Independent newspaper to cease in print
Discussion
motco said:
SpudLink said:
Back when I used to commute by train, this was my newspaper of choice. I think I started reading it when the first issue was published. Like many others, I no longer get my news from print, so I won't miss it. None the less, it's sad to see it go.
I started reading it in about 1988 when it was very new. It was then a very good newspaper IMHO, and continued to be so for long time. It provided even handed reports on the news as far as possible and eschewed celebs and royalty. I gave up on it when it ceased to be independent...It was a terrible pity when it moved to the left. I haven't bought a copy in years.
There was a need for newspapers as a group to be the fourth estate. It was an essential for the running of our democracy.
The security that the 4th estate provided has been considerably weakened over the years and now not only do we have close control over direction and editorial but content has to conform. Murdoch's empire is apolitical. It bends with the wind, but only towards what it desires above all else: dominance. The Mail is the Mail and is the pronouncements of its weird owners. The Guardian is more or less independent but has a political bias. The Telegraph and Express seem to get all of their scoops from the agencies or via advertorials.
Whether the internet caused the decline of printed papers is open to argument, but regardless, it has provided an alternative source of information. That we can't believe everything we see on the internet is hardly a reason to ignore it given the political and prejudicial bias of the newspapers at the moment. There's no doubt you have to exercise the same caution with them.
The circulation figures need to be taken with a pinch of salt as well.
It is sad that newspapers are folding but they have brought a lot of their problems on themselves.
The security that the 4th estate provided has been considerably weakened over the years and now not only do we have close control over direction and editorial but content has to conform. Murdoch's empire is apolitical. It bends with the wind, but only towards what it desires above all else: dominance. The Mail is the Mail and is the pronouncements of its weird owners. The Guardian is more or less independent but has a political bias. The Telegraph and Express seem to get all of their scoops from the agencies or via advertorials.
Whether the internet caused the decline of printed papers is open to argument, but regardless, it has provided an alternative source of information. That we can't believe everything we see on the internet is hardly a reason to ignore it given the political and prejudicial bias of the newspapers at the moment. There's no doubt you have to exercise the same caution with them.
The circulation figures need to be taken with a pinch of salt as well.
It is sad that newspapers are folding but they have brought a lot of their problems on themselves.
tr7v8 said:
Every hotel I check in to in the UK has dozens of copies of the Indie lying around & if offered a "free" paper it'll be the Indie. I wonder on those numbers how many of these freebies are included.
I was just going to say this. Remove those editions from the numbers, and they must have actually sold very, very few. The Guardian are losing about £1m a week. It cant go on.
williamp said:
I was just going to say this. Remove those editions from the numbers, and they must have actually sold very, very few. The Guardian are losing about £1m a week. It cant go on.
Waitrose gives away The Times to almost any customer. I remember queuing up one Sunday and everyone in front of me had the ST. Each one counted. 
BOR said:
I cannot see the point in a paper copy of newspaper in this day and age. Apart from the news content trailing behind the online content in terms of how uptodate it is, it is simply easier to read an electronic copy.
I wouldn't ever buy one during the week, but for lounging in front of a log fire in a country pub with a pint and a nice lunch, nothing beats a weekend broadsheet.Kermit power said:
BOR said:
I cannot see the point in a paper copy of newspaper in this day and age. Apart from the news content trailing behind the online content in terms of how uptodate it is, it is simply easier to read an electronic copy.
I wouldn't ever buy one during the week, but for lounging in front of a log fire in a country pub with a pint and a nice lunch, nothing beats a weekend broadsheet.Along with the demise of print has come the demise of proper journalism - everything now is dominated by search engine optimisation and measured by advertisers down to the last click.
This means content has to be written to generate traffic and clicks rather than to investigate and inform. With print ,advertising depended on the readership and circulation. So, the better the journalism the higher the circulation and the more advertising revenue.
Now it's the higher the clicks the higher the advertising. So print journalism has become internet "churnalism" to satisfy Google's algorithms.
Here's an example - post a story about the US economy having a downturn and the clicks will be X. Post a story with that includes key words such as Apple or iPhone and the clicks will be XXXX. Thus "US economy in downturn" becomes "Apples profit and iPhone shipments hit by US economy downturn". Or "Kim Kardashian considers moving to London to escape US economy downturn" . Or "10 things you didn't know about the US economy"
Whatever - the need for effective SEO is the priority.
Digital journalism is "consumed: differently to print journalism. Which is why it is so much more satisfying to buy the print version of the Sunday Times and spend a couple of hours on a sunday turning pages and spending time reading a long feature that appeals to you. You can't do the same thing on a phone or tablet - you'll get eye strain. So the digital version has to be condensed into "bite" size chunks.
The problem is there is no longer the revenue for media owners to produce investigations such as the MP expense scandal. The famous Washington Post Watergate story could never happen today.
This means content has to be written to generate traffic and clicks rather than to investigate and inform. With print ,advertising depended on the readership and circulation. So, the better the journalism the higher the circulation and the more advertising revenue.
Now it's the higher the clicks the higher the advertising. So print journalism has become internet "churnalism" to satisfy Google's algorithms.
Here's an example - post a story about the US economy having a downturn and the clicks will be X. Post a story with that includes key words such as Apple or iPhone and the clicks will be XXXX. Thus "US economy in downturn" becomes "Apples profit and iPhone shipments hit by US economy downturn". Or "Kim Kardashian considers moving to London to escape US economy downturn" . Or "10 things you didn't know about the US economy"
Whatever - the need for effective SEO is the priority.
Digital journalism is "consumed: differently to print journalism. Which is why it is so much more satisfying to buy the print version of the Sunday Times and spend a couple of hours on a sunday turning pages and spending time reading a long feature that appeals to you. You can't do the same thing on a phone or tablet - you'll get eye strain. So the digital version has to be condensed into "bite" size chunks.
The problem is there is no longer the revenue for media owners to produce investigations such as the MP expense scandal. The famous Washington Post Watergate story could never happen today.
Edited by audidoody on Friday 12th February 17:50
audidoody said:
The problem is there is no longer the revenue for media owners to produce investigations such as the MP expense scandal. The famous Washington Post Watergate story could never happen today.
I disagree. Great investigative journalism - if that was your reference - happens still. Look at Private Eye. The Guardian do a pretty good job (although their revenue is under serious pressure). I think Wired have done a few in the tech space.
Vaud said:
I disagree. Great investigative journalism - if that was your reference - happens still.
Look at Private Eye. The Guardian do a pretty good job (although their revenue is under serious pressure). I think Wired have done a few in the tech space.
The Eye is not, though, a newspaper. It does little investigating itself, relying on submitted information in the main. The days of Paul Foot and the enquiry into PanAm 107 seems to happen on occasion, but most is more or less gossip.Look at Private Eye. The Guardian do a pretty good job (although their revenue is under serious pressure). I think Wired have done a few in the tech space.
It comes out fortnightly and this, together with the weeklies, make it different to the dailies.
There are some excellent weekly magazines, with The Spectator and, about half the size, New Statesman in theory increasing their sales.But they seem to be pushing their online digital versions.
It might change. 12 years ago I was considering, with another, starting a printed monthly magazine. I did some enquiries, or rather got someone else to do so, and all I got was warnings of the demise of the market. It was all, I was informed, going digital. The shelves of WH Smith prove that the money spent on the research was more or less wasted.
It is possible that newspapers could change to fit the market but some of the current set of editors seem rather set in their ways and appear frightened of moving away from traditional readership.
BOR said:
I cannot see the point in a paper copy of newspaper in this day and age. Apart from the news content trailing behind the online content in terms of how uptodate it is, it is simply easier to read an electronic copy.
I have always read a newspaper but I'm not averse to reading it electronically. I looked into getting the Times this way (they are always massively pushing it) but they can't deliver it to me for 5 in the morning which is when I leave for work, which seems odd because they can get the hard copies in the shops by 5:30.I wonder how much money dropping the paper edition will save, they only sold 60,000 copies per day and most of the costs must be journalist's salaries, and they'll still need journalists for a digital only offfering.
I've got a few friends who are journalists, and a few friends who work in the oil industry, there's a fair bit of doom and gloom around at our get togethers.
I've got a few friends who are journalists, and a few friends who work in the oil industry, there's a fair bit of doom and gloom around at our get togethers.
Derek Smith said:
The Eye is not, though, a newspaper. It does little investigating itself, relying on submitted information in the main. The days of Paul Foot and the enquiry into PanAm 107 seems to happen on occasion, but most is more or less gossip.
It comes out fortnightly and this, together with the weeklies, make it different to the dailies.
I was focused on the outcome of investigative journalism, rather than being constrained by a daily printed paper approach - which I think are dead.It comes out fortnightly and this, together with the weeklies, make it different to the dailies.
RYH64E said:
I wonder how much money dropping the paper edition will save, they only sold 60,000 copies per day and most of the costs must be journalist's salaries, and they'll still need journalists for a digital only offfering.
I've got a few friends who are journalists, and a few friends who work in the oil industry, there's a fair bit of doom and gloom around at our get togethers.
I know order-order have a thing againsg he Guardian, but they did say a whileback that a lot of its content is written by interns and bloggers (ie free or very cheap, paid by the article rather then staff).I've got a few friends who are journalists, and a few friends who work in the oil industry, there's a fair bit of doom and gloom around at our get togethers.
Might this be a way forward? It would make it more competitive, and might push the quality of writing up. Then again...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff