Independent newspaper to cease in print
Discussion
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.
My son's a journo and has seen his career prospects end.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.
My impression is that the massive cuts in staff means that there are the experienced ones left at the top, then a gap, and the rest is made up of bloggers and click merchants. So fewer staff, important posts just ignored, means cuts in salaries, and the space is made up of the barely literate, work for peanuts brigade.
Online content is dreadfully written and poorly researched.
Vaud said:
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.
Vaud said:
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.
In 2006 they ran a story about BSE. They predicted that within 10 years there would be more than 1/2 a million deaths a year from new variant CJd. This would be such an [Jeremy Paxman voice]enormous[/Jeremy Paxman voice] problem that the French would seal the Channel tunnel with concrete.
So, how does the Guardian's doom mongering measure up?
Estimates of new variant CJd deaths in 2015 range between 4 and 7.
I don't think that it will be much different in 2016.
You may think that The Daily Mail is just as bad. However, there is a huge difference between the two. The Guardian takes itself seriously. You can see this in the huge numbers of comments that get deleted because they "do not meet community guidelines".
OTOH, you see the most scathing comments in the Mail's comments section.
Derek, I am sorry that your son doesn't see much of a future in journalism, but I do think that he is correct. I know someone who works in journalism, and he predicts that in 10 years we will only have one printed daily newspaper.
I'll spare your blood pressure and refrain from mentioning which title he thinks will survive.
don4l said:
You may think that The Daily Mail is just as bad. However, there is a huge difference between the two. The Guardian takes itself seriously. You can see this in the huge numbers of comments that get deleted because they "do not meet community guidelines".
OTOH, you see the most scathing comments in the Mail's comments section.
The Guardian's Komment Macht Frei section just reflects the left's intolerance of dissenting opinions. They're morally right about everything you see.OTOH, you see the most scathing comments in the Mail's comments section.
Although I won't miss the Independent, in a way it's sad to see the decline of print newspapers. The Indy was kinda OK when it started. I think my parents used to get it delivered. Then it lurched further left of the Guardian and clearly there aren't as many lefties out there as they thought. They just seem more numerous because they're very shouty.
don4l said:
Derek, I am sorry that your son doesn't see much of a future in journalism, but I do think that he is correct. I know someone who works in journalism, and he predicts that in 10 years we will only have one printed daily newspaper.
I'll spare your blood pressure and refrain from mentioning which title he thinks will survive.
The problem is that it is funded by other parts of the empire so other papers cannot compete. The papers are used for a purpose: supporting the other parts. Shame, it used to be one of the great papers. I'll spare your blood pressure and refrain from mentioning which title he thinks will survive.
I've been reading it (free) and its coverage of the EU debate is farcical.
One hopes that the death of printed papers means it will go down as well, at least in importance. Perhaps the owner won't get to visit #10 quite so frequently.
I fear us becoming like Australia where his empire totally dominates.
In 'olden days' journalists did their indentures and learned their trade/craft under a crusty old sub/editor on a local newspaper. They covered council meetings, fetes, and did all the hatches/matches/despatches stuff. They learned how to interview people who didn't want to be interviewed and to produce snappy, factual and accurate copy to deadline. After a couple of years in the boiler room of the local rag, and if they were lucky enough, they got to do shifts on nationals and ended up as permanent staff.
Those days are gone. Finished. Now the bright young things do "media studies" courses at Polytechnics or develop web sites in which they blog about their favourite things. And,blogging is merely "graffiti with punctuation" (as was memorably described in the movie "Contagion").
There are no young journalists today - not in the sense of people able to find out stuff someone somewhere doesn't want published and write factual accounts that can withstand the scrutiny of libel lawyers. These days they tend to think cutting and pasting a press release makes them a journalist. It doesn't. And you only have to look at the output of the chimps who churn out the paid-for, native advertising guff on Mail Online to realise that.
Seeking a career in journalism today makes about as much sense as wanting to be a London cabby.
Those days are gone. Finished. Now the bright young things do "media studies" courses at Polytechnics or develop web sites in which they blog about their favourite things. And,blogging is merely "graffiti with punctuation" (as was memorably described in the movie "Contagion").
There are no young journalists today - not in the sense of people able to find out stuff someone somewhere doesn't want published and write factual accounts that can withstand the scrutiny of libel lawyers. These days they tend to think cutting and pasting a press release makes them a journalist. It doesn't. And you only have to look at the output of the chimps who churn out the paid-for, native advertising guff on Mail Online to realise that.
Seeking a career in journalism today makes about as much sense as wanting to be a London cabby.
don4l said:
The Guardian do an absolutely rubbish job, and they have always been the same - or at least for the past 30 years.
In 2006 they ran a story about BSE. They predicted that within 10 years there would be more than 1/2 a million deaths a year from new variant CJd. This would be such an [Jeremy Paxman voice]enormous[/Jeremy Paxman voice] problem that the French would seal the Channel tunnel with concrete.
So, how does the Guardian's doom mongering measure up?
Estimates of new variant CJd deaths in 2015 range between 4 and 7.
I don't think that it will be much different in 2016.
You may think that The Daily Mail is just as bad. However, there is a huge difference between the two. The Guardian takes itself seriously. You can see this in the huge numbers of comments that get deleted because they "do not meet community guidelines".
OTOH, you see the most scathing comments in the Mail's comments section.
Derek, I am sorry that your son doesn't see much of a future in journalism, but I do think that he is correct. I know someone who works in journalism, and he predicts that in 10 years we will only have one printed daily newspaper.
I'll spare your blood pressure and refrain from mentioning which title he thinks will survive.
Not necessarily. They too are losing money hand over fist.In 2006 they ran a story about BSE. They predicted that within 10 years there would be more than 1/2 a million deaths a year from new variant CJd. This would be such an [Jeremy Paxman voice]enormous[/Jeremy Paxman voice] problem that the French would seal the Channel tunnel with concrete.
So, how does the Guardian's doom mongering measure up?
Estimates of new variant CJd deaths in 2015 range between 4 and 7.
I don't think that it will be much different in 2016.
You may think that The Daily Mail is just as bad. However, there is a huge difference between the two. The Guardian takes itself seriously. You can see this in the huge numbers of comments that get deleted because they "do not meet community guidelines".
OTOH, you see the most scathing comments in the Mail's comments section.
Derek, I am sorry that your son doesn't see much of a future in journalism, but I do think that he is correct. I know someone who works in journalism, and he predicts that in 10 years we will only have one printed daily newspaper.
I'll spare your blood pressure and refrain from mentioning which title he thinks will survive.
The problem for the newspaper industry is that they've collectively decide to give their product away for free, and then they're surprised that they're not making money. I have no objection about paying to read a newspaper, and did so for many years, but as I only ever read them on a computer or tablet there's no need to pay, that's not really a viable business model imo.
London424 said:
Surely the Guardian is next up...massive losses and big job cuts just announced the other week.
They've got the begging bowl out - this footer or pop up was on a Guardian webpage I visited this evening: "Thank you for reading the Guardian. Help keep our journalism fearless and independent by becoming a Supporter for just £5 a month."The independent bit is as well-timed as the begging
audidoody said:
don4l said:
The Guardian do an absolutely rubbish job, and they have always been the same - or at least for the past 30 years.
In 2006 they ran a story about BSE. They predicted that within 10 years there would be more than 1/2 a million deaths a year from new variant CJd. This would be such an [Jeremy Paxman voice]enormous[/Jeremy Paxman voice] problem that the French would seal the Channel tunnel with concrete.
So, how does the Guardian's doom mongering measure up?
Estimates of new variant CJd deaths in 2015 range between 4 and 7.
I don't think that it will be much different in 2016.
You may think that The Daily Mail is just as bad. However, there is a huge difference between the two. The Guardian takes itself seriously. You can see this in the huge numbers of comments that get deleted because they "do not meet community guidelines".
OTOH, you see the most scathing comments in the Mail's comments section.
Derek, I am sorry that your son doesn't see much of a future in journalism, but I do think that he is correct. I know someone who works in journalism, and he predicts that in 10 years we will only have one printed daily newspaper.
I'll spare your blood pressure and refrain from mentioning which title he thinks will survive.
Not necessarily. They too are losing money hand over fist.In 2006 they ran a story about BSE. They predicted that within 10 years there would be more than 1/2 a million deaths a year from new variant CJd. This would be such an [Jeremy Paxman voice]enormous[/Jeremy Paxman voice] problem that the French would seal the Channel tunnel with concrete.
So, how does the Guardian's doom mongering measure up?
Estimates of new variant CJd deaths in 2015 range between 4 and 7.
I don't think that it will be much different in 2016.
You may think that The Daily Mail is just as bad. However, there is a huge difference between the two. The Guardian takes itself seriously. You can see this in the huge numbers of comments that get deleted because they "do not meet community guidelines".
OTOH, you see the most scathing comments in the Mail's comments section.
Derek, I am sorry that your son doesn't see much of a future in journalism, but I do think that he is correct. I know someone who works in journalism, and he predicts that in 10 years we will only have one printed daily newspaper.
I'll spare your blood pressure and refrain from mentioning which title he thinks will survive.
Who do yo think that I was referring to?
audidoody said:
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.
Not arguing that it is very satisfying turning the pages of the printed edition of the ST, but as a subscriber to the digital edition, I can confirm that all the stories are there in full and not condensed into bite size chunks. Even all the supplements are there, in full, on my tablet every Sunday.audidoody said:
In 'olden days' journalists did their indentures and learned their trade/craft under a crusty old sub/editor on a local newspaper. They covered council meetings, fetes, and did all the hatches/matches/despatches stuff. They learned how to interview people who didn't want to be interviewed and to produce snappy, factual and accurate copy to deadline. After a couple of years in the boiler room of the local rag, and if they were lucky enough, they got to do shifts on nationals and ended up as permanent staff.
Those days are gone. Finished. Now the bright young things do "media studies" courses at Polytechnics or develop web sites in which they blog about their favourite things. And,blogging is merely "graffiti with punctuation" (as was memorably described in the movie "Contagion").
There are no young journalists today - not in the sense of people able to find out stuff someone somewhere doesn't want published and write factual accounts that can withstand the scrutiny of libel lawyers. These days they tend to think cutting and pasting a press release makes them a journalist. It doesn't. And you only have to look at the output of the chimps who churn out the paid-for, native advertising guff on Mail Online to realise that.
Seeking a career in journalism today makes about as much sense as wanting to be a London cabby.
I used to work for the South East London and Kentish Mercury as a printer, way back. There used to be three distinct 'types' of reporter. There were the ones who had been on the paper all their lives. Very competent, utterly dependable and could turn out 500 words immaculately punctuated and perfect grammar within half an hour on any subject. You wouldn't go to them for new ideas though.Those days are gone. Finished. Now the bright young things do "media studies" courses at Polytechnics or develop web sites in which they blog about their favourite things. And,blogging is merely "graffiti with punctuation" (as was memorably described in the movie "Contagion").
There are no young journalists today - not in the sense of people able to find out stuff someone somewhere doesn't want published and write factual accounts that can withstand the scrutiny of libel lawyers. These days they tend to think cutting and pasting a press release makes them a journalist. It doesn't. And you only have to look at the output of the chimps who churn out the paid-for, native advertising guff on Mail Online to realise that.
Seeking a career in journalism today makes about as much sense as wanting to be a London cabby.
Then there were those who couldn't, for whatever reason, cut it in the 'big time' of the London dailies/evenings who had returned to local papers for their twilight years. Despite having an incredibly high opinion of their talents, most were merely adequate, even when sober. A sub group were women, or in our case a woman, who had returned to journalism after having kids. She worked from dropping the kids off at school until they needed picking up. Whilst I'm hardly the person to criticise them for this, most would talk about great scoops they almost got.
Last came the youngsters who came in straight from uni. Most were a bit on the posh side and struggled to talk to people in Deptford. They often had grand ideas for 'improvements' and were even more often reluctant to learn from the experienced. On my way to the car park I was terrified once by a strange, strangled scream from a car I passed. It was one of the trainees crying in her car. It was hardly a unique experience.
The only ones who thought they were a massive step up from us printers were some, <50%, of the newbies. The others were quite friendly and there were a couple of the returnees who lived near me and I was often asked by one of the subs to take them home as they were too drunk to drive, or in one case stand.
The press room was massive, desks everywhere, probably more reporters than in the Express nowadays. And this was a local paper.
One bloke who'd been at the Mercury all his working life lived locally and had more informants than I ever did when I was a police officer. He was hardly ever in the office and would submit copy across the front counter on occasion. He was broad minded but could, at a request from his editor, get upset in print about any particular subject. He used to smoke a bit of weed and once produced an article about rampant drug dealing in Deptford High Street, this pre 71 drugs act. The joke was that after it was printed, the dealers couldn't keep up with the increased demand.
Many journoes, perhaps not most, saw their role as a calling and stuck to the accepted morals and code of conduct of the job.
I wanted to be a journalist.
turbobloke said:
London424 said:
Surely the Guardian is next up...massive losses and big job cuts just announced the other week.
They've got the begging bowl out - this footer or pop up was on a Guardian webpage I visited this evening: "Thank you for reading the Guardian. Help keep our journalism fearless and independent by becoming a Supporter for just £5 a month."The independent bit is as well-timed as the begging
Vaud said:
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.
Yep. The Buzzfeed Lycamobile story was top work. As was the David Hunt stuff which took real guts and a courageous editor and legal department. But that was print.
Lyca was one of the very few "old-school" investigations delivered entirely by a digital-only publication. I struggle to think of any other.
So well done to Buzzfeed for ploughing some of the revenue earned by lightweight listicles into decent journalism.
I'd maintain the Lyca job was an exception rather than the rule.
Even the Daily Mail has done some superb print campaigning work (e.g. helping bring the Stephen Lawrence thugs to trial). But I can't see Mail Online ever replicating that kind of work.
Digital is a difficult platform from which to deliver these type of in-depth investigations as the digital ethos is based around "snacking" on content. It does not lend itself to features. Ever tried reading a complex 2,500 word feature on a smartphone or tablet?
Lyca was one of the very few "old-school" investigations delivered entirely by a digital-only publication. I struggle to think of any other.
So well done to Buzzfeed for ploughing some of the revenue earned by lightweight listicles into decent journalism.
I'd maintain the Lyca job was an exception rather than the rule.
Even the Daily Mail has done some superb print campaigning work (e.g. helping bring the Stephen Lawrence thugs to trial). But I can't see Mail Online ever replicating that kind of work.
Digital is a difficult platform from which to deliver these type of in-depth investigations as the digital ethos is based around "snacking" on content. It does not lend itself to features. Ever tried reading a complex 2,500 word feature on a smartphone or tablet?
Edited by audidoody on Saturday 13th February 10:51
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff