The Inquisitr » heritage media

E.Republic Acquires Times Publishing’s Governing Magazine

AHN — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:11:32 +0000

St. Petersburg, FL (AHN) – The Times Publishing Co. agreed Friday to sell Governing magazine to California media company e.Republic for an undisclosed price.

Governing began publishing in 1987 and claims governors, mayors, lawmakers, local council members and policy advisers among its 85,000 readers.

The Sacramento, CA, based e.Republic publishes Government Technology magazine and operates several web sites concerned with state and local government and education. It also runs the Center for Digital Government, a national research and advisory institute.

Times Publishing publishes the St. Petersburg Times, a free daily tabloid, business magazine Florida Trend and the political fact-finding web site PolitiFact.com.

E.Republic’s chief operating officer, Paul Harney, said in a joint statement that the acquisition creates the largest media firm providing news, research and analysis of the $2.9 trillion state and local government market.

“The Times Publishing Company takes great pride in Governing, which we nurtured from its inception 22 years ago into the powerful brand it is today,” said Times vice president Andrew Corty. “As part of this combination, Governing has a bright future educating and informing its senior-level readership across the nation.”

This is the second publication Times Publishing has sold this year. In July, Congressional Quarterly was acquired by the Economist Group, which publishes Roll Call magazine.

The deal will close after Thanksgiving.

Governing will maintain its offices in downtown Washington, D.C., under the same editorial leadership, according to the statement.

Epic Win: News Corp Likely To Remove Content From Google

Duncan Riley — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:11:40 +0000

News Corp founder and CEO Rupert Murdoch has told an interview with Sky News Australia that News Corp will likely remove News Corp content from Google.

The revelation came early in the interview, after Murdoch claimed that Google and others are stealing News Corp content in response to a question about who he was talking about when he talked about plagiarists. “The people who simply pick up everything to run with, and steal our stories…they just take them..without payment. That’s Google, Microsoft, Ask.com..a whole lot of people.”

Murodch claimed that readers who visit News Corp sites via search offer little value to advertisers, and that News Corp would rather have fewer people coming to their websites, but paying. Asked why News hasn’t made its sites invisible to Google, Murdoch replied: “I think we will….but that’s when we start charging.”

Murdoch also claims that News Corp believes that the doctrine of Fair Use can be challenged in court and “barred altogether.”

As Mumbrella notes, many sites (including this one) have called on News Corp and others to use Robots.txt to take their content out of Google, a simple change that would put to bed the Google stealing our content argument once and for all.

The full interview as follows:

Age May Not Weary Them, But Do The Years Condemn The Old To Media Negativity? #Media140

Duncan Riley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:55:03 +0000

Among the doomsayers and Luddites at Sydney’s Media140 conference (see my earlier review here) this week there were some positive people, some on stage, but more again in the audience.

Without the benefit of actually undertaking a study (fact gathering that apparently only heritage media can do according to many at the conference) there was something else that struck me about the rift between those subscribing to the Said Hanrahan view of the media landscape, and those who see a positive future: age.

It’s not a strict cut because there is some crossover, but those with a negative outlook were nearly exclusively mid 30s or older. Those with a more positive outlook went the other way, at least among the people I spoke to at the event.

Could it be that the digital natives get it, but the rest don’t, at least proportionately to their age, the older they are the less likely they get it?

Motive

To suggest that it may be age alone though might ignore motive vs knowledge. It is probably true that some simply feel threatened by the new and react to it based on a lack of understanding. But I struggle to believe that some of those I saw speak at the event didn’t know what was actually happening out there. You can’t ignore reports from the top newspapers and media outlets in the United States that cover the latest round of new media funding, the stories about out of work journalists being snapped up to work for the latest AOL venture (such as Politics Daily) or TPM expanding its team. The over used example of The Huffington Post expanding and doing investigative journalism is but one other example of many journalists finding work in new media.

But lets ignore the big firms for a moment and look at the other end of the pie: small scale blogging concerns. The Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal reported in April 2009 that the United States is “a nation of over 20 million bloggers, with 1.7 million profiting from the work, and 452,000 of those using blogging as their primary source of income. That’s almost 2 million Americans getting paid by the word, the post, or the click.”

Given that you can’t ignore the stats, who do you explain otherwise perfectly smart people in the Australian media telling fables about how there is no future for journalism without Government intervention or a paywall?

As I noted in the earlier post, the spin fails here because this is exactly what this is: spin. It’s a narrative of victimhood not based on the whole story, only parts of it. The problem of course is when you repeat something over and over again, sometimes it can become a self fulfilling prophesy

Post note: by way of definition, when an old media journalist says that the new media models don’t work, what he is actually saying is that the new media models don’t work for old media.

The Spin Fails Here: Day One At #Media140 Sydney

Duncan Riley — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:47:17 +0000

At the last minute I made the decision to fly up to Sydney to attend Australia’s first Media140 conference. I mostly needed a break away from home, which makes the “blogger” pass I got into the conference sort of reasonable. The last three events in the United States I attended reporting I was given a standard media/ journalist pass…but hey, I already knew that Australia was 5 years behind, and any pass in this god forsaken backwater is a good thing….whoops, I didn’t really mean to say that…well, much. Censored Government funded fast Facebook (NBN)…say no more.

Sadly that in the country of my birth that in 2009 I can’t get recognized as a media representative was the least of my problems for the day, because despite the good reputation of the Media140 conferences in the United States, what I heard today was Jurassic Park, but with far worse CGI.

There were 3 speakers today from “Crikey,” a paid email list that did lots of good things in 1999 until it was taken over by a compliment of Luddites. Crikey’s first representative set the tone for the day when she said that the only person who is making money in a new media model in Australia is Darren Rowse…but with the proviso that what he does really isn’t journalism. At that point, I started asking for donations because obviously I must have zero money.,,,and so maybe do the roughly 100-200 ppl in Australia who make more money than I do online.

Facts? well the “journalists” were so thin on them I may have only puked in my mouth < 12 times. But if one Crikey fail was bad enough, the Editor then made an appearance. For those outside of Australia, let me put Crikey in context: here was, at least under Stephen Mayne, an early example of what could be done in new media. Today though, they can’t make a profit (and despite bringing in a range of blogs struggle with traffic), which was the justification the current editor gave today as the ONLY example of why new media can’t replace old media. 10 years, can’t make it work. As I book out a 10th month of profit from roughly 19 months…well, what more can you say that some people get it, others don’t.

Overall sadly, what I saw instead of a conference that explained the benefits of new media, was instead a conference that varied between new media is bad, and journalism is dead.

Facts were thin on the ground from so many speakers I would have cried on Twitter, except that despite offering ethernet connections, they didn’t offer power.

Take for example the ongoing meme that journalism is dead because newspapers are dying. We heard about how tens of thousands of “journalists” are losing heritage media jobs. But of course no mention of the odd $300m into new media sites during a massive recession in the US, or how the likes of AOL, TPM and more are hiring ex-heritage media journalists. No, why let facts get in the way of a great negative narrative for the ENTIRE day.

There was some good in the day, sadly it came in the last session.

I wrote on Twitter after the politics session that if you ever wanted to see why heritage media is dying, watch that…but I was wrong, because there was a lot more speakers proving the point over the rest of the day.

Kill them all and let Aunty and that VERY same free, competitive market that they don’t see bloom…that very same market that took the ad dollars away that caused the newspaper crisis today. Some doppy political correspondent today said (and I kid you not) that maybe newspapers could get ads to subsidize them and (I can’t make this up) because they use to be propped up by the circulation and people paying for the news. If Annable Crabbe is the lead political heritage media pundit in this country, god help not all Australian’s, but the entire planet.

Bonus points goes to the garden variety idiot (Caroline Ovington) who claims that piracy was killed by iTunes. When she said that she was the only News Ltd journalist there, I said quite loudly that she was one too many. Ironically she followed a lecture on journalists fact checking… yeah, and according to the low life cretins at News Ltd, I hacked the Prime Minister’s site. If they’d even once fact checked, they’d know I don’t have that skill set and was simply reporting on the story…you know, practicing journalism….but again, why let facts get in the way, most of the MSM in Australia don’t, no matter how much they claim otherwise.

FTC targets bloggers, ignores newspapers

Duncan Riley — Wed, 20 May 2009 01:47:43 +0000

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is preparing to launch new guidelines that will legally force disclosure on blog posts that involve “compensation” to the blogger writing it.

The guidelines, coming primarily in response to paid posting, are said to be needed in an era when consumers increasingly turn to blogs for information about the goods and services they buy. “The presumption is that we can apply traditional advertising principles like transparency and accountability to social media the same way as it would apply to traditional media,” said a representative for the FTC.

While in principle it’s a sound idea, and one that most people wouldn’t oppose, it’s the application that is anything but just, because it makes no attempt to strictly enforce the same rules on mainstream media outlets, and specifically newspapers, despite the suggestion from the FTC that those outlets are currently operating under higher standards.

Take this example from BusinessWeek:

Readers of Adventures in Babywearing, a blog for parents, got an up-close look at the Ergo, a $135 embroidered baby carrier in a shade called “organic blue” in a May 14 post on the site…”The Ergo truly is now my first choice for long-term wear as well as nursing and doing chores around the house,” she wrote.

Money can’t buy that kind of advertising for Maui (Hawaii)-based ERGObaby. Or can it? [The blogger] wrote in her blog [that] the company sent the carrier free, along with a matching pouch and backpack.

The problem here is that mainstream media journalists receive goods for free on a regular basis, and only rarely is any relationship disclosed. There may be a line (mostly) between directly paid content and editorial in newspapers, but there is a wealth of other ways companies court attention from the mainstream media. It also doesn’t have to be goods: how regularly are journalists offered free trips to conferences and events, and at such events they might receive free goods, accommodation, food and even entertainment? It doesn’t even have to be that extreme: a free lunch or drinks could all be counted as indirect compensation by this criteria. So why is it that bloggers receiving similar deals require Government intervention?

Perhaps there is a hidden agenda. Maybe this isn’t really about disclosure, but more about protecting perks for mainstream media journalists exclusively? Any attempt to regulate the blogosphere without seeking to strictly enforce the same rules on the mainstream media can only be seen as an attack on new media in favor of the old media. More change we can believe in from the Obama Administration.

Nick Cohen argues the BBC is more trustworthy than bloggers. ORLY?

Duncan Riley — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:37:20 +0000

One of the most common lines used in defense of the mainstream media is that we need journalists, because bloggers can’t be believed. The line argues that journalists are trustworthy because they tell the truth, and if they stray the editorial process puts them back on the straight and narrow.

Nick Cohen in The Guardian runs the very same line, but in defending journalists he actually manages to show a big slab of twisting the truth himself. His example of “serious reporters and broadcasters offering a guarantee that what they say is true” in the context that “If they stray, their editors impose journalistic standards and insist on objectivity” is the BBC.

The BBC offers the most comprehensive guarantee. Politicians and lobbyists want to influence it more than any other news organisation because, despite occasional lapses, its reporters have earned the right to be believed.

The emphasis is mine, but it’s the key line: Cohen notes that there are occasional lapses. But how occasional really are those “lapses,” and are they indeed lapses or representative of a far more serious problem? Lets take a look.

BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’

Times Online (2007)

THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.

It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes.

BBC confesses bias on religion, politics

WorldNet Daily (2006)

An internal British Broadcasting Corporation memo reveals senior figures admitted the national news agency was guilty of promoting left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.

The BBC is a floundering giant with no moral sense

Daily Mail (Feb 2009)

drift and too vast to control, the BBC is a floundering giant that has lost its moral compass. Hardly a week goes by without another controversy engulfing it.

BBC Editorial Complaints Unit debags the Panorama WiFi scare

Bad Science 2007

You will remember Panorama’s WiFi program very clearly. Even the children in the school where they tried to film it spotted the problems with their methodology, and they were promptly booted out by a science teacher. …The BBC has upheld complaints against a controversial Panorama investigation into wi-fi health concerns, saying the programme had given a “misleading impression” of the state of scientific opinion on the issue.

‘Deceptive’ BBC fined over phone-in scam

Sydney Morning Herald (2007)

British media watchdog Ofcom imposed an unprecedented £50,000 ($118,000) fine on the BBC on Tuesday over a phone-in scam on Blue Peter, one of the public-service broadcasters most popular children’s shows.

The BBC was guilty of serious breaches of the broadcasting code, Ofcom ruled, by allowing a young studio guest to pose as a fake competition winner on the program.

BBC face investigation over show’s phone-in scam

Daily Mail (2007)

The BBC is facing an investigation after it emerged that viewers urged to call a ‘live’ cookery show had no chance of getting on air because it had been recorded a week earlier.

The BBC complaint of the day

Guardian 2009

I could actually go on and on and on with more examples, but I won’t. Internal BBC documents state that there is an institutional bias, they’ve been proven to subjectively edit stories, and on top of that they scam viewers.

Who would you rather trust – the BBC or a blogger? Given the evidence, bloggers would have to come out on top.

No related posts.

And so it begins: Law Makers ask State to subsidize local papers

Duncan Riley — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:45:53 +0000

Connecticut State Representatives are petitioning the State to subsidize The Bristol Press and The Herald of New Britain, two papers facing shutdown in January as we reported November 11.

The letter from seven Democrat State Representatives to the State Department of Economic and Community Development asks for unspecified “help” for both papers, arguing for the continued existence of both as they are a “central point of information and record about a city” and that both are important for public accountability. They even go as far as mentioning free press as an essential part of the Bill of Rights.

Where do you start with this news. That it’s happened isn’t greatly surprising in an age where Government regularly intervenes to prop up or save failed businesses. The entire newspaper industry is in trouble in the United States, so this call for State help is probably the first of many to come.

Newspapers aren’t required to disseminate local information, the internet does a perfectly good job, so their argument is at best bizarre. These are also fairly small towns with populations less than 100,000 people, so the idea that each would need a daily newspaper is stranger again, and both towns are serviced by State and National newspapers.

I’ll leave the last word to Mark Finkelstein, who paints a picture of newspapers in the future:

Governor: John? It’s the Governor here. Say, you guys there at the Bristol Press are doing a great job. Top notch. But there is that one reporter of yours making a big stink over our proposal to increase the state income tax. He really doesn’t get what we’re trying to do to help our state move forward. And you know, that bill to renew your paper’s subsidy is coming up next week. I’d hate to see it get bogged down in the fuss over this. Know what I mean?

Editor: Um, yes, I know, sir.

Copy of the letter as follows:

Legislators to DECD 2008-11-25

Get your own at Scribd or explore others:

Print newspapers will be the first to fall

Duncan Riley — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:19:37 +0000

Back in July I argued that broadcast television would be the first heritage media medium to fall. The reasons I gave hold true today: broadcast television is the least prepared for the changes ahead, and not having experienced a gradual hit upfront, they will fall the hardest and quickest.

Four months later and the economic premise used in that post has changed. Heritage media is imploding around us, and the end is now nigh for newspapers, whereas television has received a reprieve. My case for television falling was based on substitution and the rapid uptake of internet enabled television sets. Every major manufacturer (except LG) has an internet enabled television hitting the market next year (something I didn’t know when I wrote that post), but likewise, the rapid replacement of television sets by consumers has gone the same way as the economy: down. Without a major turnaround in the global economy, the reach of internet enabled televisions will grow more slowly, and hence broadcast television gets a time reprieve.

The end of print newspapers

We’ve known for a long time that newspapers were in trouble, but the economic crisis has been a stake in the heart of the business. Here’s a few recent stories from our media section:

Journal Register Company: two papers to fold, upto 13 in trouble
Seattle Times: 10% cut in workforce, second 10% cut this year, more cuts next year
Sun Times/ Boston Globe cuts, NY Times cash crisis
Tribune Company: $124 million loss
News Corp drops 30%.
McClatchy Co: advertising down 19.9%
NY Times: advertising down 16%

and that’s just a short list of some of the horror stories coming out of the newspaper business at the moment.

The big story was The Christian Science Monitor giving up its print edition altogether and switching to online only, the first big paper to do so, and likely the first of more to come.

The scariest story for the newspaper business is the financial state of the New York Times. Many newspaper companies are facing debt issues off the back of big loses, but the New York Times is in the most trouble, and must deliver $400 million to lenders in May of 2009 but only has $46 million cash on hand, and a short term debt facility that it may not be able to draw on.

Death of classified advertising

Figures released by the Newspaper Association of America in September showed the death plunge in advertising accelerating to a second quarter drop of 14%. We don’t yet have industry totals for the latest quarter, but nearly every major newspaper has reported an even larger drop for the 3rd quarter, some as high as 20% or more. Classified advertising is declining even more quickly, with some papers reporting drops of 40%.

Within the next 18-24 months, the print newspaper classified market will die. Perhaps not completely (you may still see classified ads in newspapers) but as a tangible income source for newspapers classifieds will no longer even register a small blip on quarterly financial statements.

The internet, driven in the United States by Craigslist (eBay and Amazon are also partly to blame) will hold a 99-100% market share of classified ads that less than a generation ago were the bread and butter of newspapers.

Display advertising: enough to save the day?

Display advertising (also known as retail of general advertising) is the only thing bringing money through the door at newspapers today, but even here the decline is accelerating, and post-election will continue to fall. All types of heritage media are predicted to fall in retail advertising well in to next year, and once again, newspapers will take the biggest hit.

Those that switch online only first may last the longest

Ultimately newspapers will kill themselves. The need to stick to a print edition at a time their advertisers and readers are switching online will be the death of most of them. As I’ve argued in the past though, newspapers don’t need a print edition to keep doing what they are doing. The Christian Science Monitor is leading the way, proving that the newsrooms of old may have a strong future in a digital only age.

The problem is both one of history, and stupidity. Newspaper owners won’t easily give up the print edition because print has often been the cornerstone of many of these companies for hundreds of years. But that sentimentality is also stupidity: those that dump the print edition now and focus their efforts exclusively online, cutting the deadwood as they go (printing plants cost money) will have a better chance than papers who make the switch as a last ditch attempt to survive. I still believe that some “newspapers” have a long future, but as news gathering and publishing organizations who publish online, not print editions.

Conclusion: or how long

The figure used in the past for the death of newspapers always placed the death at around 10-20 years. Given the slide into oblivion even the United State’s largest newspapers are now experiencing, I’ll give it 6 years to 2015, but with half gone by the end of 2010, and a significant number folding (10-20%) in 2009. Newspapers were a great party lasting hundreds of years, but the party is over and the end is nigh.

Two Connecticut papers to be shut without a new owner

Duncan Riley — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 03:34:21 +0000

The Journal Register Company will close two of its daily newspapers in Connecticut unless a buyer is found by January.

The two papers facing closure are the Bristol Press and The Herald of New Britain, reports the Hartford Courant. Around 50-60 employees will be affected.

E&P reports that Journal Register owns 22 dailies and hundreds of non-dailies in the U.S, and has been beset by high debt levels and falling advertising revenue. The company was recently kicked off the NYSE.

The International Herald Tribune suggests that the issues may be deeper with all 13 of the Journal Register’s Connecticut papers possibly facing closure as the companies financial situation deteriorates.

Websites for The Bristol Press and The Herald of New Britain are offline at the time of writing.

Tribune Co. reports $124 million loss for 3rd quarter

Duncan Riley — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:02:51 +0000

The Tribune Company, the publisher of The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, Newsday and others has reported a $124 milliion loss for the 3rd quarter, down from a profit of $84 million for the same quarter last year.

The bulk of the loss came from plunging ad revenue, which dropped 19% in the quarter. E&P reports that retail advertising revenue for the group dropped 10%, preprint 15%, national advertising 21% and classified advertising a whopping 30%.

Online revenue didn’t provide any relief, dropping 7% due to a decline in online classified revenue related to the offline drop.

The Tribune Company faces a difficult debt situation with interest expenses growing to $232 million in the quarter up from $175 million for the same period last year. Total debt for the group now totals $11.8 billion, up from $9.4 billion.

Media Briefs: Sun-Times, Boston Globe Cuts, NY Times Cash Crisis

Duncan Riley — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 07:00:52 +0000

Another week on bad news for the newspaper industry, with cuts and a serious cash crisis facing the New York Times.

The New York Times owned Boston Globe has cut 42 jobs, mostly managers in advertising, circulation and marketing reports AP.

The layoffs announced Thursday do not include any newsroom positions. The new cuts follow on from 48 jobs cut earlier this year.

The Chicago based Sun-Times Media Group reported a lost $168.8 million in its third quarter as revenue sank due to the economic crisis, reports Chicago Business.

Ad sales dropped 19% in the quarter. The company plans to cut $45 million to $55 million in expenses over the next nine months to survive in the meantime.

The New York Times must deliver $400 million to lenders in May of 2009 but only has $46 million cash on hand, according to Silicon Alley Insider.

The Times does have access to a $366 million short-term credit line but has not yet drawn this cash down, and may not be able to do so. The company has been shut out of the commercial borrowing market after its credit rating recently dropped to junk status.

The Seattle Times cuts 10% of workforce

Duncan Riley — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:41:58 +0000

The Seattle Times will cut around 10%, or around 130-150 positions, following a similar cut at the beginning of the year.

In a memo to staff, Seattle Times Publisher Frank Blethen and company President Carolyn Kelly (as published in the Seattle Times) blamed the moves on industry changes and the global economic crisis. Both hinted in the memo that further staff cuts may occur next year: “As the 2009 budgeting process continues, there will be additional expense reductions, which may include additional layoffs.”

While print revenue has declined at the paper in line with the rapid dive reflected in the rest of the industry, the paper reported that growth in online advertising, previously a positive for the paper, has stalled due to the broader economic crisis.

According to the memo, The Seattle Times “saw average weekday circulation decline 7.7 percent to about 199,000, while [JOA partner] the Seattle Post-Intelligencer dropped 7.8 percent to about 118,000. The circulation for the Sunday paper — which bears both the Times and P-I mastheads — fell 9.1 percent to 382,000.”

As Rome burns, journalists whine about new media

Duncan Riley — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:00:32 +0000

As revenue heads south, smart newspapers are looking at different ways they can adapt to survive. At the extreme end, The Christian Science Monitor announced yesterday that it was moving to a primarily online model and abandoning their weekday print edition. Other papers have embraced blogging and new media tools such as Twitter, attempting to offer something extra online in an attempt to attract readers and drive online revenue growth. There’s no magic solution yet: online revenue is not replacing lost offline revenue but most recognize that things have to change if newspapers are to survive in any form (such as online only) in the near future.

So what do some American journalists think about their employers trying to keep their heads above water in a rapidly changing pace? Apparently new media tools create too much work, and may do nothing to help newspapers.

“Leading journalists” speaking at a National Press Club forum at the University of Missouri Monday told the audience that there is scant evidence that new technology can save journalism jobs and support the news business.

“I have been blogging for years,” said Tony Messenger, a state capital bureau correspondent for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “I have yet to have a discussion in my newsroom about why we’re blogging and to tie that somehow into the newspaper’s business model.” Messenger also covered a gubernatorial election debate on Twitter and only 13 people followed him, proving that new media tools don’t deliver; “how can we save jobs in the newsroom if we do this?”

Elaine Sciolino, the Paris correspondent for the New York Times, complained that blogging and creating video for the web made her job way too hard, but she isn’t given a choice “If you want to be a journalist today, you just have to work harder and more efficiently. You aim for perfection until your deadline, and then you aim for doneness. You just gut it out.”

Sciolino though earns bonus points for not just being a whinger, but also a kook as well, suggesting that
newsapers cutting back on foreign correspondents is a clear and present danger to the American people:
“The decline in American newspapers is a major national security threat,” she said.

Jennifer Reeves, a Reynolds Institute Fellow said many news organizations were only embracing new technology because it is cool (her word), not because it delivers a better product: “A lot of newsrooms need to take a breath and see if the markets need it and find a way to use it logically” she said.

Apparently having to blog is driving journalists out of the profession and into public relations positions for school boards, according to Charles Davis, director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition and a Missouri professor.

There’s some substance in the need for newspapers to refine their use of new media tools to best deliver improved outcomes as they all rocket towards oblivion. However for journalists to whine about newspapers trying to survive, and trying to actually make enough money to keep paying the very journalists whining…well, there’s more than competition from the internet that is killing newspapers, it would appear that the journalists are as well. Of course it’s unfair to generalize: there are many very fine, hard working journalists out there who get what is going on, and are embracing the changes in the market, but too often we are reminded that for a hard core of traditionalists, new media remains the enemy that should be ignored, dying businesses be damned.

Christian Science Monitor quits print edition, switches to online only

Duncan Riley — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:54:45 +0000

And so it begins. The 100 year old newspaper The Christian Science Monitor has announced that it will cease publishing its daily print edition, switching primarily to an online only presence. The paper will publish a weekend print magazine.

The Christian Science Monitor has seen its circulation drop from 220,000 in 1970 to 52,000 today, reports the NY Times. The paper is unique in the print world, being run by a nonprofit organization financed by a church and delivered through the mail.

Despite its name, the paper didn’t have a strong religious agenda (besides one daily religious column) instead reporting on American and world news. During its 100 years in print, the paper has won seven Pulitzer Prizes. The paper maintains 8 foreign bureaus on top of its US based reporting staff.

The decision to switch online was made easier by The Christian Science Monitor’s nonprofit status, but likewise they weren’t the first to make the move, and most definitely won’t be the last. Print is more expensive to maintain than a website, and with the economic crisis contributing to the already increasing decline in newspaper revenues, the CSM will now be remembered as the first of many newspapers of note to dump their print editions in an effort to survive well into the future.

It’s important to note that when we talk about the death of newspapers, we consider primarily the print editions, not necessarily the news gathering organizations behind them. It is conceivable that 10-15% of newspapers (maybe more) will survive well into the future, but as online news providers, not companies that deliver a physical print edition. The smart ones that make the switch early will be better placed then the many papers who ignore the broader trends in the market, and allow their print editions to kill them off.

Update: statement from CSM on the switch here. The switch will take place in April 2009.

US Newspaper circulation down 4.7%

Duncan Riley — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:39:30 +0000

Circulation figures released by the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) shows an increasing decline in newspaper circulation in the United States.

According to the figures for the 6 months to September, national daily circulation dropped 4.6% to 38,165,848 copies, and Sunday papers dropped 4.8% to 43,631,646 copies.

According to E&P, for the September 2007 reporting period, daily circulation fell 2.6% and Sunday 4.6%.

The decline was not even, with some newspapers seeing declines in double digits, including The Boston Globe: 10.1%, The Philadelphia Inquirer 11.0% (Sunday 13.7%) The Daily News (Philadelphia): 13.2%, The Miami Herald: 11.8%, The Detroit News: 10%, The Houston Chronicle 11.6% (Sunday 15.7%), The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 13.6%, The Star Ledger (Newark, N.J.): 10.4% (Sunday 14.6%)

The only main newspapers to report increases in circulation were the The St. Paul Pioneer Press +0.2% and The St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sunday +0.8%. The USA Today was up less that 0.1%.

Of the majors, The New York Times dropped 3.5%, the Wall Street Journal was flat, The Washington Post dropped 1.9% and The Los Angeles Times dropped 5% daily.

(img credit: John McCrea)

Oh No! Everything Is Dead Let’s Microblog About It

Steven Hodson — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:48:44 +0000

The other day I wrote post here about how Paul Boutin declared that blogging was oh so 2004 and was dying an ignoble death. Now we are being told that the Grey Lady herself might just be on life support and may not see the end of the recession (or is depression the cool word now?).

In and amongst this terrible news about the death and destruction of newspapers along with its heir apparent blogging being handed its own tombstone we have a rumor being circulated by the king of Silicon Valley rumors – Valleywag. According to them TechCrunch and its illustrious leader Michael Arrington, they are very quickly becoming a has-been - a nice way to say that the TechCrunch empire is riding the same boat as the Grey Lady.

All though this despair and dysfunction though we are being offered a glimmering of hope that not all is lost in the ego lifestreaming world because we are all going to be rescued from individuality and obscurity by microblogging. Yes folks things like Twitter, FriendFeed and any of the other sundry copycats are coming to our rescue. Instead of being crushed by the obligation of of writing intelligent and interesting posts we are all going to be able to inflict our own brand of 140 character verbal diarrhea upon millions of people as they stand on street corners and soup kitchen lineups holding their last vestige of cool technology in their hand – the mobile phone – you know – that thing that killed off the desktop computer.

Oh wait .. it didn’t kill it off after all and those soup kitchen lineups – well the chances are that anyone in the tech world; especially the VCs funding this hot air balloon called Web 2.0, won’t even see the inside of a food bank let alone stand in a soup kitchen lineup. Those that do probably couldn’t careless about 140 characters flying through the air as they are just hoping that the Grey Lady survives the winter because all that paper makes for great blankets against the cold.

As for microblogging becoming the newest snitz I hope it does. I hope that microblogging becomes so hot that everyone who thinks they are going to make their fortune as a hot shot blogger with a pageful of ads becomes disillusioned and heads off to new territories. This way those of us who believe that the new media can be a valued and trusted heir to heritage media; or at least to be able to work together on an equal footing, can get on with the quiet revolution of journalism.

Just as vinyl never really went away neither will print. Just as television was going to destroy radio they say the same about microblogging destroying blogging which is suppose to kill off what is now being called heritage media. Well television and radio are still here – side by side. Sure they may have changed in some fashion or another, that is to be expected. The same will happen with this thing we are calling new media. It to will find a way to blend with the old and make something new and better.

But it won’t be microblogging.

More bad news for newspapers: advertising at Gannett down 17.6%

Duncan Riley — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 02:50:18 +0000

Now it’s official: the death spiral of newspapers is accelerating, with the largest newspaper publisher in the United States reporting an increased decline in advertising revenue.

Gannett, which publishes the USA Today and a range of titles domestically and overseas saw newspaper advertising revenue drop 17.6% in the quarter, inline with declines of 16% at the NY Times company and 19.9% at McClatchy Co. All three results are deeper than the 14% decline reported industry wide for the first half of 2008.

Like its competitors, classified advertising is taking the biggest hit, declining 28.5% for Gannett vs declines in retail ad revenue at 10.1% and national down 7.8%. Real estate classifieds dropped 33.4%, help-wanted was down 36.5%; and automotive slipped 18.7%.

Unlike some of the others who have reported steady or small increases in circulation revenue of the back of increased prices, circulation revenue fell 3.3%.

E&P has more.

AP backflips on membership rates, but will it be enough?

Duncan Riley — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:31:43 +0000

The Associated Press (AP) has backflipped on its decision to increase membership rates in 2009, a key factor in the growing list of papers seeking to terminate their AP content agreements.

AP said its board of directors had approved a “moratorium” on the rate increases and would “complete a review of its pricing and governance structure” by the middle of 2009 and carry out a review of its membership structure. In the meantime, AP will “provide all member newspapers complete access to all AP text content, at no extra cost.”

The move may decrease the growing surge of newspaper companies and individual newspapers leaving AP. The Tribune Company (Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times and others) gave notice in mid October, and E.W. Scripps was said to be considering a similar move.

The decision by AP to not rise its rates at a time newspapers are bleeding readers and money, and at the start of the serious recession, obviously makes a lot of sense, but it doesn’t change one fundamental thing that will continue to drive down AP membership: newspapers are dying. As we reported today, the problems in the newspaper industry even go as far as the NY Times. Newspapers have to cut costs, and if they can find cheaper alternatives to AP, such as sharing content between papers, they will do so, and in some cases, already are.

(via AFP)

NY Times in trouble: advertising down 16%, may struggle to service debt

Duncan Riley — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:53:57 +0000

The New York Times released their 3rd quarter results today, adding to the doom and gloom in the newspaper market with declining advertising and debt issues.

The company reported 3rd quarter net income of $6.5 million, compared to $13.4 million for the same period last year.

Advertising declined 16% in the quarter after reporting an 11% fall for the first half of the year. Print advertising took the biggest hit with an 18.3% fall for the quarter, with classified advertising down 28%. Online advertising was up 10.2% off an increase of 16% at about.com, but the online gains were not enough to offset the decline in print, with online advertising making up 12.4% of advertising revenue for the company, but up from 10.6% for the same time last year.

The bright news is that the decline in advertising slowed in September, hitting 14.1% for the month vs 15.9% August and nearly 18% in July.

The NY Times’ exposure to debt may cause serious issues for the company, with Moody’s Investor Service placing the company on review, the first step towards a downgrade of NY Times’ debt status to what the WSJ referred to as “junk territory.” The company confirmed issues with servicing their existing debt of $1.1 billion with only $46 million cash at hand. Henry Blogdet has more here.

McClatchy Co down 19.9% in ad revenues, delivers a profit (just)

Duncan Riley — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:37:19 +0000

Newspaper group The McClatchy Company has posted a third quarter profit despite a decline in ad revenues.

McClatchy posted a net income for the quarter ending September 28 of $4.2 million, or 5 cents a share, compared to a loss of $1.3 billion, or $16.42 a share in the same period last year. Last years loss was due to a write-down in company assets. Third-quarter net income, excluding one-time charges, was $10.4 million, or 13 cents a share.

The news on the advertising front for McClatchy is all grim heading into the worst economic crisis since the great depression.

In September, classified advertising revenue fell 31%, national advertising declined 19% and local retail advertising declined nearly 13%. The losses were offset slightly by a net gain in online advertising of 6.6%. Print advertising dropped 21.8% to $325 million for the quarter.

Until we see more newspaper results to compare, we can’t call this a trend yet, but the decline in McClathchy may indicate an acceleration in the downward spiral in print advertising, that throughout the United States averaged 14% for the first half of 2008.

McClatchy owns The Miami Herald, The Sacramento Bee and 28 other daily newspapers.

(in part via Forbes)