Pulling the plug on 139 years

[Beertigger]

The scoop on the street is that newspapers as an industry have lost revenue by having the classifieds usurped by EBay and Craigs List and content/ timeliness to the internet.

Short-sightedness led to that loss, nothing inherent. If newspapers had moved more quickly to challenge craigslist, etc, they'd have been fine.

But they put their heads in the sand.

As to content and timeliness, most of the content on the Internet originates with a newspaper reporter.

Again, newspapers dropped the ball on allowing readers to participate and comment in the way they've become accustomed to online.

I still think it's possible to do it right. But it ain't how Gannett's going about it, as far as I can see.

[Carolina Kiltman]

This has been in the works for a long time, I am sorry to say.

If I live another 20-25 years, I will be surprised if there are any real print newspapers left. I also expect to see all "news" disappear, whatever the media.

Newsgathering, like customer service, is expensive, and the bean counters don't like that. For example, one of the local TV stations spends nearly 15 minutes of every newscast gossiping about some celebrity or sports figure (s).

Real news is all but gone.

That worries me as how are we to have informed citizens without news?

[Beertigger]

I don't think it'll disappear - it's an essential function of a democracy, and one that its practitioners are passionate about.

I think we'll see more family/privately owned news operations, much like newspapers used to be.

The pressures of the Internet, etc, will keep such operations from becoming as parochial as they may have been "back in the day," but only a dedicated owner will spend the money on gathering real news.

Shareholders want returns; they don't care if you're doing a good job. News operations don't function well as publicly owned corps. Witness the current mess - rather than investing in new media, the big chains are cutting.

Private concerns can accept smaller returns, secure in the knowledge that people will always need real news.

This has been in the works for a long time, I am sorry to say.

If I live another 20-25 years, I will be surprised if there are any real print newspapers left. I also expect to see all "news" disappear, whatever the media.

Newsgathering, like customer service, is expensive, and the bean counters don't like that. For example, one of the local TV stations spends nearly 15 minutes of every newscast gossiping about some celebrity or sports figure (s).

Real news is all but gone.

That worries me as how are we to have informed citizens without news?

[Downix]

I don't think it'll disappear - it's an essential function of a democracy, and one that its practitioners are passionate about.

I think we'll see more family/privately owned news operations, much like newspapers used to be.

The pressures of the Internet, etc, will keep such operations from becoming as parochial as they may have been "back in the day," but only a dedicated owner will spend the money on gathering real news.

Shareholders want returns; they don't care if you're doing a good job. News operations don't function well as publicly owned corps. Witness the current mess - rather than investing in new media, the big chains are cutting.

Private concerns can accept smaller returns, secure in the knowledge that people will always need real news.

Precisely, witness the rise of IndyMedia and Current.