51–60 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just checked out their homepage, let's just say that isn't exactly evident from the content there. I'm going to assume your comment was sarcastic unless there is some proof to the contrary. Some samples: Oh, boy. 34 of the best products from shark tank. 23 texts that will make you laugh way harder than they should. How much do you actually know about drugs? Find awesome gifts for friends and family. 27 Ingenious Ha…
Pooping hacks you say?
The internet has destroyed the lock on distribution relied on by; Publishers, MPAA, RIAA, newspapers, governments and even people who expect hard to access (look up in county courts files) means effectively "private".
There is vastly more supply of "attention" than there is demand for "attention". Combined with the ease of distribution/search and picking and choosing tiny bits from each "supplier" means it's extremely hard to monetize or even convince your consumers that you provide any value at all. i.e. I can pay/endure ads from you or I can go to the fify other sources/aggregators of same information.
i read another article mentioning that one of the main consequences of this is the lack of quality local news and political coverage, which is still something only local newspapers can provide. there is plenty of online coverage about the latest stupid thing trump said or far off world events, not so much coverage of local politicians and things in your community that actually could affect you.
e.g. NYT would team up with SmallTown, Ohio newspaper so that a user can subscribe to both his local newspaper and NYT and see articles on the same page.
This can be true, without implying that continuing to focus on print over digital was the correct strategy.
i read another article mentioning that one of the main consequences of this is the lack of quality local news and political coverage, which is still something only local newspapers can provide. there is plenty of online coverage about the latest stupid thing trump said or far off world events, not so much coverage of local politicians and things in your community that actually could affect you.
Not sure if this works well for cities that are large enough to cause world news themselves. And, if you did this for San Francisco, I imagine that you would simply be directed back to HN ;)
The conclusion that a drop in readership is proof that moving to the web was a mistake is extraordinarily shallow. "Readers continue to leave print newspapers, but they’re not migrating to the online editions." Because they have more options. Print products were often monopolies, especially in the early to mid 90s, a hey day for newspapers. There was often a single publication per DMA. What happened then is newspaper…
Sacrificing the ideals of journalism sounds like a bad deal for democracy. But then again, if people would rather be entertained by whatever is in their filter bubble for five minutes, than be challenged, I guess that's the kind of news world we get.
We should not romanticize journalism of the past too much either. The "old news" subreddit gives some perspective (obviously, it's biased towards funny or unusual stories) https://www.reddit.com/r/OldNews
This article appears to neglect the impact of craigslist and similar services on classified ad revenue. With that revenue gone newspapers are in trouble, mistake or not.
Ever have to place a obituary lately? Nearly $1k! For a medium size market!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be interested to know that Buzzfeed seems to be doing investigative reporting now
I just checked out their homepage, let's just say that isn't exactly evident from the content there. I'm going to assume your comment was sarcastic unless there is some proof to the contrary. Some samples: Oh, boy. 34 of the best products from shark tank. 23 texts that will make you laugh way harder than they should. How much do you actually know about drugs? Find awesome gifts for friends and family. 27 Ingenious Ha…
You've got to dig for the good stuff, but it actually is there.