DISQUS

eee_eff · 1 year ago

In other words, newspapers need the flexibility to change business arrangements and ally with others to survive.

No. They will actually do quite well as not for profits. This will of course prise away the ability of corporations to control what is said, through their control of the media.

Adam Thierer · 1 year ago

Ah yes, another day at the TLF and another asinine corporate conspiracy theory from the enema_foundry. Seriously, pray tell, Mr. Foundry, how is it that you are so enlightened and shielded from this corporate media conspiracy while the rest of us are just mindless sheep being fed our daily marching orders from our corporate masters? Is it just the fact that I let my subscriptions to Mother Jones and The Nation lapse long ago? Do those sages offer the enlightened path to socialist slavery..er, uh.. freedom?

Now, you’ll have to excuse me while I get back to reading the couple of trillion different news stories on the Google News main page this morning. I will do my best to sort through them carefully and see if I can discern who is feeding me propaganda versus truth. Or I suppose you also have a theory about how all those media sources are really just controlled by Google! Ironically, I am about to fly out to the Valley for a conference at Google headquarters. I will ask them if they would be so kind as to deprogram me for the day and let me see the truth that is apparently only available to your eyes.

v · 1 year ago

This only tells half the story. Newspapers typically have something in the range of 20% profit margins. That's really high, but since there's no growth they don't perform well on Wall Street.

That changes the game somewhat, at least to the extent that it can still be played without apocalyptic rhetoric. I leave it to someone smarter than me to figure out how.

eric · 1 year ago

I live in a town dominated by the most politically biased paper known, the Des Moines Register, as judged by a Center For Media And Public Affairs study a few years ago. Since issues important to conservatives or libertarians are rarely tackled, and questions are never asked politicians or bureaucrats from those perspectives, is it any wonder they are losing subscribers? Iowa is a purple state, but the Register is saying to about half the population that their side of the political spectrum does not matter. Clinton got 59 percent positive coverage, and the early Bush years got 31 percent positive coverage. Are Republicans going to pay to be slapped in the face?

A new Zogby poll shows 2/3 of Americans believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news. 80% of Republicans, 75% of independents, and 50% of Democrats are "disenchanted" with traditional journalism.

Plain and simple, when you offer a product that most people are dissatisfied with, can you expect a decline in sales? Blaming the internet or television or media consolidation is ignoring a large root cause. The Des Moines Register is one of the worst examples, but it is typical of a trend and a bedrock problem for newspapers.

hhaney · 1 year ago

Who cares about local newspapers?

Mainly politicians and political activists who like to read about themselves and accumulate power, right?

Eric's exactly right. Local newspaper circulation is declining because people aren't forced to read local newspapers anymore.

I love newspapers. I read several online, including some foreign publications such as the London Times and Le Monde. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and the Economist. I even subscribe to the New York Times which I disagree with ideologically because the quality is so good. Although my local newspaper’s excessive left wing slant annoys me, the main reason I don’t subscribe to it is because the content is thin and I have better options.

Sure, people like Senator Dorgan and FreePress can limit how many media outlets a single Republican can own through media ownership rules. But that’s as far as they’re going to get. In our digital age, there’s no such thing as a captive audience – no one is going to force anyone to read anything.

If Dorgan and FreePress want to strengthen local newspapers, the obvious choice is to allow them to address the quality problem with more resources that would come from partnering with other media outlets.

If there is a better idea, a lot of people including myself are waiting to hear it.

eee_eff · 1 year ago

Adam:

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. It's good to see you are taking the high road, like Richard Bennett did.

First, I don't categorize my thoughts at all in the 'conspiracy' genre. I don't think that there's a direct process where someone in a corporation says 'I am going to stifle free speech today so I'll go out and buy a newspaper.' Rather what will happen is that a newspaper, once under control of a corporation, will become more concerned with maintaining the status quo and not 'rocking the boat' But that is exactly what a free press should do.

Second, you may be entirely right about the profitability of newspapers being on the decline, but how would mere change of ownership make newspapers more profitable? Any synergies that you see probably come at the expense of the functioning of the free press.

Third, I look at the functioning of society as a whole, not just a part. Having a free but marginally profitable press is better than having a profitable but unfree press.

Fourth, it is you who posit the “neo-conspiratorial puppet-master theory of media manipulation” which very few of those who criticize your positions on media regulation actually believe in. Why don't you respond to the actual points made by your critics instead of building a straw man?

eee_eff · 1 year ago

Well, Adam here's my post. Please do respond if you've something to say:

Post Responding, politely, to Adam T. without name calling...