wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

BY THE NUMBERS

Of course the loss of the Times

Would be felt in millions of homes;

But ah! the added hours

For reading thousands of tomes.

Why can't the Times use the public radio model? I prefer to read online and would gladly make regular contributions if asked.

BY THE NUMBERS

Of course the loss of the Times

Would be felt in millions of homes;

But oh! the added hours

For reading thousands of tomes.

The print advertising continues to produce the lions share of revenue to support the paper way more than the web. It is the management side of the paper that has need of recognizing this and not be in a panic about the shift of readers to the internet. There are way too many VPs, Directors, Group Directors on the "exempt" (non union) side of the busines side of the paper making wasteful time and money decisions, holding too many team meetings, and making the sales staff use valuable selling time to write reports in stead of allowing them to actually sell the print ads. Print is currently where the money is. Management seems to forget to keep the revenue stream working while it figures how to create other sources. They've placed so much emphasis on digital that they've exacerbated the problem by getting ahead of themselves. Yeah there is a drought coming but don't forget to drink water you need to survive.

I've been wondering lately whether newspapers will eventually be run by the big research subscriber databases like Lexus/Nexus, ProQuest, and Ebsco. Lexus/Nexus makes a decent subscriber profit from libraries, colleges, law schools, and law firms. That could anchor a quality news source, and instead of buying newspapers' archives, these companies could cut out the middle man, hire reporters to report the news, and own the material immediately. Without a reliance on advertising, maybe we could get some quality reporting. Yet I'm not sure I'd want these companies controlling the news. And who knows if something like this could still run on a profit or whether doing the initial reporting is actually cheaper than buying archives. I'm not sure if it would be a good thing; I'm just thinking this is one possible scenario. Could we eventually end up with a handful of companies that write the news, archive the news, and also archive corporate and government records?

jl 24
great point!

Barry: Rupert Murdoch was born in Australia.

Boston guy: I was being ironic, dude.

I've learned an important lesson here today: Never use sarcasm or irony when trying to make a point.

What's really pathetic is the Times making attempts to cater to a "younger" demographic.

and let's not forget that some of the most "important" articles in the paper are ones that NOBODY reads --

-- NOBODY EXCEPT policy makers, who often cite them to craft policies (new hudson tunnel? health care ideas printed 10 yrs ago?) that effect us all.

all journalism students need to learn basic html skills. Without them and at least a basic knowledge of how the internet works, they are already at a disadvantage and they'll be worthless soon.

Newspapers have always skewed to a more mature audience. What happens as these people die & the 2.0 people are the advertiser target?

Blame today's economic state on the near death of the useful media, especially business media (and especially now that the WSJ is no longer a must read).

The economy only gets reported when their parents' neighbors' subprime mortgages are due?? That's crisis reporting, not trend reporting. Anybody can take a picture of a traffic accident.

A transparent and diligent press -- ahead of the curve -- is to a strong economy is to what a highway system is to Walmart.

Since a huge portion of the cost is printing (plants, paper, ink, distribution), could you foresee the Times getting rid of its print operation and supporting its journalism by being only digital?

NY Times needs to charge extra for people who want print delivery, charge fees for all access to the online archives. Reporters have to eat.

I'm from the generation who supposed to prefer reading online--I don't. Reading blogs, and reading features are two different experiences.

People need to jsut start payting for the news and realizing the improtance of paying for media resources. The internet leaves you with the feeling that all of this information should be free--it shouldn't.

The NYTimes has shot itself in the Upper Case-
by inferior bias 'journal-ism'-

Sad- so sad...

i find it ironic that the new yorker's jill lepore, a guest of yours, also wrote a neat article on this topic of the death of newspapers: jan 26 critic at large. i loved how she connected it to the American Revolution.

i have a nytimes subscription. consider, too, with digital editions, we the people have access to news and opinions from elsewhere beyond our own neighborhoods.

i like the trend for many reasons.

ted

You know it's like the nightly news for me. If the NYT's had any ounce of journalistic integrity left I would still subscribe. I don't know if I can ever get over their pathetic propaganda leading up to the war/occupation in Iraq.

When Dick Cheney is quoting the Times on television you KNOW it's not a legitimate source of "news."

Reading blogs is reading the work of diletantes. I want to read the work of experts.

Here is what "Junk" means from S&P (anything below BBB). See BB

BBB
An obligation rated 'BBB' exhibits adequate protection parameters. However, adverse economic conditions or
changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity of the obligor to meet its financial
commitment on the obligation.
BB, B, CCC, CC, and C
Obligations rated 'BB', 'B', 'CCC', 'CC', and 'C' are regarded as having significant speculative characteristics. 'BB'
indicates the least degree of speculation and 'C' the highest. While such obligations will likely have some quality and
protective characteristics, these may be outweighed by large uncertainties or major exposures to adverse conditions.
BB
An obligation rated 'BB' is less vulnerable to nonpayment than other speculative issues. However, it faces major
ongoing uncertainties or exposure to adverse business, financial, or economic conditions which could lead to the
obligor's inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation

ggy
maybe the same place the times gets their news.
we'll adapt

What is worse for democracy? a cosmopolitan progressive foreigner as Carlos Slim to own an American newspaper like the NYT, or an extreme right-winger but U.S. born as Rupert Murdoch who has already suggested he wants to buy it in order to destroy it?

I only have limited sympathy for the Times. I've been a print subscriber for the 2 years since I've been in the city, but I have to go to other news sources to actually find the news from this city - which seems crass (not just the decline of the 'Metro' section last year).

I also think the Times still holds with the model of "when write 50 words when 100 will do". I don't have the time for that...

New York Times 'lite' anyone?

newspapers should focus on opinion and big picture ideas and stay away from out of date (once printed) facts

gary
the NYT tried that it did not work

the times makes a profit-it's not going under. the idea that the web is the future for newspapers, and that they will no longer actually be newspapers, is dead wrong. there is no way to make the same amount of money on line. so the Times is profitable,a dn will continue to be so. there are plenty of people out there, like me, that insist on reading an actual, physical, newspaper.

the credit rating has probably gone to junk because of the credit crisis and all the hysteria out there about newspapers.

The NY Times web site is a library of multi media treasures. I really think their web site is unparalled. The paper is just as good, and it's hard to imagine life without the Times. I would pay more for it than I already do.

If GM is too big to fail, the Times is to GOOD to fail.

hjs

so where do you think wnyc and your other sources get their news that you prefer

the electrical plug in the wall?

Oh, p'shaw! We'll just read blogs!

Newspapers are going out of business because they give away their product for free via the Internet and thus cannibalize their revenue streams. That's crazy. Charge for the value readers receive with online subscriptions.

es ist mir gleich

this again?
newspapers are dieing. guess what? I can't send a telegraph either. but on the bright side I can get all the news I want, even primary sources on the internet any time I want. keep your dirty tree killing land filling rags

ONE committed, large scale journalistic enterprise in the whole country? THIS... IS... the low point, friends...

That newspapers and media are not securing their bailout money at this strange, bountiful moment -- as the vault of the US Treasury yawns wide -- suggests just how short-sighted, weak-spined and unworthy the US media as a whole really has turned out to be.

Capitalism, not to mention Democracy, requires a healthy free press. Simple fact, and of course that would be the easy case to make to The Obama Bailout Fairies or even the Supreme Court.

While The NYT is truly a symbol of a healthy free press -- the thought of its demise is merely to be considered in that context. (For evidence, just ask any community not covered by the NYT.)

What an exquisite moment to rethink -- and probably redo -- the way journalism is supported in this country.