Yet another big newspaper gets a reality check.

[Lensmith]

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is up for sale, much to the chagrin of many on it's staff.

http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/01/pi.html

"The way this all came about is only part of the theater of the absurd surrounding the P-I," the Seattle photojournalist said today. "Hearst didn't even bother to tell their own people first that the newspaper was dead. They told someone else first, and it was on television."

 

[Michaelrosenblum]

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is up for sale, much to the chagrin of many on it's staff.

http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/01/pi.html

"The way this all came about is only part of the theater of the absurd surrounding the P-I," the Seattle photojournalist said today. "Hearst didn't even bother to tell their own people first that the newspaper was dead. They told someone else first, and it was on television."

This is indeed tragic, as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a great paper. Equally frightening, this article in The Atlantic by Michael Hirschorn, who says The New York Times may be in receivership by May of this year
http://www.newser.com/story/47252/print-times-not-quite-dead-but-hope-lies-in-its-ashes.html

 

[Lensmith]

That article I linked to had some crazy stuff in it.

Why is a company that is "on the ropes" dolling out a hundred of thousand dollars for upgrades on a Navy ship?!?!?!?

"Hearst Communications Inc. has given $100,000 of the $4 million raised by The Navy League of the United States of Hampton Roads, VA, for the new ship. The money will be used to pay for enhancements to such features as the ship's chapel, library, ceremonial quarter deck, and a "tribute room" that's in honor of the ship's namesake. While the carrier itself was built with taxpayer money, the commissioning ceremony along with certain amenities are traditionally funded by private donations such as the one from Hearst."

A short sighted company tax dodge?

Yes, The New York Times looks to be soon to follow.

But if their focus on where to spend money is the same as Hearst...then maybe it's just their time to go.

Sad for the employees, no doubt, but it's not like these companies haven't seen the writing on the wall for some time. Now if only the broadcast companies, that aren't tied to the printing press as part of their corporate makeup, can keep their eye on the financial ball and make better judgement calls than their print brethren.

 

[Wideangle]

If newspapers continue to go under, what will television news assignment editors do for story ideas?

 

[schlagdrg]

As I said before, in the not too distant future, there will be one or two stations in a market that are providing news.

It's already started.

 

[Run&Gun]

If newspapers continue to go under, what will television news assignment editors do for story ideas?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

It's only funny because it true.

 

[Canuck Photog]

If newspapers continue to go under, what will television news assignment editors do for story ideas?

That's actually a serious statement.

It's a known fact that, at least traditionally, broadcast news has used newspapers for story ideas. The reason? Print media has traditionally had more "boots on the ground" and a slower cycle to do more in-depth reports. More employees=more content.

But as newspapers close (or go internet only) and get thinner physically this traditional "link" will wither and die.

It's not like us broadcast types have never beaten our print colleagues to the punch, but I challenge any broadcast newsroom NOT to look at the papers in the morning and try to put together a newscast.

CP

 

[cameradog]

The only reason television assignment editors read the newspaper for stories is because when people read the story in the newspaper in the morning, they expect to see an update on it on the afternoon news.

How many of us have seen reporters pitch good stories that get shot down because there's a "must cover" in the morning paper? If newspapers go away, reporters will not have to be pulled off stories they generate themselves to cover those other stories. That pressure is off, and the desk will have to rely on the reporters to bring stories to the table. It would be a tremendous opportunity for reporters.

But newspapers won't go away. They'll just migrate to the web. Once there, they'll drop an awful lot of overhead. Remember, newspapers are essentially manufacturing businesses, with a factory in each city churning out the product. If you go to the web exclusively, you drop all that manufacturing expense. Imagine if GM could sell cars without actually having to manufacture them.

 

[gwedits]

If a VJ has to spend all of their time researching and coming up with stories, how are they going to shoot and edit them? I would think the deadline pressure would kill most of them off and they would leave the business.

 

[Astocker]

If this isn't a wake up call to TV stations, then they are truly doomed. When I worked at local stations, all of their stories came from the morning paper, press releases, or spot news. At network, all the stories came from the NYT, press releases or breaking news. If you take the paper out of the equation, you are left with a propaganda tool for corporations and pols and a bunch of disasters. With today's budgets they don't have time to develop stories so they just become a slave to whatever is easiest to cover. And that situation will kill them.

As others have said, it will come very soon that each market will only have one or two TV outlets for news. Perhaps by combining resources, they can actually cover some news.

You plan for the worst and hope for the best. Unless you're in charge, the best way to survive is do your best and let everyone know you can be counted on. But that you never ever take crap from anyone and you don't ever endanger your life or others.

 

[SeattleShooter]

I have nothing to say but that it sucks. Now we could be a big city with one newspaper. Hope to GOD this does not happen in the TV markets.

 

[SeattleShooter]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/thiel/395667_thiel12.html

 

[Canuck Photog]

Hold on: all is not lost for newspapers....

The LA Times, which is part of the troubled Tribune group, actually made money off of it's internet operations:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/12/la-times-online-advertising


As the article's author says, there's caveats galore. Still, I think this proves my theory (and others' as well) it's just the business model that is changing, not the journalism itself.

CP

 

[Astocker]

There will always be journalism. It may have to cower in the basement for a while, but it will always be there. It just needs a new home now but it'll get one.

 

[Canuck Photog]

There will always be journalism. It may have to cower in the basement for a while, but it will always be there. It just needs a new home now but it'll get one.

I think this is what has a lot of people freaked out. The traditional models are changing -- perhaps forever -- and (some) old vets fear change. But change is often painful -- and don't get me wrong, I am extremely, extremely sympathetic for people who have lost their jobs in the media biz lately, but perhaps this is all necessary for the news media to change.

Believe it or not, I actually feel better about choosing a TV career than print. I know a few people who are freelance writers that are shaking in their boots right now. I still believe print is going to be the "medium" that will look RADICALLY different two years-- news video will pretty much remain news video in my opinion.

CP