Times-Picayune to reduce to 3 per week

[GA Russell]

New Orleans' newspaper, The Times-Picayune, announced today that it will reduce its output from seven to three days per week - Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. It will focus its attention on its website.

http://news.yahoo.com/times-picayune...5POH4AuQbQtDMD

[tubemonkey]

Print news is a dying format. And with so much free web news available, paid models will have a rough time keeping their heads above water.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Print news is a dying format. And with so much free web news available, paid models will have a rough time keeping their heads above water.

Since I wronged you in another thread, I'm glad to agree with you here.

Newspapers withered (at least, their staffs have withered) before publishers because people are more willing to read news stories on a PC than to read a novel on a PC. Internet-connected PC's became ubiquitous maybe a dozen years before eReaders became widespread. Not that history is going to repeat itself exactly, or that one can predict the future. (Well, one can predict it, just not with risk of egg on the face.)

[Phogg]

Many news junkies were predicting this since the days of compuserve. The factors that would get us here were predictable and unescapable.

Clay Shirkey wrote a concise piece that outlined much of it back in 2009.

http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03...e-unthinkable/

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Since I wronged you in another thread, I'm glad to agree with you here.

Newspapers withered (at least, their staffs have withered) before publishers because people are more willing to read news stories on a PC than to read a novel on a PC. Internet-connected PC's became ubiquitous maybe a dozen years before eReaders became widespread. Not that history is going to repeat itself exactly, or that one can predict the future. (Well, one can predict it, just not with risk of egg on the face.)

No problem; I didn't feel wronged.

That's so true about reading news on a PC. The articles are short in both length and attention span, making it quite easy to read from. Besides web media, newspapers also have to compete with television and radio. Newspapers have their backs against the wall and are facing an uncertain future. Even if they go digital, there's the problem of competing against the free content so readily available.

I use Google news on my PC as my primary news source. For my handhelds, Pulse is my primary source. Audio streaming finds me hitting BBC, NPR, CNN, and C-SPAN for national and international news. For the local stuff, I use radio, NWCN, and some local newspapers via their websites.

I'm not left wanting and have more than enough sources to choose from if any should disappear behind a paid wall.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Print news is a dying format. And with so much free web news available, paid models will have a rough time keeping their heads above water.

Agreed, I haven't subscribed to a print newspaper in years.

[HarryT]

Likewise - the BBC News website is my source of news. I haven't read a print newspaper in years.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

New Orleans' newspaper, The Times-Picayune, announced today that it will reduce its output from seven to three days per week - Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. It will focus its attention on its website.

http://news.yahoo.com/times-picayune...5POH4AuQbQtDMD

It must be going on 3 years or more since I stopped picking up a discounted Sunday paper at the grocery store for 99 cents (no tax)
I found out that they had stopped putting a good TV guide in it a few months before. I used to look at that occasionally to see if there were any movies or new series starting.

Turns out they still had the TV guide in the delivered paper though I am not sure that it was in the "Sunday only delivery."

It was finally enough is enough or rather maybe "too little" is "too little."

When I was a kid, I had a morning paper route. It taught me a lot about working, handling money, handling people, and even that the news was interesting to read.

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Likewise - the BBC News website is my source of news. I haven't read a print newspaper in years.

For world/international news, the BBC is heads and shoulders above the rest.

Corporate news barely covers international events, unless it directly affects its target audience. Most of the time the world news makes ya feel bad and there's just not enough demand for it to make money.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Likewise - the BBC News website is my source of news. I haven't read a print newspaper in years.

I, OTOH, read and prefer print newspapers and magazines. Just last month I finally went to a digital subscription for the New York Times but did so for 2 reasons: (1) it saved me $100 on the Nook Tablet and (2) the digital subscription cost less than one-half of the print subscription and promised more timely delivery.

But after a month of receiving it digitally, I'm thinking of going back to print.

I never watch TV so get no news that way and hate reading my newspaper on my PC. I suspect that preference has much to do with age. I've been reading print newspapers and magazines for more than 50 years. My son, however, prefers online.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I never watch TV so get no news that way and hate reading my newspaper on my PC. I suspect that preference has much to do with age. I've been reading print newspapers and magazines for more than 50 years. My son, however, prefers online.

The age bit doesn't work for me. I prefer digital over print any day. I heart gadgets.

[J. Strnad]

Cheap and crappy always beats out more expensive and better in America. (I know, my cynicism is showing. ) And anything of quality that is going to survive needs to be monetized. It can survive if enough people pay enough of a premium to support it. Like toll roads, HBO, and personal shoppers.

If we want lengthy, well-researched, investigative journalism, we have to be willing to pay for it. Maybe we subscribe to an expanded online version while the free version provides the headline and a quick synopsis and a link for subscribers to "learn more."

Anything good that we want to survive, we must be willing to pay for. If we expect it for free, we must expect it to be crass, shallow, and monetized in some other way.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

Cheap and crappy always beats out more expensive and better in America. (I know, my cynicism is showing.

Or sometimes expensive and better beats out cheap and better. A couple years ago I read a 1960's broadway book (I think it was The Season) which mentions that a broadway balcony ticket and a Manhattan movie ticket were similarly priced. Wow. Talk about the good old days.

I think that the US is likely to become more of a national newspaper country as local papers continue to decline.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

Cheap and crappy always beats out more expensive and better in America. (I know, my cynicism is showing. ) And anything of quality that is going to survive needs to be monetized. It can survive if enough people pay enough of a premium to support it. Like toll roads, HBO, and personal shoppers.

If we want lengthy, well-researched, investigative journalism, we have to be willing to pay for it. Maybe we subscribe to an expanded online version while the free version provides the headline and a quick synopsis and a link for subscribers to "learn more."

Anything good that we want to survive, we must be willing to pay for. If we expect it for free, we must expect it to be crass, shallow, and monetized in some other way.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Or sometimes expensive and better beats out cheap and better. A couple years ago I read a 1960's broadway book (I think it was The Season) which mentions that a broadway balcony ticket and a Manhattan movie ticket were similarly priced. Wow. Talk about the good old days.

I think that the US is likely to become more of a national newspaper country as local papers continue to decline.

There is a new division of funds and time that is the change factor. The will to pay is there but different choices are being made.
True, newspapers and news magazines are declining, but it isn't because of a lack of money. Much more money and time is going into cable/sat/broadcast TV, the internet and cellular data plans than ever was put into newspapers or news magazines.

People are voting for their preferred media with their money and their eyes and ears and in general the majority of people are better informed about events today than they were 20 years ago and certainly 50 years ago.

One thing is very clear though. There will be many less print journalists in the future and that means that there will be less of a pool to draw the great journalists from. The great columnists, the great essay writers, the great reporters will also be in shorter supply.

In the old days, a man or woman might make a good life as a journalist/writer/editor for a newspaper or magazine while they honed their writing and thinking skills on the way to great thoughts, great writing, great books. Less and less of that will happen.

So "send not to know, for whom the bell tolls..."

[Belfaborac]

I believe the last time I subscribed to a newspaper was around 2003-2004. After that I've bought maybe ten or fifteen in total, mainly in the anticipation of a short wait at the doctor's office, or maybe for use on a short flight. Now that I own an ereader the chance of me buying one ever again is pretty much non-existent.

Like others have said already, BBC's web site supplies my UK and general international news. For more localised news or to broaden the scope I regularly visit Reuters, Agence France Presse, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya and CNN. For keeping up with specific, big stories (like the Libyan revolution and such) in "real time", Breaking News is very useful.