Re:Chicago Sun Times Files For Bankruptcy
by electromagnetic on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @01:39PM
(#540447)
IMO News shouldn't be a for-profit industry. For-profit news encourages poor journalism as you can make more money selling lies than selling the truth.
Re:Chicago Sun Times Files For Bankruptcy
by biohacker42 on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @01:49PM
(#540467)
It's not that simple.
While there is a very large market for silly lies - tabloids.
That market also has a very low barrier to entry.
There are market segments happy and able to pay for quality, try The Economist.
Those markets are much smaller but also have a much higher barrier to entry, and a very affluent audience.
I think what's killing the newspapers is that they tried to sit on two chairs at once. Trying to be both informative and popular.
Without competition that might have worked, but it's over now.
Because for pay news like the AP and Bloomberg and magazines The Atlantic Montly, etc, are doing just fine, and because tabloids are also fine, I don't think many will miss those going out of business.
But I also agree with you, the non profit newspaper is a good option. I believe The Irish Times is a grant based non-profit.
Take a look at that trend! (Switch to the 'annual' view). The free-market response is that the company turns around or goes bankrupt. If they were nationalized, you'd expect them to keep losing more and more money, until finally, someone had to take action -- by taxing blogs.
I really don't think that competing for thousands of advertisers is going to make people more honest than serving a single owner with an infinite budget. They'd end up being even less honest than the average Fortune 500 company's internal newsletter.
Re:Chicago Sun Times Files For Bankruptcy
by unalone on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @02:49PM
(#540573)
It's not about lying. It's about sensationalism.
Either you tell in-depth news for a small group, or you go sensationalist to go after the masses. News groups increasingly tilted towards the latter for all of the last two decades.
Re:Chicago Sun Times Files For Bankruptcy
by unalone on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @02:39PM
(#540548)
The Chicago Sun-Times is a huge paper, though. I found it pretty damn interesting that it's not just medium-to-small papers. This is the paper that houses Roger Ebert.
Re:Chicago Sun Times Files For Bankruptcy
by tptacek on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @02:41PM
(#540556)
The Chron is about to go under; Seattle is losing a daily; the NYT may run out of operating cash in May. Is there a trend story out there about the newspapers that would be Hacker News? Sure. But this kind of isn't it.
(I'm more worried about where Jim DeRogatis is going to land than about Ebert, who can obviously just retire now).
Re:Chicago Sun Times Files For Bankruptcy
by Xichekolas on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @05:24PM
(#540865)
Ebert has the kind of fame that can outlive his company's downfall. He'll just take over his domain name and keep reviewing, and his content will probably continue to be syndicated nationwide.
In fact, he might end up making more since he won't have to give the Sun-Times it's share.
Just because a company goes under doesn't mean it takes all it's assets with it. The good bits will be bought by someone.
While there is a very large market for silly lies - tabloids. That market also has a very low barrier to entry.
There are market segments happy and able to pay for quality, try The Economist. Those markets are much smaller but also have a much higher barrier to entry, and a very affluent audience.
I think what's killing the newspapers is that they tried to sit on two chairs at once. Trying to be both informative and popular.
Without competition that might have worked, but it's over now.
Because for pay news like the AP and Bloomberg and magazines The Atlantic Montly, etc, are doing just fine, and because tabloids are also fine, I don't think many will miss those going out of business.
But I also agree with you, the non profit newspaper is a good option. I believe The Irish Times is a grant based non-profit.
Take a look at that trend! (Switch to the 'annual' view). The free-market response is that the company turns around or goes bankrupt. If they were nationalized, you'd expect them to keep losing more and more money, until finally, someone had to take action -- by taxing blogs.
I really don't think that competing for thousands of advertisers is going to make people more honest than serving a single owner with an infinite budget. They'd end up being even less honest than the average Fortune 500 company's internal newsletter.
I live in Mass but enjoy NHPR, does anyone know of good alarm clock radios that are powerful enough to get NHPR in Mass?
It adds to the discussion and it's a curious question. It's not entirely on-topic, but he did SAY that in advance.
What you need is a clock radio that plays MP3 streams. Maybe the Chumby can help you?
Either you tell in-depth news for a small group, or you go sensationalist to go after the masses. News groups increasingly tilted towards the latter for all of the last two decades.
Or, are you going with "subsidizers will pick well"?
(I'm more worried about where Jim DeRogatis is going to land than about Ebert, who can obviously just retire now).
In fact, he might end up making more since he won't have to give the Sun-Times it's share.
Just because a company goes under doesn't mean it takes all it's assets with it. The good bits will be bought by someone.