The Death of Newspapers

[Bricktop]

I had occasion to visit a coffee shop yesterday while killing a spare 30 minutes.



I noticed that it had the local paper made available to customers. I do not generally read print media, but I had to waste around 30 minutes before my appointment so I grabbed the latest edition to see what's going on in our little part of the world.



My first observation was that it was missing about half its pages. Perhaps someone had removed a section.



But, no. It was the entire edition. Barely enough paper to wrap a good portion of fish and chips.



It didn't take long to work out why. Classifieds were almost non existent, and many of the opinion articles were no longer present. Very few ads in relative terms. Content was almost entirely politics and crime, with a few local interest pieces thrown in to take up space.



It was but a shadow of its former self. Then I noticed the price. Almost $2.00. To tell me what I can see on the 24 hour news channels, or one of many web sites.



Print media is dying a slow and painful death.



I look forward to the funeral. Newspapers have long been playing manipulative games with their readers.



They deserve to die.

[Zetsu]

I hope they die too asap, they've caused enough trouble to many ppl just for the sake of attention whoring and manipulating the idiots out there.

[Bricktop]

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Well said.

Many newspapers are doing better online these days.

[Bricktop]

Which is, of course, where the dissemination of news and information will be solely located in the not too distant future.



Newspapers are really for the elderly and those who cannot or will not utilise the internet. They will fade out in time, as will the requirement to disperse information on physical media.



I saw a movie last night. A young man was courting a sweet young thing and she invited him to put some music on. She pointed towards an older stereo system, with CD's in a box. He questioned why she had CD's. She said they were her grandmother's.



Ouch.



No more iTunes, either.



Our entire intellectual and creative energy will become digitised. Perhaps even high art.

[@realAzhyaAryola]

This is the new norm, people engrossed with their devices.



A newspaper will be useless eventually except for us old coots who still enjoy it. I am a whiz at crossword puzzles so I enjoy solving it when I go to the coffee shop.



http://cdn.junglecreations.com/wp/junglecms/2018/03/Phone-at-dinner.jpg">

[Bricktop]

Newspapers are on the verge of collapse.



http://newspaperdeathwatch.com/">//http://newspaperdeathwatch.com/

[Anonymous]

This is the new norm, people engrossed with their devices.



A newspaper will be useless eventually except for us old coots who still enjoy it. I am a whiz at crossword puzzles so I enjoy solving it when I go to the coffee shop.



http://cdn.junglecreations.com/wp/junglecms/2018/03/Phone-at-dinner.jpg">

I subscribe to the NYT crossword and sometimes use their desktop app because it's so fast.  I don't use their phone app for it because it's just too tiny and "hinky."  But really, crosswords are a paper and ink thing for me and I prefer to print them and solve them with a pen.

Newspapers are on the verge of collapse.



http://newspaperdeathwatch.com/">//http://newspaperdeathwatch.com/

It's a lot harder for political cartoonists to get paid online.  I worry about what will happen to them when print media goes away.

[Anonymous]

I hope they die too asap, they've caused enough trouble to many ppl just for the sake of attention whoring and manipulating the idiots out there.

But, how is that different from online news?

[Bricktop]

That's a very good question.



Until the evolution of the internet, print media was the only means of obtaining a comprehensive summary of news. Television and radio were also vital, but were limited to specific times and were condensed into fixed time frames. Newspapers had broader scope to report and discuss issues.



The internet not only provides thousands of sources of news, most free, but also allows for public discussion and discourse. Cable television now provides 24 hour access to news which can be accessed via mobile devices.



Why should people PAY for information any more? That is the real issue. Print media requires a payment to survive. All print media has ever done is to disseminate information that would otherwise have been unavailable in a timely and immediate fashion.



Amidst the information, there were OPINION pieces from "journalists" often presented as fact, who had no more qualification to their opinions as anyone else...perhaps in many cases, less so. Opinion pieces rarely cited valid references that supported a particular viewpoint, nor did they offer opposing positions. Put another way, manipulation of public perception came embedded in every newspaper you bought. The internet enables people to filter out opinion journalism, or in some cases, confront it. If you don't like the inbuilt bias of a news outlet, you go elsewhere.



It can be argued that many newspapers were balanced and even handed in their reporting and opinion, but that no longer matters.



Paying 2 bucks for someone to tell you how to think has lost its appeal.

[Anonymous]

That's a very good question.



Until the evolution of the internet, print media was the only means of obtaining a comprehensive summary of news. Television and radio were also vital, but were limited to specific times and were condensed into fixed time frames. Newspapers had broader scope to report and discuss issues.



The internet not only provides thousands of sources of news, most free, but also allows for public discussion and discourse. Cable television now provides 24 hour access to news which can be accessed via mobile devices.



Why should people PAY for information any more? That is the real issue. Print media requires a payment to survive. All print media has ever done is to disseminate information that would otherwise have been unavailable in a timely and immediate fashion.



Amidst the information, there were OPINION pieces from "journalists" often presented as fact, who had no more qualification to their opinions as anyone else...perhaps in many cases, less so. Opinion pieces rarely cited valid references that supported a particular viewpoint, nor did they offer opposing positions. Put another way, manipulation of public perception came embedded in every newspaper you bought. The internet enables people to filter out opinion journalism, or in some cases, confront it. If you don't like the inbuilt bias of a news outlet, you go elsewhere.



It can be argued that many newspapers were balanced and even handed in their reporting and opinion, but that no longer matters.



Paying 2 bucks for someone to tell you how to think has lost its appeal.

And that is different from CNN or CBC online?

[Bricktop]

Yes.



You don't PAY them directly for their news.

[Anonymous]

Yes.



You don't PAY them directly for their news.

We pay indirectly for CBC.

[Bricktop]

As we do for our ABC, which many people want sold off, shut down or privatised.

[Gaon]

As we do for our ABC, which many people want sold off, shut down or privatised.

It is unethical for the state to own a broadcasting company.