Drives Blog

Let the newspaper industry die.

Consider how much wood product is used to make newsprint paper. I'll bet there is enough wasted energy there to supply 25-30% of our energy needs right now.

Shadetree -- your words: "Let the newspaper industry die." .......and........

"They that do not learn from history and apply those lessons to the present are bound to repeat its failures."

Both in the same short posting. How ironic.

You would dismantle one of the principal guardians of our freedom to save a few trees.

Ed Weldon

Here, here! Let's also let the toilet paper industry die. That saves trees, too!

absolutely, if there is a profitable non-subsidized alternative that could replace toilet paper.

Why on earth wouldn't you?

Try using the 3 sea shells (reference to the Sly movie "Demolition Man")

... or as they do in some other countries (India, for instance) just use your hand.

....with water. Far cleaner than paper. Try the French bidet.

Why only the newspapers let all the other industries die too. Huge power savings. Let us all go to the cave-man age and use leaves to swipe

Since I have a dog in this fight, I am forced to think of it.

My first job was as a paperboy.

I wrote for some newspapers as a reporter photographer and columnist.

I once worked for a company that flew cargo planes that delivered The Wall Street Journal up and down the East Coast, prior to satellite transmission of the copy to local printing presses.

Ben Franklin and the Founding Fathers did feel strongly in the value of a Free Press, and did give it a unique status by prohibiting taxes on newspaper sales.

So let us agree that "newspapers" are important.

However, you can make a case for allowing news on paper, to wither.

For the Print Media, it is a time of change.

What is sort of galling is that physical plant and machine technologies that have saved money for the media, have also driven down wages and paying opportunities for labor, ie. writers.

Sometimes I've considered the English model, where they tax radios and tvs to support tv and radio.

Regardless, any real writer knows that paper is the final most lasting backup.

Prints on paper will find a niche and a level, because there simply is no way that the newspaper or book on paper can be replaced fully.

Hell, tubes still have utility in certain application. Vinyl records are still being made.

Did vinyl record makers get subsidy when they were replaced by CDs?

Of the business models for media in this transitional period, look at porno operations for trends to invest in. Porno has always led.

The Onion is probably closest to what will be for mainstreet Media & paper.

The Text Book publishers are egregious and are replicating Music CD Publishing mistakes.

Text Book publishers seem to me to get de facto subsidy from the Academic institutions.

In the end I cannot tell you what should or should not be. All I can tell you is that as far as I can tell, the trend for media and profit is some print to paper.

At some point I do want to see e publishers go ahead and say to readers, print to paper, and charge a little, and pay writers they publish, a little every time such a thing is done.

In the case of textbooks in particular, I feel that students ought not be soaked, and print on demand systems ought to allow for paper published chapters as assigned come from out the bookstore, since actually few of us really have printers that can spit these things out at lower cost than competitive or less time consuming as what can be accomplished by certain Xerox machines.

Further I must also say, that though a business may have basis for being subsidized, a business ought not be dependent on that subsidy.

The question to answer often is how much subsidy for any particular industry is appropriate, not whether or not it ought to get one.

Now then let us look at industries that have never needed, asked for, or gotten subsidies? Which of those is and has been always, and will be always healthy?

When did razorblade makers ever ask for or have gotten subsidies?

When have toy makers ever asked for or gotten subsidies?

What is the difference between a newspaper, and a toy, or a razorblade?

Franklin and Jefferson felt that it was important for the citizens to keep up with the news, and have truth from the written word.

You have to admit that C-Span is a fine thing.

Public free lending libraries are not really free.

The interest overall that any government might legitimately have in subsidizing print media, would be in maintaining and advancing a general understanding of the world in all its complexity.

The strongest nations require and pay for education, and as a partner to that goal, they teach reading, and then there has to be something to read.

We already pay for public libraries. This is has proved to be a good thing. To integrate the precedents and operational realities of that, is the set of details from which to determine what the correct subsidy ought to be, is best I can do right now to address the question.

Actually, I thought I did mention the regard for a free press that Franklin and Jefferson seemed to have demonstrated.

Possibly I didn't do more than a sentence on it for I was trying to figure out how to deal with the situation as it is.

On the one hand I have loved some editors, and on the other not thought well of others.

Editor owners are dangerous for they have an incentive to not publish stories that might cause an advertiser to withdraw ads and revenue that subsidized the truth reporting.

I am conflicted for I have had stories squashed because the owner editor didn't want to piss off an advertiser.

And wait till you piss the government off!

I did that too. I felt sorry for my editor who published me, and then they got fired, and I got blackballed.

You can get all the lies you want for free.

Any publication you buy subsidized by ads, really is suspect.

Hence I struggle to reconcile practicalities.

No one of us is immune to conflicts of interest. It's only a matter of degree.

I thought the San Jose Mercury News was pretty good that way when Tony Ridder (Knight Ridder) was running the show. Even though he cashed, out the remaining skeleton crew still seems to be running under a pretty good legacy. Young tigers they are, busting their buts and producing a pretty lively editorial content.

I admit to my own blinders. I don't see much of other papers save an occasional look at a syndicated release from the NY times or the Washington Post. Maybe the greater body of the USA 4th estate needs to be cast off to survive any way they can. I'm probably not a good judge of that given my restricted view.

I suppose the real issue here is identifying the critical and also the valuable functions of newspapers and determining how to preserve those functions in our future now that the current repository is in decline. Perhaps we've already lost the most valuable functions of newspapers, given the bean counter management of what remains.

Subsidize? Who? How? How much? How can you be fair to their competitors? In general our group here seems pretty low on approval of government subsidies or any other form of socialism. That I can understand. Perhaps our focus should be on illuminating the problems that the demise of newspapers and their print media can cause.

We're all engineers here. Only our educations and experiences differ. As engineers we are fundamentally problem solvers. We are taught that the best solution is most often found when the fundamentals of the problem are understood. Shall we start there?

Ed Weldon

cwarner -- GA!! You remind us to look around at the rest of the world. And at the basics. Your observations beg the question "Are there other important reasons besides content why people in Panama are more inclined to read newspapers than us here in the USA?"

Ed Weldon

Yeah, right. That way we can be sure that the newly government owned, I mean bailed out, newspapers will be absolutely fair and unbiased.

Maybe we could just rename New Yaork Times to Provda, too.

PBS/NPR gets an 8% subsidy from the US government. You can't tell me that the government is able to influence their editorial content.

Ed Weldon

Have you watch PBS or listened to NPR lately?

you really believe NPR isn't governmentally influenced? lol.

National Propaganda Radio is most definitely influenced.

Clever!

I wonder why I can't recieve NPR out in my rural area? I only hear it in the cities...

Yes, of course....How stupid of me. This is 2009. Somehow I hadn't noticed the change.

Ed Weldon

You are kidding right? There is wayyyyyyyy to much money going out to people and groups that just ARE NOT TOO NEEDY. I mean seriously, if the papers are hurting then maybe they need to do something different in order to get a better (diverse) group of readers. The publishers are already filthy rich. The only people that will really be affected are those that do the menial everyday tasks (almost everyone, except those pesky rich people right(?) and these are the peeps that the rich owners really do not care too much about because they are making too much money. If they are needing to reorganize then let them, if they are going to fail, then let them, if they are going to thrive, let them... This whole idea of the government getting into everyones business is going a lil' way too far and needs to stop.

The banks are right there, in a bigger way, billions and billions of dollars going to them so that they (in theory) can start loaning money out to US. The little folk here in the states...has it happened? NO. Why? Because the banks are either holding onto the money and/or buying gold (for themselves), or sending it in another direction altogether. Stop the bailouts, I mean seriously where is the money coming from? We are borrowing it from somewhere because we do not have it here in the US. China and a few others are loaning it to us...What is going to happen when they call in their debt? What is going to happen when they want to foreclose on their holdings?

Ferris

Not being American may colour my opinion slightly, but I suspect that as a writer, it would be coloured even more by what I do.

No the newspaper industry should not be subsidized. Subsidies only encourage bad business decisions just as trade tarrifs do. Newspaper profits of the national chains in Canada have taken a nose dive in this recession.

The papers still making a profit are all small local weeklies. The differences between national and local are many, but the business model is what stands out the most. The weeklies are owned and have little or no debt. The nationals debt financed thier aquisitions so as soon as the cash dropped below expectations the house comes down. Weeklies provide solid local information that people want to read. Nationals centralize news services and reports leaving local content out.

Move to internet services and charge for what you do is a great idea, but it is not too well accepted yet. I find that articles I write often wind up on blogs or specialty web sites and not only did I not give permission for it to be used, I didn't get a dime for it. In Canada when I sell an article, I sell one time insertion rights which means I get paid every time someone uses the article. I also sell internet rights in some cases. Those who use the information without permission are breaking my copyright. The problem is that copyright differs from country to country and many internet users could care less about legal issues.

I digress, newspapers can change their business model and become profitable. People still crave news and someone has to report on it and get it out to the masses. Some papers will make the change and make it and some won't. The same goes for writers and I intend to be one of the ones that makes it!!

As long as the papers change their models or whatever it is that they need to do to saty in business, then they will stay in business. The .gov should stay out of all of the areas that they keep getting themselves into. I agree peeps like their papers, I know I do. The guys at work enjoy theirs as well. To survive, things are going to have to change. I am not a believer of evolution but isn't this the idea here? Adapt or die?

Ferris

writer quoted: "People still crave news and someone has to report on it and get it out to the masses. Some papers will make the change and make it and some won't. The same goes for writers and I intend to be one of the ones that makes it!!"

Writing is only the end product of your effort. Where are you going to get the story from? The internet? Why on earth should any of us believe what shows up there? Oh....... I see......your own personal boots on the street. All by your little lonesome....

And who is going to pay you so you can buy groceries to keep your legs moving those boots while you search down your story? The paying advertisers have gone away, Baby and you've got no idea how to get them back. (If you did you wouldn't be wasting your time here. You'd be making a fortune selling your ideas to Yahoo and Google and a few others)

Sorry to be cynical; but I have to laugh at the damn fool right wingers who are cheering the demise of all those commie liberal newspapers and worrying more about keeping their assault rifles than preserving the best thing we have to shine the lights on corruption and incompetence down at City Hall or back in DC.

Ed Weldon

"best thing we have to shine the lights on corruption and incompetence down at City Hall or back in DC."

And who is shining the light on corruption and incompetence in newspapers? The consumer, that's who. That is why these publications are in danger, people are sick and tired of the single sided, single mindedness of it all. Funny how the only incompetence they shine a light on is conservative. I'm not conservative, either, I'm just about smack dab in the middle, but the media is slanted so far left, it gets very old after a while. It's the extreme bias that has turned me off from reading the LA Times and the San Diego (soviet) Union Tribune.

With in a short time, you had the LA Times putting a doctored photo on the front page showing a US soldier pointing his rifle and a mother and child. Then you had the San Diego (soviet) Union Tribune publish a story in the early morning Sunday edition about how a rally for the troops was a miseable failure, that only 25 people showed up. This story was read to the rally later that day, much to the delight of the THOUSANDS of people that really showed up.

I'm sure there are even more stories around the country, this is just my reason why. They are in the mess they created.

The problem with weekly newspapers (and use of news from the bloggers) is that neither have the financial position to provide for in-depth reporting nor the ability to put significant pressure on politicians and others fleecing the public. When the large electronic mass media pick up a byline from a weekly or a blog and print it as fact without checking it out in-depth and then because of the size of the mass media people accept it as gospel, we are allowing the "media to become the message" rather than the truth. Thence you have opinion being spouted as fact. I believe that this is how the whole issue of "global warming" was initiated. Face it, likely 80% of the people watching the mass media are not critical of the news received.

Instead of subsidizing just the automobile industry, the banking industry, the newspaper industry and the pet food industry (my prediction for the next group heading for Washington for a handout), why not just take all the money away from the "evil rich" and hand it out to anyone who doesn't understand how to run a business? Or better yet, let's just give everybody a private subsidy, so they don't have to worry about being competitive. Of course, such a scheme would result in lower tax revenues, which would require increasing the national debt, but the Chinese are going to support us forever, right?

Why is everyone so anxious to support losing propositions? Why not invest in the winners?

To paraphrase Rhett Butler, frankly my dear I don't give a damm if they are subsidized or not. They certainly are not adding news of substance to help our voting process. How many people know why the year 1953 is so important to our relations with Iran? When was the last time you saw the word empire used? Which Mideast politician was hailed by our president as preserving stability before he had the nerve to sell oil for Euros instead of dollars? Only one politician has had the nerve to say that imperial over reach is breaking the country. That was Ron Paul. I think his fiscal ideas are from (far) right field but I must give him credit for honesty and having the nerve to mention empire. The news papers certainly are not going to touch that issue. Looking to the newspapers for guidance in news that really matters is like looking to a "financial consultant" (read stock salesman) for investment advice.

Even if they did provide us with important information, the process rewards personality over anything else. When you look at the reasons they were so popular Obama and Reagan have more in common than any other two candidates. Good speakers with good speech writers. They could talk chickens into voting for Colonel Sanders.

Regardless of how they do it in "them furin countries" government does not tell business what to do and how to do it in the US. In fact the opposite is true.

Only a few years ago people worried that the media was concentrated in only a few hands. Around 50 corporations owned it all. Today it is more like 5. Talking here about major media.

An aside. A few nights ago I saw an author discussing his book about the decline of newspapers. One thing he said caught my attention. He said that they could not cut operating costs very much since the newsprint supply is now controled by a cartel that makes OPEC look loose.

Another way to look at it is....why not? Corporate agriculture is subsidized heavily. The heaviest being cotton. Eighty percent of the payments go to the top five growers. So much for Mom and Pop. Sugar is heavily subsidized for the benefit of a tiny handful of highly profitable producers. The military industrial complex is one huge give away program. That flaming liberal Eisenhower warned us about that you know. The corruption is so rife I doubt a few more subsidies will make a big difference. The papers may hide the truth about major issues from us but preserving them would at least maintain the illusion of an informed public. That is comforting to many people.

"....why not?"

Because once that happens the next thing that will need a bailout will be "Freedom of Speech", but rest assured, that bailout will never come.

Good ideas, guest!

Before the printing press we had scribes. Did the government bail out the scribes with the advent of the printing press...NO. Al Gore wants the entire world to be connected on the web, and our Government is spending billions in this latest "bail-out" to upgrade our internet abilities across the US, correct. So if everyone gets their information from the web, why do we need the news to be printed??? Printed papers are a waste of billions of trees every day, and most do not get recycled. It seems that a few politicians who have always had the print media in their pocket, hate to see them go away, because they won't get the free media attention that has helped them to get elected. The newspapers across this country are for the most part liberal rags, that try to sway the public with their one sided stories. I can not wait for the day that they are gone and I can get on the web, read the news, and make my own decision as to what I should believe, and not have some C- liberal arts major inserting thier own 5 cents into the article.

Speaking of grocery budget, It used to piss me off that I was buying hamburger with hard earned US dollars, when the customer in front of me was buying T-bone steak with food stamps.

Bill

Yeah...and they drive off in their caddilac on 20's while I get in my beat up (thanks to wal mart parking lots) minivan...nothing like wealth redistribution!

Please, no more subsidies! Instead of simply giving money to news papers forever, the government should set up a cheap alternative for media delivery through the US Post Office.

Dumping money into a failing business model will accomplish nothing positive in the long run. If the government really wants to help print media then they should focus on addressing the rising cost issues that are killing them in the short term. This year's spike to $4.50/gal for gas devoured profits of dailies and forced bankruptcies because news publishing companies had no time to adapt. If the Post Office handles delivery, then costs for the newspapers should drop significantly which will keep them in the black. As a bonus, the money paid to the Post Office for the service will help control cost for them as well. (They might not even have to raise the price of stamps for a year!)

I like your idea of media delivery via the post office. That may help only one side of the financial problem. The real issue is how to get the paying advertisers back or find another viable business model that can support the good things that newspapers do.

Or do we as a society need to search out some other way to get unbiased reporting of the good and bad, especially the bad, in our world that should be exposed for all to see?

Speaking of mail delivery I had gotten into a dialog with some local newspaper folks last year about customizing individual copies of newspapers to the requested content of the subscribers and delivering that content either electronically or by US mail. They weren't too enthusiastic about that idea. I think primarily because the technology isn't ready to do it profitably. And there is still the issue of how to get the advertising dollars back.

Ed Weldon

I'm looking at the issue raised in this post from a much simpler view than what most entries here are looking at. When I think about a daily newspaper I don't think about the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. These papers are just branches of larger media providers and are focused on news stories that I can access more easily from TV or blogs. The only time I will miss them is when I am looking for something to use as a drop cloth before I paint something.

The daily newspaper that I read has actual relevance to my day-to-day life. It is a local paper printed in a town of about 35000 people. Stories that I read cover important topics like: which team won the high school basket ball game last night, which members of my graduating class got married or had children this week, did any of my nieces or nephews make the honor roll or graduate from school, did any of my older relatives die... Of course there is a lot of bias in this paper. If the local basket ball team wins the story covers the whole first page of the sports section. If they loose, then it only gets mention in the corner (that's bias if I've ever seen it!). And, since all of this is pointed at a local audience, advertising comes from local sources who could not afford advertising in national papers.

EElectrician,

I think that you bring up a great point that has been glossed over in the previous discussions, that is local news and supporting the local community.

Everyone is talking about taking all news to the internet. That's great for the large number of us on the web. My folks in rural Missouri can't get on except by dial-up and wouldn't know what to look for if they connected. The fact remains that the internet is NOT everywhere yet. And where would they get their local news. They watch the TV news that covers national, local, weather and sports in 30 minutes, 4 times a day. Talk about limited coverage! As far as news in their local "big" city, these channels barely mention the city in the weather, let alone cover important local political, social, or sporting activities.

Newspapers are still the best ways to get information in your local area. I realize that the balance between paying for the media and the people who report it and getting local business engaged in advertising is a tough one. But the service at this level is something to be considered in the whole discussion.

I think we're all too sensitive to seeing biases in editorial content in the newspapers and we have all kinds of sources on the internet that can give us comfort as to how right our views are...whether liberal, conservative, or otherwise...and it is easy to dismiss the newpapers as expendable, archaic, and unnecessary. Do remember that they are still performing a vital service to a part of the community that depends on them.

Calvin

Exactly.

The funny thing here is that everyone is wrapped up in the idea that it is the internet that is destroying printed news because that makes a good story for the media. According to the standard writing practice taught in college no story is worth writing without conflict and resolution. So the media is doing exactly that. Doesn't everyone realize that this same basic plot played out 70 years ago between radio and TV? Which medium won that great war?

The difference is that daily newspapers are delivered to people's homes rather than broad casted. Americans will not get up and to go to the store each morning to buy a paper, so delivery is what people are paying for. The problem, right now, is that the cost of delivery is ever rising, and people are only willing to pay so much for the service. So, in the short term, to keep papers in circulation the cost of delivery is the problem that must be addressed.

In the long-term dailies will still exist, but probably in a new form. I expect to eventually see wireless flexible monitors that automatically download headlines each day from the internet and display the latest news in a form that looks and feels like a news paper and can be picked up and read without having to wait for a PC to warm-up or dealing with poorly laid-out websites and ad links that trick you into going to sales websites. Of course this kind of service would be provided in exchange for a small fee. (Many people already do this with PDAs, but most people don't want to read a 3 page article on a 1.75" wide screen.)

I imagine that this is how paper media will eventually be changed - rather than beaten - by the internet:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17912_3-10152469-72.html?tag=mncol

EElectrician -- Right you are about the cost of delivery being a big issue. I think we are on the threshold of having the technology you suggest in the mainstream. Maybe as soon as a year or two. Given your CR-4 name you are probably much closer to what's going on than I am. The new Kindle seems to be leading the way.

I envision a wireless device with an 8x10 partial touchscreen that folds to a roughly 8-1/2" x 5-1/2" size for carrying. Apple will likely produce the first one at a price that will be too high for the average person. Others will follow and it will become "mainstream" once the price gets under $100. The question in my mind is whether we can keep all the journalists that gather and present news we want to read from finding new careers while we wait for the technology.

And then there is the issue of paid advertising. The beauty of electronic delivery is that it is completely under automated and programmable control. This will make it possible for what is delivered to each device to tailored for and even be selectable by the individual user. Subscription costs could easily be discounted by how much advertising the subscriber views. Allowing the subscriber to select the advertising sources he is interested in would make it more likely that he would build his discounts to a level that suited his budget. We already have the computing power to do this with "Cloud" technology. And the software development would produce a lot of jobs for programmers and their ilk.

Ed Weldon

Yeah, I guess that they would need to fold - or maybe roll up into a scroll for portability.

The cost of the devices could end up being paid the same way as cell phones and cable boxes (paid over time by paying for the service). Or, maybe the US will go to the Japanese model of paying full price for the device and all services come with it - ie no lifetime monthly donations to providers for cellular service, texting, etc.

So far the internet has actually created a lot of jobs for journalists - pod casts put a lot of reporter's faces on the computer screen. I don't know how the numbers compare in terms of gains and losses, but I think that here too we are looking at change (however painful) rather than utter destruction. After the media grows the ads will follow.

Darwin was right about natural selection. When these old newspapers fail they open opportunities for new, more current alternatives.

Much of the credibility of the current media is tarnished. If these old newspapers start failing, maybe other forms of biased media will become more fair and balanced.

I am certainly glad the US government wasn't around to interfere with Darwin, or his theory may have been "survival of the squeakiest wheel".

OpMan quoted: "Much of the credibility of the current media is tarnished. If these old newspapers start failing, maybe other forms of biased media will become more fair and balanced."

I agree that there are plenty of old newspapers that are too far off center for some of us. I suspect that indictment is the result of the large conglomerates veering toward where the money is, which in the present times is toward the extremes of political positions.

Look at the current trends in news media and the first thing you see is the success of talk show hosts with fairly extreme political political positions and constituencies. Do you call these "fair and balanced"?

Is there any reason to think when news sources go to the cheaper format provided by electronics they will be more fair and balanced? I suggest that it will be just the opposite as sources of a restricted viewpoint will find it cheaper to advance their position.

Ed Weldon

Mr Weldon,

There are indeed many biased forms of media both right and left. I see them having smaller audiences that are more fan based.

The bulk of the national media is very liberal, however, and I feel they have elected our current president and exaggerated the economic issues we are having. I see them reporting triple digit drops in the stock market with a gleam in their eye. If it's sensational and shocking they report it. The media is as responsible for the morale decline as Bill Clinton. They promote tolerance to a level that the shocking becomes the norm. It's time for a new face of the media. If it has to do with our success in Iraq, however, you don't hear about it.

I believe if the large, old newspaper hasn't conformed to the 21st century then they should be replaced, maybe a new newspaper will take over the market share.

I didn't have time to read all the posts here, although a skim/spot reading indicates there are some good thoughts here.

Has anyone considered that media consolidation has played into this? Guess who owns most newspapers now? Same people who own television and radio stations. Since video and audio are also migrating to the Internet, all information is becoming coded digitally and lends itself to non-physical existence, unless/until printed by users of that information.

As mentioned by others here, I don't know if I trust an all digital, virtual world of information. One or two hundred years from now, who's to say that there will be "valid" (i.e., not tampered with) copies of Huckleberry Finn, Plato's writings, or any other "great works" to serve as a standard for preserving the originals? Sounds paranoid and far-fetched, I know. But too much of mankind is becoming a "herd" controlled by the shepherds of information. And these shepherds are the electronic media in all it's forms.

I have worked in technology for 38 years and have almost decided I'd rather we scrap almost all of our "gadgets"... or at least give more serious thought to where we are headed. The fact that I very rarely hear a conversation about population control indicates that there is a serious lack of planning. There are countries that "have" and those that do not. Those that "do not" barely enter the thoughts of citizens in the "have" countries. This is how Rowanda and Darfur can happen.

Oh boy, sorry... this is somewhat off the topic of newspapers, and... I don't have enough time. People have written books about these topics.

So to get back somewhat on topic. I have never been a fan of newspapers but somehow I think the demise of "print media" is another step towards a world of dehumanization. The fact that almost everyone and his/her dog blogs now, makes it seem obvious that we are really a world of individuals crying to be heard but there are not enough listeners. Paradoxically, the two seem to be in opposite directions.

Having been in the Newspaper business and publishing business for over 25 years, my own specialty publications was the route I chose. I've watched larger NP businesses get taken over more and more to the point all the printing press companies, advertising sales mediums even radio now are all owned by less than a hand full. Just like our big auto makers and banks, greed has brought free enterprise to almost a non existent state. A far cry from what brought up our country in independent entrepreneurs, hard work, determination, and good honest business practices. Usually wrapped in an over all honesty to provide a damn good product or service. Those were the successful ones any way. Now every business is wrapped up in big business conglomeration, psychological manipulation advertising methods, and pure unadulterated greed. Once they truly fail, as they are quickly getting there, it will all fall back to the local business in your area to meet the demand. If that same tenacity and honest business principles are even still around and if they have any capital left!

In a small town here in New Mexico Wall Mart pulled out of the town after three years in business. Locals became dependent on it after Wally killed over 50% of the local vender's even putting out land mark establishments. Once they left it damn near crippled the community and to the rescue was the small entrepreneurs and mom and pops opened back up. Not after a horrible year of loss and slow recovery. Three years later and everything back to normal, Wally came back and yep, ran, but this time less than 30% of the local business people out.

What the hell was my point...the reputation of newspapers or any other business is what helps makes them survive. Providing a viable service acceptable to those in the target marketed community will keep them going. As one mentioned above, more independents (newspapers or publications) make it simply due to reputation, catering to a specific crowd with good business and money management. It took years of keeping my personal opinions out of my papers and keeping to verifiable information and getting information from good credible sources to get a decent rep. We kept up to what people wanted in this type of service and made changes continuously. I NEVER allowed a printing without checking the sources, the information or where and how it was derived, personally.

Poor to horrible managing of funds is the worst thing a person in business can do, especially if there are others dependent on the product or services created from that business. I have NO respect or regard for the executives and the salaries they kept and the horrible way monies are utilized in most large conglomerate industries today. I'm so disgusted with what I see now, I can't even go there

With the large newspaper companies wanting a little bail out money urks me. As all these other companies, it's sad that they could qualify for bail out due to the size and impact they have on their employees. What a judgment call and most unfair to some degree. Even when the economy changes, you do what you have to in order to keep up or get out. Why make hundreds or thousands more suffer due to continual bad decisions and again greed.

Ed and others covered a lot of positive issue related to papers that are poignant. One more note, we payed more to always print on %85 to 100% recycled papers with soy ink, especially back when it was not cheap.

Good to hear from someone who's been there and done that.

I see some universally good business model elements in there. But we all need to buy groceries. How do you get the news without paying salaries for "boots on the street"? Is there something there within the new internet technologies and the expanse of social networks? How could you make good reporters out of some of that resource? How would you motivate and compensate them for their efforts without showering them with scarce dollars? How can you get creative about attracting paying advertising? What form and format will people pay for and still produce margins you can maintain a standard of living on? Just exactly what will a professional journalist be in this future we face?

Am I drifting OT here?

Ed Weldon

I really liked that Flexible display, and would love to sell it on my website.

I ought to be on the phone with the IRS, but am depressed about it.

Let us look right where we are right now on CR4. Globalspec supports this free forum.

Those who work for Globalspec get a paycheck for organizing and presenting news about products, machines, software, important for industry engineers and professionals of one ilk or another to know about.

Frankly when my own website wasn't working I turned to CR4 to write, and then got a bit addicted to the conversational aspect.

I've got to admit, the letter form is the most fun writing for me. I suppose since it so much fun, that is why it pays very little.

Fiction is hard.

It is hard enough to live with real people, living with people and lives you pretend to make up, lays another layer of stresses, particularly odd.

Still there is protection in doing fiction.

When I think about real journalists, and how many have been murdered for their work, I have nothing but respect for them, since I'd rather not get shot for the work I did.

I was living in Chicago when the columnist Mike Royko's apartment was blown up.

You know a real business has insurance, and at least Mr. Royko was able to pay for insurance.

I'll say bluntly that fame without money sucks.

These journalists who actually are out there as "boots on the ground" as Ed has rightly called them, ought to have enough money in their pockets to at least be able to flee for their lives.

In my first newspaper of my own "Ghetto News", I simply published all the writers in Rochdale College, the other paper wouldn't. My competition was The Tuesdaily.

The job I got money from at the place was as a Security Guard.

If I had published everything I knew, as fact, I'd probably been long ago thrown out a window.

What is the point?

Daniel Schoor tells a story in a speech he gave where he admits that he did not report a story of Jews escaping from Nazi Germany because he knew if he did, they would be stopped, and killed in the Gas Chambers.

This is the sort of Liberal bias I can live with.

(I one time wrote somebody at NPR and suggested they use some donations to either keep Mr. Schoor alive forever, or clone him.)

Just as we can sense a spiritual component to a person, we can sense when we are in the presence of an honest, and honorable person.

Don't buy a paper either online, or on paper, that is full of lies.

Further, there is a lot of lip service given to learning to read between the lines, but not enough people really know how to do that.

Engineers on CR4 are not really used to reading or dealing with "in between the lines" sorts of writing. They, as a group become resentful of those things left out.

Further, they really don't want to be Technocrats.

We often go to Wikepedia here.

I ended up here because I was doing a battery study, so I want some of my money paid to Bell South, and AT&T to keep me on the net paid to Wikipedia, and think it a reasonable subsidy, in relation to where I hang out and who I pay money to, and who I don't.

Once I compared CR4 to Ham Radio.

Most of the time most of what Hams talk about is what sort of radio they have.

Otherwise it is an emergency, and nothing else is working.

Fact is that there are emergencies everyday, and regardless of whomever, or whatever way "boots on the ground" reporters are paid, we need honest men and women working at the job.

I myself figure they do not necessarily have to blab everything they know, but know it is my responsibility to know enough to separate fact from fiction, and live with as little confusion as possible.

In the best of possible worlds our subsidies, go to those who are of merit, over those who are thieves.

Say you really want the truth, and we are talking about news about whether or not your wife is having an affair?

Would you not be tempted to simply hire a detective?

At one time there was a bleed over into the media of the concept of separation of church and state, which manifested itself into a separation between the news department of a media organization, and its advertising department.

It was not absolute at all, but was a predominate principle in major papers and media.

We are in a time when we are aware that as other ethical principles have been eroded by concentrations of power, that whom we chose to believe requires more thought than we actually want to put into it.

Used to be simple. You bought whatever paper you liked, read that, and that was that. P.S. Porno publishing distribution model, is likely trend, as far as how we will get good news.

Hi Transcendian - Man, you must be out of breath!

As to the electronic newspaper... somehow the idea of taking something like that into the reading room is a little creepy. I like the crisp feel of newsprint during that experience. Plus, how does one do the crossword?

Yes I was. -out of breath.

So far I've not even been able to agree with myself.

Have you guys noticed that these bailouts are like a big fat divorce settlement.

These whiners want to be supported in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

If I lose my job (if I were still working) I must make the best of what I can find. Often taking a lower paying position in another industry or even going on welfare.

These guys (and gals) want to suffer not at all, even though they may be instrumental in their own demise.

Back in the '70s, I subscribed to the Livermore CA local rag daily, and the San Jose Mercury on Sunday. When I moved to San Jose in 1977, we just got the Mercury daily.

In Vancouver, I subscribed to the Portland Oregonian and the Vancouver paper for a while until the prices started going up. When my girlfriend and I moved in together (11 years ago) we subscribed to the Vancouver paper for a while, but realized that the paper was going from the door to the recycle bin without even being opened... a waste of money.

In recent years we would go out to breakfast, and pick up a copy each of the Vancouver and Portland papers to read while eating. Then they raised the price of the papers AGAIN.

Now we make it a point to keep a couple of books in the car to read at breakfast... and the heck with the papers. Our quality of life has not degraded without them.

Bill

Well, let's see now!!

Didn't The Encyclopedia wither away into the internet? Didn't vinyl records move to 8 tracks, then to cassettes, then to cd's, now to Itunes on the internet?

Get my drift! As we see in virtually everything on the market or business!! Let them crumble, burn and dust away so the next new gen of media takes Center Stage!!

FOOL! Do you really expect your Itunes to protect you or your property or your freedom from being stolen by corrupt politicians that used to be exposed by our system of free press? Do you actually expect some internet blogger to do any serious first hand investigative reporting other than what he can dig up on line already done and copyrighted by someone else?

Look at China. Arguably their greatest national problem is regional social unrest due to corrupt local politicians. They have no free press there, my foolish friend. Everything is controlled and censored by the government. In a nation of a billion people it is impossible for the central government, no matter how pure of mind and intent they may be, to control local governments; just as it is impossible for the government to control all business. So they simply take away human rights while they do the slow work of rebuilding a structure of law. Perhaps in a hundred years their people will have true freedom. More likely they will fall back at some point into a hopeless tyranny.

Do you want that here? Then go ahead and trash the structure that supports our system of journalism in favor of that silly music pumped into your brain as if you were one of Roddenberry's fictional Borg.

Ed Weldon

If the government subsidizes the print media (which is already politically biased strongly in one direction like a leaning tree), then the government will own it, just like GM.

It seems foolish for anyone to expect that the print media will protect our freedom today and much less after the government gets its hand in it.

Anon.Hero -- I not only expect to see the print media protecting our freedom. I literally see it every day in the pages of the San Jose Mercury News in spite of their current ownership by a large media corporation. If you want examples of what their investigative reporting has accomplished, even this year with their short editorial staff it is there to see.

My sons can now go downtown on any festive evening, have fun, shout at their friends after a hockey game and not worry about being thrown in the drunk tank without a sobriety test as was the case a few months ago. The Merc's reporters investigated this as well as the racial profiling and ran it up the flag for the area to see.

Two years ago they investigated the county prosecutor's office and the result was a large number of defective prosecutions (prosecutors withholding evidence) were reviewed and thrown out. That's what I call protecting our freedoms.

Yes, they may not be typical; but they are a real shining example of what newspaper journalism is all about. They do not deserve the blanket condemnation so many are willing to cast.

With respect to government getting a hand into the media I submit NPR as a real life example of government not controlling even when they put money in (8% or the NPR operating budget). Regardless of your position vis-à-vis the liberal position of NPR it is clear that 8 years of the most conservative government our nation has had in the last 50 or so years was not able to eliminate their funding or control their message. If anyone could have done that, and certainly wanted to, the previous party in power would have been the ones.

I'm saying a lot of the same stuff I posted on this subject in #5. But as long as people who are replying to this topic refuse to recognize the truths and continue to push positions reflecting some ideological version of reality here I'm going to answer even if it is repetitive. Sorry, folks, this a subject that is very important to me and of great concern.

I'm more than willing to objectively examine the need for subsidies for print media. I'm not even sure it's a good idea.

But what I'm ready to preserve, however we have to, is our professional journalist corps. We simply cannot let this piece of our nation go away for the sake of modern entertainment technology.
Ed Weldon

I appreciate your passion.

I am 100% supportive of the 1st Amendment. However, I am 100% suspicious of letting the government's foot into the door of any private institution.

Print media, like any other private enterprise, must stand on its own merit. Like water, private enterprise seeks its own level, if given a level playing field. If you do it any other way it will simply be the mouthpiece of somebody's propaganda machine.

Those shining examples will become even rarer and rarer if that happens.

William James the only universally accepted American Philosopher, known by Pragmatism, pointed that Democracy was delicate.

You are in a bind Anonymous Hero, for on the one hand you are supporting the 1st Amendment, and on the other assaulting the government that supports it.

Ed-

I, too, strongly defend the need for an independent and free press as a pillar of human rights. I can not believe, however, that government subsidies for poor business practices will insure the continuation of this institution in a viable format. A free press can be viable if the press attends to their customers- refer to my previous post about the health of the printed newspaper industry in Panama (where expose's of governmental misconduct provide daily entertainment). Also, review the comments by many of the participants here that enjoy their newspapers- most all are supportive of the locals that "provide news they can use".

My contention is that all of those organizations, be they banks, automobile companies, or newspapers that are seeking government support have essentially been allowed to grow too big, to the point where they are no longer controllable, and, therefore, no longer viable. "Too big to fail" should be read as "too big to survive". If an organization has grown to a size where it can no longer respond to a changing environment, it should be allowed to curl up and die, not be maintained on artificial life support. Government support will only guarantee "business as usual".

I do not believe the Internet is the ultimate replacement for a free press, because, as usage expands, it becomes more and more difficult to find real information amid all the noise. Television is unlikely to provide an appropriate replacement, because the news that comes across from television generally lacks depth and followup (there are noted exceptions to this). If left on their own, newspapers will survive, or new ones will arise, that are managed by editors that understand and are passionate about their mission, and that address the needs of their customers.