Of course they are. The problem is that “boots on the ground” does not describe how the majority of newspaper articles happen anymore.

What isn’t an opinion piece or editorial often is just regurgitation of AP releases verbatim.

Newspapers no longer have local on-salary stringers in Paris, London, etc that actually go out and research, interview, investigate on site.
Those have been replaced with on-site issue experts that may or may not have an iron in the fire….no-one actually checks to see if they’re really unbiased or uninvolved (or, indeed, even if they even know what they’re talking about), AFAICT.

And the “journalists” no longer do any research beyond picking up a phone and talking to one or two “experts”, then “reporting” at one or two removes from the source. Too often, those spoken to have some involvement on a single side of the issue of the day. Sometimes they don’t even do that much. How else do you think the Medea Benjamins of the world end up being quoted ad infinitum?

Newspapers no longer have science reporters with a background that allows them to understand what they’re being told and whether there are any caveats.
Those have been replaced with Lifestyle columnists doing double duty interviewing physicists and doctors about the latest pre-peer-review press release.

The room for error and bias is staggering, and that’s ignoring the outright lies, bias, and skewing that occurs between the journalists ears and fingertips…..with a whole other layer of that at the editing stage.

As for blogs and online sources, I’m pretty sure they can cut and paste AP releases as well as any degreed hack in the newsroom…..

The ONLY thing a newspaper could provide on a relevant and timely basis are local sports and local journalism.

But even these processes will require a new operational model to work.

Our local paper just eliminated the Monday edition. They’re pulling out all the stops to become the local online shopping resource as they watch classified revenue drop. They fired the editor (after writing a glowing article about him) to shake up the staff.

Nothing is working because they don’t understand the nature of the problem. I.e. you can’t force people to buy something they don’t want.

The internet has taken the newspaper’s money makers: Want Ads, Classifieds, and even some legal notices. These 3 were the backbone of profit making because they used to be consistant money andcheap to put in the paper. It’s the newspapers themselves who have blown off a sizable portion of their potential customers, thereby killing their 2 other money makers: subscriptions and advirtising.

Let her analyze all 5 items in any topic on the demise of the newspapers. Since no one in the newspaper business mentions these things, they are probably failing because they don’t know what business they are in.

Let they all fail and knowledgable business people will find a way to to do their old job.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer just announced it is now a web-only publication.Hearst Corp. will run its final printed edition of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer tomorrow and shift the entire publication to the Web after failing to find a buyer for the …

Only problem is, if people don’t want to read their crap on paper what makes them think anyone wants to read them online?

And I have to question a strategy which attempts to shift blame onto an industry’s consumers by declaring them too stupid to know what’s good for them.

LOL, yeah: “Subscribe, dammit! Or are you an ignorant inbred Dittohead?? You’ll read what we write and love it!!”

ddrintn on March 16, 2009 at 5:42 PM

This is pretty much Parker’s only way of making an argument. Well, there’s also the Feel-Good-Conservative argument… I’m quite disappointed that she is now writing for Town Hall. They could do better.

Yes, but you can’t take TV and internet into the can and you can’t dribble breakfast cereal all over the TV/internet without ruining them.

Those are HUGE advantages.

I have a little itouch and wireless in my house and I can read online anytime and anywhere including the can. Cheaper than a few year subscription to any newspaper.

All they really need is a couple hundred billion taxpayer dollars to fix the problem.

fumpbump on March 16, 2009 at 2:47 PM

…for a year or so.

The reasons I would never subscribe to a newspaper now are many:

*I’m sick of the bias.

*I can pick and choose what portions I want to read without the added pile of nonsense in the corner of my living room.

*I can get it free online. I’d rather spend my money elsewhere than some liberal’s soap box. I can get the ridiculous liberal viewpoint for free from one of my idiot co-workers. Or the many trolls.

*I can go to many blog sites that have linked to many news articles to save me time.

*I can interact with other people who read the same article, online. When I read something that is filled with fluff and doesn’t make a lick of sense to me, (as is their goal), I can read the comments to get a better understanding of what, exactly, the writer was trying to say/accomplish. (Nine times out of ten, they are attempting to brainwash.) And I learn WAY more doing it this way than just reading the paper, alone.

*I can get news from many sources without killing a crap load of trees.

*I simply enjoy it when the NYT calls me up and asks me to subscribe and I tell them, “No way in hell, you liberally biased rag. I wouldn’t even line my cat’s litter box with your trash.”

I think that level of full-disclosure would go a long way in helping those in the media business as they look in the mirror about how to help their troubled industry.

mctowler on March 16, 2009 at 2:57 PM

And the McTowler/Pilosi FULL-DISCLOSURE ACT is Born

HIP HIP HOORAY!

As others have pointed out, the truth is that newspapers have been dying for decades. Like a tree rotting from within, the newsprint industry has been in gradual decline for many years, even as it pretends that all is well.

I have lived in Australasia for the past several years. When I returned home last fall for the first time since I left, I was shocked to see that all major papers had gone to a smaller size format. Every one, in each of the five major cities I visited, plus USA Today, WSJ, and NYT. That’s just the latest symptom of an industry desparate to cut expenses. The problem is, so many newspapers are union shops (on the print side) that they are hemmorhaging cash all over the place, as their ad revenues decline, compounded by declining subscriptions.

I don’t mind reading UK papers because generally I know up front what biases those papers are based upon. At least UK papers in London are still thriving enough to be competitive. If I want hard left, I read the Guardian or Independent; for something a bit more center of the road, I read the Telegraph or Daily Mail. At least there’s no pretense of “objective” as such. WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc., etc. could learn something from the UK example.

Then again, even in the “golden days of objectivity”, newspapers were only as good as their publishers. Hearst was well-known to influence politics by his papers back in the day. NYT published that disgraceful series of articles by Duranty in the late 1920′s. It would be interesting to note which major newspapers began showing their leftist-leaning stripes during the McCarthy hearings, as an example.

Then again, who knows? Maybe those media outlets really do try to put a “D” in stories where a Democrat has been accused of being naughty, but it’s the guys in the print shop who remove it? Hmmm…

Or not.

And I have to question a strategy which attempts to shift blame onto an industry’s consumers by declaring them too stupid to know what’s good for them.

LOL, yeah: “Subscribe, dammit! Or are you an ignorant inbred Dittohead?? You’ll read what we write and love it!!”