Newspapers Dying: It's Not Tragic, It's Pathetic Can I just ask something
Did no newspaper in America take steps toward this transition long ago, when it became apparent this was the future? Not one?
No, it doesn't appear they did. What they did was:
a) Rely upon sentimentality, i.e,. "But I just like the FEEL of the paper in my hand!" or "I can't imagine not having my morning paper--it's a ritual." These are not things to count on, as when taste changes, you go with it. Yet they believed these things would trump ease of use and quickness of access.
b) Guilt your own audience. Basically, "They'll be sorry to see us go," or some other form of judgment on your audience for "allowing" the paper to go, as though we ever had any control of it one way or another. That a person who doesn't support their local paper is a bad person, less concerned about...what? Information through one particular format?
Relying on snob value, sentimentality, things like this? That's all newspapers did. Rather than adapt, they assumed they were special cases. And that worked so very well for the music industry.
And meanwhile, long ago, the papers just became loss leaders for much larger, and very few, corporations a long time ago that didn't give a damn about readership. Let's also consider such things as when the Chicago Tribune broke a distributor's union by using the homeless as pawns to be their paperboys, and not the only paper that did stuff like that.
Justify your existence, newspapers, and adapt, like everyone else has to. I'm sorry you're dying, but didn't you just let it happen? Laid-off reporters should blame the executives who made idiotic decisions, not readers.
Labels: economy, New Depression, newspapers, trump