Digg

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Do Newspapers Have a Future?

time.com — How can the newspaper industry survive the Internet? On the one hand, newspapers are expected to supply their content free on the Web. On the other hand, their most profitable advertising--classifieds--is being lost to sites like Craigslist. And display advertising is close behind. Meanwhile, there is the blogs...

Bury

spinchange 2 years 71 days ago, made popular 2 years 70 days ago

292 diggs
digg it

86 Comments
Who Dugg It?

NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Newspapers will still have their place because they are easier on the eyes.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Or until electronic paper or LCD is easier for the eyes.
  
  Might take a decade or so...
- Ashex, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I agree, it's way easier to read a newspaper that contains multiple sections of news laid out in an organized manner. I prefer newspaper over blogs because I can get everything in one place, while with blogs i have to visit several to read up on everything.
  Now if someone created an ajax site that mimicked a newspaper layout that had a handful of bloggers who blogged a story specifically for the site, I would be sold.
- EXreaction, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Paper is easier to read, but the problem is anything that has any news worthwhile(most newspapers have crap for news) is usually at least a month out of date. :'(
- shitthisfook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Ashex:
  
  Consider your idea stolen.
  
  Thanks.
- helusay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, nothing like cutting edge reporting on a topic that is as old as the Internet. Way to stay on top of things Time magazine. Wouldn't this story also apply to magazines? hmmmmmm
Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14If you happen to live in the UK, where newspapers like the Daily Express and the Sun are gaining popularity, then I hope to God they don't have a future.
santiago1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6 Mebbe, but only if they find a way to keep the damned ink from getting all over my fingers when I read them.....
- Arkitan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I have to say, I hate the ink, I know they do it so they can keep the cost of newspapers low, but I think if they raised the price and stopped the ink on the fingers problem and "shaped" the newspaper like a magazine so it was easier to hold when you're reading it, they would appeal to a younger audience.
- aarons44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Not all newspapers suffer from the ink problem. Usually it's only the smaller ones. Most larger newspapers are excellent. However, the ones that aren't are really annoying!
- JustinCase18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The ink problem is not just a price issue (although that's a major problem.) The other issue is that the environmental restrictions on what goes into the ink continually cause more rub problems. Want vegetable oils? Guess what they dry slower and cause more rub-off (the soybean growers may disagree, but they grow the stuff, they haven't actually don't the research on it.) Find a resin that reduces rub? Sorry, those have higher VOC's.
  
  Add to that anything that would make the rub resistance better causes recycling problems. If the ink won't come off on your hands, its chemically more difficult to remove from the recycled pulp.
elfolk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think newspapers are here to stay. I remember when people were saying that conventional mailing via the USPS was going to deteriorate b/c of the rise of electronic mailing, but it didn't. I think newspapers will just have to change with the times, but they aren't going anywhere.
- thewaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2true, USPS is more profitable now because they ship tons of internet orders and less mail.
- IEatHamburgers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Newspapers won't be dead, otherwise they would've died by 1990 courtesy of CNN.
  
  Local newspapers (i.e. rural areas), I think, will be profitable for some time to come.
  Papers like the New York Times, on the other hand, might have to pull some gimmicks (in their case, either lessening their liberal slant or pulling it way out of proportion) to stay out there.
- JustinCase18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most of the smaller newspapers have been bought out by the larger groups and are now printed at the larger sites. There's more price fixing in the newspaper market than any other. The net price of newsblack in 1900 was $0.25 a pound. Now the net price is between $0.35 to $0.45 a pound depending on the product and the discount.
  
  How many other industries can control their pricing so that a cost hasn't doubled in 106 years?
2ndRevolution, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Newspapers are great for cleaning windows. They leave very little if any lint. They're also great for putting fried foods on to help wick away some of the grease. They make excellent kindling for starting a grill/smoker as well.

I'm sure we can all think of a good reason to have newspapers around. Funny, news doesn't seem to come to my mind as one of them though.

Plus you can buy the Sunday paper for $1.50 and have enough to last quite a while. Paper towels don't seem to hold up as well.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Agreed. I have never actually sat down to read an entire newspaper... And I was on the staff for my high school paper. I used to deliver my county newspaper.
  
  The internet replaces all of my news needs, specifically Digg, Slashdot and Techdirt. In the future, I see no reason to ever subscribe to a newspaper again.
- Wisgary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How about for pet poop? All kinds of pets poo on newspapers every day around the world. In fact, I know people who specifically buy newspapers just for their dogs to poo on. Newspapers do have other uses besides the standard.
Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4No they don't and they should not.
Its a huge waste.
halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10They could just pull an RIAA and lobby to make it illegal to distribute news on the Internet. A few well placed lobbying dollars, a few legal campaigns aimed at creating a Chilling effect, and they could be back on top within a couple of years, having silenced the "Little Guy" with superior legal spending.

They could also go after the accuracy of "Bloggers" and paint them as a collections of self centered egotists more interested in attention than truth.
- IcarusAngelus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Shhhh! Don't give em any ideas, or soon the NIAA will be arresting people who can't even read for illegally downloading Teh N3wz!
  
  As for your second argument... that wouldn't take very much paint...
- aarons44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually, that's interesting, considering that one of the most swapped things on P2P networks is cross stitch patterns. Never know what people will trade..
molsen311, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7as a journalism student, i can tell you there is future for newspapers. obviously they won't be a main media source for most people...but there will always be a need for them. on your way to work, waiting for the bus/subway, etc....there's countless reasons why people choose to use a newspaper over other media and still will be far into the future
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@molsen311
  
  Doesn't your position as a journalism student make you a bit biased in favor of Newspapers continuing to exist?
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Newspapers need to find their place in the new media. There is plenty of room on the internet for reliable sources of information, completely objective in delivery(everything seems to be spun one way or the other with blogs).
  
  As a fellow newspaper employee/designer, I can also tell you that many, MANY of the newspapers around are run by ancient fuddy-duddies that are combersome to the slightest bit of change. If Bill Gates predicted the internet would never take off, newspaper people had never even heard of the internet.
- molsen311, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@halleyscomet
  
  no, because I don't desire a career in print journalism.
- JustinCase18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Journalists aren't biased! Where would you get that idea? I thought that was one of the kickers in this article. The one about bloggers being biased. Read the Fort Worth Star Telegram and you'll be amazed how one-sided a front page can be. Don't journalists know the difference between the editorial section and the news section?
GodsHand, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Classified sales are actually on the rise.
Newspaper sales are on the rise, as well.
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@GodsHand
  
  What, pray tell, are your sources for that claim?
- captaineuphoria, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3God?
- JustinCase18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not sure about that, but they charge for Obituaries in most markets and has anyone noticed that they don't print the Stock Reports anymore? No money in that, save the print area for another Dillard's ad.
bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow, this is a regurgitation of an article in the Economist a month ago. A little disappointed in Time...
Arkitan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think newspapers are going to die off but not anytime soon. It's more of a generational thing, my parents read the newspaper, I watched Television news, my kids will get their news from the internet, and my grandkids will get their news in yet another way. Newspapers will stick around for about 20 years after the baby boomers are all gone.
- swarren, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I mostly agree with Arkitan. It's not that news services won't be needed or that papers will die off completely (just take a look at the sears catalog)... it's just that the format preferred by the majority is likely to change.
MacsBaine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If TV hasn't killed the newspaper I don' t think the Internet will. Heck, I'm a news junkie on the Internet but I still subscribe to my local paper and WSJ. I like to read them on my commute and to take a break from the computer screen once in a while.
aarons44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Having worked for a newspaper, I can tell you that they are here to stay, for many reasons. First of all, they're all investing in technology and have other ways of making money. Second of all, newspapers are HUGE cash cows. According to internal documents leaked from the company I worked for, the average paper had a profit margin between 25-30%! They get scared when it falls to 20%. Find another industry that can say that. The advertising more than pays for the costs. Subscription fees are just extra play money. It's even better when you look at companies that have free weekly products, often aimed at young people or for selling vehicles. Those make money hand over fist.
- aarons44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Forgot that Digg takes out tags, and my first comment had an important point in tags: I worked for the leader in the newspaper industry, so to say that their papers had a high profit margin is speaking for the majority of newspapers out there.
- aarons44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well, the company's name starts with "G" and ends with "annet". If you Google, you can probably find the stats. It was the Gannett Nashville paper that originally leaked the figures. I don't want to put them here since I used to work for them, even though they're readily available. Here in Rochester (where I work), an "alternative" newspaper printed the leaked information, in an interview with the Publisher of the Gannett paper here, calling him on why their profit margins are so high but the pay is so low and treatment of employees is so bad. I'm in IT, very important to today's IT-complex printing process, and was able to get a 25% raise to leave and go elsewhere. I make more than everyone I used to work with, including my boss, all of whom had been with that paper for over 10 years.
- ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5having worked for the same publisher ... (same paper? aaron who? ;) ) I don't care what leaked documents show ... massive layoffs, reductions in benefits, piss poor raises that don't come anywhere close to cost of living ... you sure we worked for the same evil empire?
- aarons44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I totally agree that being an employee at said newspaper is terrible. The leaked documents from Nashville showed average Gannett margins above 25%, with the highest being 35%, which I believe was Binghamton [sic?]. It all must get funneled to the top though, because it's definitely not coming down to the people at the bottom, which is why neither of us is there anymore.
- JustinCase18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've seen the same profits for Hearst, Cox, in addition to Gannett. And yes, they do lay off people when profits drop below 25%. They make iron clad contracts with suppliers and keep them to prices long after their suppliers profits disappear. (Ask anyone who takes recycled newsprint, aluminum (from the plates) and silver (from their film).
SugeKnight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Some Newspapers will have there place. Any big city papers (NYT, USA Today) will still have followings and will still sell. Lugging a laptop around just so you can read the news is still a little time away. I work for an International Mail Order firm that still publishes color catalogs. We have started to cut back due to the net, but our clientel still likes to hold physical catalogs and they will not go to the net to see the new lists we produce. Eventually, it may come to no more paper, but that time will not be soon.
Sandwiches_Time, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's just a question through which medium the newspaper's news will be distributed. What's the fundamental difference between reading the news in a newspaper in 1950 and reading the news online or on a wi-fi device today and in the future? There isn't one.

People will always need news -- local, national and global. Newspapers just need to adapt to a new medium, and they will.
Sandwiches_Time, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's just a question through which medium the newspaper's news will be distributed. What's the fundimental difference between reading the news in a newspaper in 1950 and reading the news online or on a wi-fi device today and in the future? There isn't one.

People will always need news -- local, national and global. Newspapers just need to adapt to a new medium, and they will.
junkfood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bitter, bitter. Sounds like someone is upset because all they know is crumbling around them.

Newspapers will likely always be around in one form or another, but my guess is that there will only be a few large ones (the consolidation that we are already seeing will continue). In addition, there will likely be many small papers who can make it on local adds and the like.

The ones that I think will die out completely are the mid-sized papers.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think you've got it totally backwards. As the consolidation continues, the demand for more local news of interest will grow as major news outlets tend to ignore the small stories and go only for the big ones. If the mid-size paper dies out as a species, someone will step in to fill that hole.
- Oracle95, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not as likely as it once was for someone to step in. The cost to purchase a press and leverage pricing on newsprint are substantially higher. The big boys cut deals with newsprint and can prevent smaller guys from even buying newsprint based on their contracts.
  
  I used to work with Gannett and saw this happen all the time (and yes, I too can testify to their rules on layoffs). That's why many of the smaller papers are joining conglomerates like Page Co-Op, the Teamsters Union has nothing on the large newspaper chains.
  
  Newspapers will change, like radio did with the advent of television. No one listens to radio drama, you now have music and talk formats. The billionaires that control these empires will figure out a way to make money, it might mean that pressmen are out of work, but those publishers will do just fine.
BobMysterioso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There is something missing about reading information on the a screen. The tangibleness? of a newspaper really lends itself to a much better experience, I think.

I'm finding lately my attention span is very short. I stop reading articles after a paragraph or so because I'm so used to RSS feeds and the paragraph of text.

I think newspapers are around for a while, I genuinely enjoy reading them, when I do, which isn't that often.
thefoxtrot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2from the article: "people are getting their understanding of the world from random lunatics riffing in their underwear, rather than professional journalists with standards and passports."

professional journalist? at least bloggers are forward about their agenda....
pavelft, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1additionally more local papers (like mine, The Roanoke Times) provide the local content that people enjoy (for national/AP/reuters news I hit up cnn.com, bbc news, etc) and is usually more comprehensive than the 15 second sound bite you get from the local news.
elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There ARE blogs, damnit!
Tawni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I cancelled my newspaper subscriptions a long time ago. I just buy the online format. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal are much better online anyway. I only miss the sunday crossword puzzle.
ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3newspapers are a dying industry. take it from a former Gannett webmaster, they're a dinosaur, and they deserve to be. bastions of uncreative thinking, mimics of the highest degree, newspaper publishers and their disciple-like new media managers and executives have eaten their last supper, but there will be no resurrection.

Aside from a very late-in-the-game effort at recruiting bloggers, my higher-ups wanted us to essentially copy myspace and craigslist and general forum type communities -- I'd tried to get decent forums (phpBB, vbulletin, etc.) up and running years ago, but it wasn't until 2004 that these chickens-without-heads were running around demanding it -- after shooting me down in the years previous. Looking at neighboring markets with active forum communities that had 2x-4x the number of unique visits, they figured they could now slap up a forum of their own, and achieve the same results. NOT!

The day of the newspaper is over. Easier to read? So what! Electronic ink and reusable plastic paper will deliver the same readibility, only with an online, automatically updating component.

As for me, I've moved back into REAL software engineering -- I never should have left!
- aarons44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ha, I thought that was you. Having worked at the same place you did, I agree with everything you said, although I think that newspapers are going to be around for awhile. Look at those profit margins. The weekly products alone are enough to float them for ever and a day. The people reading the papers have no knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes. The 13-year labor impasse at the Rochester paper has done nothing to lower subscriptions.
- ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1haha yeah half ignore my earlier comment, I figured it might be you too ... how's the big red X? email me sometime, it's myfirstname@mylastname.us
HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Here's why newspapers will always be in demand.

1. You can read them on the toilet.
2. You can read them in bed or in the front porch rocking chair or while waiting in your car.
3. You can read one while eating a drippy hamburger and it just doesn't matter.
4. You can clip out and save the picture of your daughter getting an award or your uncle getting arrested (again).
5. You can find a used deer rifle (for cheap) from someone who lives down the road.
6. Obituaries and birth listings are there.
- jawadde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31) if it ever comes to be in the profitable range, e-ink will be cheaper than paper-print since you don't have to spend $ on the paper
  2) my wifi macbook is on my lap as I type this, on my porch
  3) learn to eat properly
  4) duh.. ctrl-click on an image / add-image-to-iPhoto-library
  5) ever heard of ebay ? They have an option "search within xxx miles radius"
  6) you must be feeling lucky today : www.obituaries.com
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jawadde
  Can you do all that during a power outage?
GAMER135, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Digg.com is my Newspaper
strebormj, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4In the US, all of the major newspapers are controlled by a tiny handful of prosemites with a radical political agenda.

These papers, once purchased, lost their individual viewpoints, and now all uniformly slant their coverage to reflect the agendas of a small group of radical afrocentrists, feminists, homocentrists, and semitocentrists. They uncritically accept the talking points of the NAACP, NOW, GLAAD, the ADL, and the Democratic Party as "news" while completely excluding other viewpoints and contradictory evidence, even as they bemoan their declining readership and millions of Americans flock away from the one-sided, agenda-based news coverage and politically commentary.

Americans were turning their backs on the establishment media long before the growth in online, independent news outlets. The major newspapers, with their transparent, neoliberal agenda, simply do not represent the news truthfully, and do not represent the views of the majority of Americans.
- jawadde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the fact that you're bing dugg down proves that digg.com is part of the party you're pissing on. The main conclusion being that the "handful of prosemites with a radical political agenda" basicly has the public under their thumbs. Or vice versa.
- 022A, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So where does one go to find the truth?
Marfanity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Try holding a blog over your head when you're running to your car in the rain.
Also, bogs aren't effective for making hats, lining bird cages, and training puppies.
- ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Neither are swamps for that matter.
pope7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Comics. they'll survive because they have the funnies.
mecole21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Newspapers suck. (or at least the one in my city does). 75% of it is AP stories. 20% is just stupid local crap that no one cares about. The other 5% is real local news.
nemoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The 'newspaper industry' can easily transition to digital media but they will have more competition which means the only way they will survive is by providing higher QUALITY articles and editing than Joe Random Blog. This seems to be something most of them have forgotten.
- ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the industry HAS transitioned to digital - slowly, painfully, and extremely reluctantly. are they maximizing what technology has to offer them? certainly not. will they do so in time? probably not. and by in time, I mean, before they collapse under their gigundous weight, and some savvy raider comes along and aggregates them through bargain basement acquisitions into a print uber-monopoly that no one cares to contest under anti trust laws because digital blows it away, even in monolithic form.
bibliophobe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We live in an age where demand for news is higher than it's ever been.

I think newspapers do have a future, but they are going to have to start protecting their copyrighted content. I've seen countless blogs and forums that cut and paste entire news stories, including the copyright disclaimer at the bottom.

This stuff costs money - to pay the journalist, expenses, etc... People are only going to be willing to pay for it if its not free elsewhere.
Hensworth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Meh, they've been saying that ever since the first newbroadcast over radio. I will only believe it when it happens.
umbriago, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The only classified ads Craigslist steals are hookups (or guys pretending to be women to snag your personal info), people flipping cars, and envelope-stuffing jobs no one in their right minds wants anyway.

Whoever thought giving away content for free turned out to be a goddamned moron, however. That practice has to end.
- ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1funny you should say that, considering craigslist is specifically NOT out to grow their revenues in a crazy fashion ... and through slow, steady growth, unlike most of their ilk (web 1.0 give it away for free ilk) they've never had layoffs, had to downsize, or had any real fears about their future. yeah, they must be a bunch of morons, their model clearly doesn't work. :uh:
PrinceBrand, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As long as people keep birds for pets, newspapers will still be around...
dextrocardia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Newspapers do need to get their collective heads out of their equally collective asses when it comes to the online world, but the fact is that the daily newspapers aren't going anywhere.

They are still the best place to go for local news; your local blogger is no match for a trained journalist with a good editor. Moreover, they deliver to advertisers a local, usually better-educated, more affluent reader. If you have a business, those are the people you want to reach, not the ones reading the online version: those people could be thousands of miles away.

Also, I'll point you to Jack Shafer's article debunking the "cost of newsprint" myth: http://www.slate.com/id/2128109/
ctrlfreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Of course newspapers have a future. Ever tried typing out a Su Doku?
frogidler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How can the radio survive the Internet?
How can the TV survive the Internet?
How can the theatre survive the Internet? :)
tomski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People said that letters will disappear as the fax arrived. Well take a look around you!
uthaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The only reason I still receive our local fishwrap is that they give it to me for free. I called to cancel my subscription and was asked what it would take to keep me. I told the guy give me the paper for free. He said OK, and it has shown up on my door now for two years and I've never gotten another bill. They make more money off keeping their subscription numbers higher to charge advertisers than they do in the 50 cents per issue they charge me...
hirak99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Please bury this comment
hirak99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I seriously need newspapers after moving to the new place... I can't survive without them! I need them for cleaning, eating stuffs on them, covering a book - I have the Internet to read the news.
sanghviam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The other day I ended up visiting this website by pure luck! I was looking for a good deal for my Hyundai Accent and wanted to post it on the Internet. When I visited the verticals such as Indiacar.com, Automartindia.com etc. I saw ads in a few hundreds. Then I visited Khichdee.com and saw ads in the thousands. Khichdee not only allows visitors to post ads but also picks up ads from print media such as Times of India, Indian Express etc. Besides this, it also slurps ads from on line verticals and links back to them. It is a single interface to multiple media searches for classifieds. Truly amazing.
Akaricloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I might only be 17, but I would take a newspaper over an internet source of information any day of the week.

A good newspaper is devided into its sections, Current Affiars, Commerce, International, Sports etc. You know what your reading is preaty dead on and not false.

IDK, till the day they stop sending them off the press, ill take one.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Do Newspapers Have a Future?

Login or register to add a comment