep the best writers and editors of both papers. I would want Nancy Leson of the Times Restaurant review to stay, also Editorial cartoonist David Horsey (I like the way he draws) and I like Jim Moore's sports column in the P-I. I'd like to see Joel Connely disappear or move to the opinion page. Keep the best photographers and young reporters and pink slip the rest (and get a better crossword puzzle, maybe even hire someone good to be the Crossword Puzzle editor. Maybe someday people would want to do the Seattle Times/P-I crossword puzzle as much as the NY Times.
You can always read USA Today.
But seriously...
If the Seattle Times and the P-I had two very different points of view, I would say save them both. But having read them both most of my life, mostly on line these last few years, I don't find them different, they even often use identical headlines since most of their National and World news comes from the A.P.
If we want a decent daily paper in Seattle, the two papers should merge and we should keep the best writers and editors of both papers. I would want Nancy Leson of the Times Restaurant review to stay, also Editorial cartoonist David Horsey (I like the way he draws) and I like Jim Moore's sports column in the P-I. I'd like to see Joel Connely disappear or move to the opinion page. Keep the best photographers and young reporters and pink slip the rest (and get a better crossword puzzle, maybe even hire someone good to be the Crossword Puzzle editor. Maybe someday people would want to do the Seattle Times/P-I crossword puzzle as much as the NY Times.
24
I agree with almost everything you say, Dan, but when you start attacking the arts as some sort of elitist bullshit, then the gloves come off. If you think music and art are unimportant and that they have to "earn their keep" then you're no better than the conservatives you constantly call out as neanderthals. It's a duty, an honor, and a privilege to keep the arts alive in this country. An opera company or orchestra, not important? A civic theater, not important? What's the next big thing after blogs, Dan? Are you banking on blogs to put you into a comfortable retirement, or will the thing that replaces blogs (and there will be something!) put you out of business before you're ready? Really surprised and disappointed.
25
No, Dan, Newspapers will remain for-profit, but they will make money on their websites and offer the paper/hard copy as "premium" product for those willing to pay for the luxury. This will force newspapers to change their busness model and overhead costs, but people those that have a reputation for quality will survive. There is so much drek on the web that a "Brand" with a reputation for accuracy and impartiality will be worth a lot. It should not be limited to major brands like nytimes.com. Every city has local news and a newspaper that covers local news well should be able to survive in that market. People really do care more about knowing what is going on around them than what is going on far away (though ideally they would like both at a single portal.)
Robert
Robert
26
@24: where in his post did Dan say any of the shit you just accused him of saying? I'm sincerely asking.
27
@26
Sincerely responding, Dan said: "like theaters and opera houses before them ... squeeze subsidies from local governments, and limp along as charities."
I live in NYC. The Metropolitan Opera is not a charity, nor is the NY Phil or MOMA or the literally scores of arts, music, and dance programs we provide at a world-class level. These performances changes people's lives, and if you don't know that, then there's no way of explaining it. We care about the arts here enough not to let them "squeeze subsidies from local governments" or "limp along as charities." To me, Dan very clearly stated that the arts are a welfare case. Possibly it's different where you are but here in the capitol of the world, to use your elegant phrase, we give a shit. Art matters.
Sincerely responding, Dan said: "like theaters and opera houses before them ... squeeze subsidies from local governments, and limp along as charities."
I live in NYC. The Metropolitan Opera is not a charity, nor is the NY Phil or MOMA or the literally scores of arts, music, and dance programs we provide at a world-class level. These performances changes people's lives, and if you don't know that, then there's no way of explaining it. We care about the arts here enough not to let them "squeeze subsidies from local governments" or "limp along as charities." To me, Dan very clearly stated that the arts are a welfare case. Possibly it's different where you are but here in the capitol of the world, to use your elegant phrase, we give a shit. Art matters.
29
Thank you for answering, Will. We have a lively, vibrant, much-loved, and valuable arts community in my small city too. It's one of the top reasons I moved here and stay here. I wouldn't live in a city that didn't support the arts, and I'm envious of what you have in New York. I've visited New York and MOMA, and . . . magnificent.
I used the word "shit," not because you had written shit, but because anyone stating the attitude that you expressed in your post at 24, would be speaking "shit." And, yeah, I curse like a truck driver. Not very ladylike, true.
I read Dan's post completely differently: a city wanting to be considered "world class" must provide for the arts. This is a true statement, and, I thought, showed that Dan values the arts and views cities that offer operas, ballets, and theatre as "world class."
I interpreted "squeeze subsidies from local governments" as a comment that the public is far too often loathe to give money to the arts (or libraries for that matter), and will usually vote down taxes for art (and library) funding. So art programs often have to "squeeze" every last cent from the local government they can. So they limp along, taking what the public condescends to give and do their best.
New York doesn't have this issue. Neither does my city. But the arts suffer in most cities, especially the small, rural ones. They're usually the first to suffer budget cuts. I would think that Seattle doesn't have this problem. Hence, Dan's mention of the "civic-minded." We, civic-minded art lovers are often what keep the arts afloat in small cities and towns. And public funding is welfare. Very valuable, very needed, very life-enhancing welfare.
So there! That's why I asked. I honestly read Dan's post as a positive representation of the arts as often beleaguered and unappreciated, but beloved by many of us, including himself.
As always, I could be full of shit.
More...
I used the word "shit," not because you had written shit, but because anyone stating the attitude that you expressed in your post at 24, would be speaking "shit." And, yeah, I curse like a truck driver. Not very ladylike, true.
I read Dan's post completely differently: a city wanting to be considered "world class" must provide for the arts. This is a true statement, and, I thought, showed that Dan values the arts and views cities that offer operas, ballets, and theatre as "world class."
I interpreted "squeeze subsidies from local governments" as a comment that the public is far too often loathe to give money to the arts (or libraries for that matter), and will usually vote down taxes for art (and library) funding. So art programs often have to "squeeze" every last cent from the local government they can. So they limp along, taking what the public condescends to give and do their best.
New York doesn't have this issue. Neither does my city. But the arts suffer in most cities, especially the small, rural ones. They're usually the first to suffer budget cuts. I would think that Seattle doesn't have this problem. Hence, Dan's mention of the "civic-minded." We, civic-minded art lovers are often what keep the arts afloat in small cities and towns. And public funding is welfare. Very valuable, very needed, very life-enhancing welfare.
So there! That's why I asked. I honestly read Dan's post as a positive representation of the arts as often beleaguered and unappreciated, but beloved by many of us, including himself.
As always, I could be full of shit.
31
@29, if you're ever in NYC, let's totally do shots sometime. NYers love to argue! that said, um, yeah .... pretty much no, Dan was trashing arts funding as weak and stupid. anyway, didn't @12 totally nail it? thanks 12.
32
@31: You're on! I love shots! Let's invite 12! We can debate everything, and then all pitch in for a season pass to the ballet for Dan.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
-
Breaking: Police Officers Have Shut Off Several Blocks of Leary Way Between Ballard and Fremont by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (32) RSS