Comments on: Three nails, one coffin

By: Depressing Numbers from the Newsosaur « Insomniactive

Depressing Numbers from the Newsosaur « Insomniactive — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 05:38:23 +0000

[...] Numbers from the Newsosaur Alan Mutter keeps coming the steady drumbeat of bad news for newspapers: In round numbers, total newspaper [...]

By: Tex Lovera

Tex Lovera — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:36:41 +0000

Jeff-

Were you being sarcastic when you said about coupons, “When they can be distributed online, for free…”? Because we’ve been getting quite a few of them via email, for months at least.

I guess when the car dealers finally forsake them, that should prove to be the coup de grace.

By: Bob P.

Bob P. — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:13:24 +0000

Actually I didn’t mean to suggest in the slightest that it was a new problem. In his own blog post, linked to above, Hopwood says the blurring of the vaunted wall between advertising and editorial is part of the reason for newspapers’ decline. I think we’re in agreement actually. This is a problem of journalism, not of newspapers.

By: Andy Freeman

Andy Freeman — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:08:12 +0000

> If these indeed turn out to be free to users and must generate all of their revenue from ads, it’s going to be ever harder for some of them to stand their ground when an advertiser squawks about something, let alone resist the temptation to write (er … produce content) that is at least partly designed to lure advertisers.

The above suggests that this is a new problem. It isn’t, and isn’t restricted to advertising.

CNN is on record about “shading” content from Hussein’s Iraq to curry favor. Hussein never bought ads. And no, that’s not unique – it’s how the press works.

In fact, CNN/Iraq is actually a high point in journalistic “integrity”. A huge fraction of the DC press corp is involved with the folks they cover. It takes a “journalist” to believe that that doesn’t matter.

I do wonder why journalism’s defenders think that it’s a good idea to point to bad things that their “opponents” do when they’re even worse by the same criteria.

By: Bob P.

Bob P. — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:08:39 +0000

The same problem you describe — editorial content slipping in quality in order to appease/attract/flatter advertisers — is and will be one of the biggest challenges for any digital news effort. If these indeed turn out to be free to users and must generate all of their revenue from ads, it’s going to be ever harder for some of them to stand their ground when an advertiser squawks about something, let alone resist the temptation to write (er … produce content) that is at least partly designed to lure advertisers.

By: @hopwood

@hopwood — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:34:25 +0000

You’re right. Little by little, everything newspapers delivered is being delivered elsewhere. You can read my take on the fate of newspapers at http://www.hopwood.co.uk/wordpress/?paged=10

By: jardenberg kommenterar – 2009-08-25 — jardenberg unedited

jardenberg kommenterar – 2009-08-25 — jardenberg unedited — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:32:45 +0000

[...] Three nails, one coffin [...]

By: Brian McKim

Brian McKim — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:37:33 +0000

Don’t some municipalities REQUIRE the family of the deceased to buy an obit? I think I remember hearing this when my father died… and again when my mother died.

I was appalled when I heard it.

It is indeed sad that I found it to be believable.

It would be nice to have these laws wiped from the books.

By: steve

steve — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:21:54 +0000

so “coupon giant valassis” is now just junkmail giant valassis?

newspaper circ. really took it on the chops when telemarketers tanked with the advent of do not call, how about newspapers now banding together to save the mailbox and promote a do not mail list?

seems fair to me