February 12, 2009
Seventeen minutes on why companies that sell journalism on newsprint don't deserve bailouts, aren't the lifeblood of democracy, and won't begin to stanch their declines until getting rid of all vestiges of monopolistic thought.
Watch the whole thing above or here.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Newspapers don't deserve bailouts for the same reason as any
other business. If the people want newspapers, they'll vote with
their money to keep them around. If not, too bad. I'm sure some
people miss any number of other outdated business models.
-jcr
Welch: Time to Bailout the Washington
Post?
(Matt is farming out making links to the commenters. :) )
THREAD HIJACK
Totally ignore this if you want because it's way off topic but I
had to vent a minor frustration of mine, somewhere it would cause
the least amount of inconvenience to people I vent it to:
Today, I literally heard this dumbfuck bitch complain that she was
getting cancer from standing in line behind someone who had
"third-hand smoke" coming off her.
WHY ARE PEOPLE SO FUCKING STUPID????
/rant, go back to business as usual, sorry.
Matt Welch,
Thanks for all the "insider baseball" stuff on newspapers; it was
quite interesting.
I agree - there are better ways to save journalism - and it
doesn't include buying into failed businesses - but starting new
ones.
I'm working on a startup: http://spot.us
I don't claim it'll save journalism - but I do think we need 1,000
other journo-startups. Together we can figure this out.
The issue not addressed is whether or not direct dependence on government largess will make the dead tree news even more pro-government than they are now.
WHY ARE PEOPLE SO FUCKING STUPID????
They think that anything that has a name is real.
Okay, maybe that's more how they're stupid, but you know
what I mean.
No one is without religion -- or, at least, the demons of
one.
/REPLYJACK
Good piece, but you're no Joe Wurzelbacher. He would have know
that 'central European Post offices' are actually private
corporations these days.
But seriously, the problem with the net for newspapers is not that
people can read for free what they used to have to pay 50 cents a
day or 2 bucks on a sunday; it's that the advertisers are simply
not paying as much for internet ads as they were for the print,
right?. I always thought the economics of newspapers - at least the
gen circ dailies- didn't really care much about newsstand or even
subscription prices. All this coin went directly back to the distro
network. The revenue for the newspaper company itself was all about
advertising - the real customers. I remember part of Kinsley's
comment about the economic insanity is that historically, there was
absolutely no advertising on the editorial or oped page. So not
only was it costing an arm and a leg, but also it wasn't bringing
in any cash.
Hence, merge the trend of lower ad rates with general malaise
curtailing marketing budgets economy-wide - and the specific
classified ad implosion directly brought about by the net - and the
newspaper industry in the same boat at the US automakers - nobody's
buying the product of any of the competitors either, but their
businesses are particularly ill suited to weather the storm.
There'a story on NPR today about Sarkozy wanting to give $800
million dollars to French newspapers. He wants to give every French
teenager a subscription to a major daily.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100665199
You have to admit the guy does bring up some very valid
points!
RT
www.anon-tools.us.tc
I wonder what anonymity guy's ROI is on spending his whole day doing what he does.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245