October 1, 2014 4:47 pm -


Once again, we learn about a newsroom layoff at the 800-pound gorilla of all the daily papers, the New York Times:

The New York Times plans to cut about 100 jobs from its newsroom, Ravi Somaiya reports. “We hope to meet this number through voluntary buyouts. But if we don’t get there we will be forced to do layoffs,” Executive Editor Dean Baquet says in a note to staffers…

…and it is not just the reporters being kicked to the curb, but also some of the products:

In addition, it’s shutting down its NYT Opinion app, and while Publisher Arthur Sulzberger and New York Times Co. CEO Mark Thompson call the app NYT Now “terrific,” they say “our effort to define and market a lower-priced subscription offer on the web and core apps has proven much less successful.” It will become a smartphone-only product “aimed at new and younger audiences and we’ve already begun to test other, more intuitive lower-priced subscription offers.”

The Times has had other layoffs this decade, so this is not a new phenomenon.[su_right_ad]

It is time to take a serious look at the death of the media. The world has a need for journalists and journalism (and we still believe that), but it does not have a need for newspapers.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I love my morning paper. There is nothing like reading the local fish wrap with my trusty red pen in hand and my cuppa coffee in the other. It would be a shame for the kind of editing thrill I get each morning to just vanish. But I digress.

The problem with newspapers comes down to the business model, and I cannot stress this enough. US Newspapers, the physical dead-tree stuff, are not in the business of bringing you the news. The US Newspaper business model is about putting print advertising in your hands. Think about that for just a moment, the absolute inefficiency of it. Everyday hundreds of people work to bring to your door a bit of print with all the ads that Corporate America wants you to have in your hands. Each day! It is amazing.

If US Newspapers could continue publishing without newsrooms, they would. In fact, they are trying to do just that.

This is the thing we are seeing right now, this very minute: US Newspapers are laying off reporters, closing bureaus, canceling entire sections of their “content” — generally the features sections, and local sections; sports and business are sacred. Simultaneously, they are raising subscription rates for less content, and turning more and more to wire services to create fill for in-between the advertisements.

This is clearly not sustainable. And if you notice, this has nothing to do with the Internet.

The US Newspapers are telling us that the Internet is killing them, that Craig’s List is killing them, and so on. Obviously, the Internet plays a role, but it is not the role of media-killer anymore than radio or television killed the newspaper. The Internet is not a competitor, it is a delivery mechanism. It still requires content.

Last time I checked, the Internet was a global phenomenon, accessible in Europe, Asia, Japan, etc… Oddly, the newspapers in Europe and elsewhere (but not the US) are surviving the Internet age. European papers get most of their funding from selling the papers, not selling the advertising. The Guardian is owned by a public trust, and it is not strictly speaking a for-profit enterprise.

Why is this difference significant, you ask?

Because with real content, really well researched journalism and a focus on excellence, the readership grows. They know in Europe that they had better put out some real content, good content that serves their readers well. If they cut reporters, bureaus, close down feature sections, Europeans are going to stop reading the papers there, just like we have here.

[su_r_sky_ad]US newspapers are not losing readers because of free news on the Internet, they are losing readers because the print content is going away. If Newspapers stop covering the news, especially the local news, then the newspapers have stopped doing what they do best and what their readers demand of them. No wonder the readers are fleeing: they are trying to find out what is going on in their world.

Case in point: I cannot find out about what is going on at my City Hall by reading the the local paper, they don’t cover it, or at least not all of it. I can find out what is going on only by reading the City’s website, and various blogs from local concerned citizens and activists. This is what I meant by the need for journalists and journalism. The web has made us all journalists.

There is a lot of noise about making newspapers’ websites accessible for subscribers only, and as the NY Times Select showed us, it is a failed model. The news organizations discovered two things: 1) no one wanted to pay for access, and 2)because  no one accessed it, their ad rates dropped.

Just like a blog, US newspapers need to create bold and compelling content to bring readers to their sites and keep them coming back. Making readers pay for AP stories is not going to be the business model that saves the news industry. One of the models proposed is to troll the readers. No, really.

I don’t pretend to know what the next model will be for the newspapers, but I do know that real content will drive readers to it, regardless of the delivery mechanism. I hope that it will be the Internet. I’d like to save the trees.

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

3 responses to Try To Read All About It

  1. Carla Akins October 1st, 2014 at 5:51 pm

    My local paper allows you a dozen or so clicks before the paywall comes up. They want $9 a month and disable the comments on stories that generate a lot of comments. They kicked disqus to the curb about a year ago in favor of FB, which absolutely no one wanted. A group of us started a closed FB group where we can comment the hell out of story without risk of being outed (big concern for a couple of the readers) and it actually became a great thing. I refuse to pay, just clear my cache and I’m back in.

    • Tengrain October 1st, 2014 at 7:20 pm

      It astonishes me how US Newspapers just don’t get it. Your story is just more evidence that the readers are yearning for engagement, and the publishers are actively thwarting you.



  2. fancypants October 1st, 2014 at 10:57 pm

    actually ive read that most of the millennial’s get their news from their ipods or internet and newspapers are sinking in sales. I think the baby boomers kept most of the newspaper sales up but now that seems to be a thing of the past.