Is there a thread for the rapid death of the newspaper industry?

Newspapers should all band together to block Google's spiders. Common interest and all that. Probably take too long to organize, though.

Yeh, that'd be a great idea. "What's going on?" "No fucking idea, these idiot newspapers are blocking Google. Let's look at the BBC instead."

(slaps forehead!) It never occured to me, but you're right! No one could possibly figure out how to visit the newspapers's own websites to read the news there.

But that's not what they do, are used to doing or will begin to do. Very few readers are loyal to a single newspaper website: the majority will click about indiscriminately in a sea of information, and Google is -- rather obviously -- a vital part of that. If you really think that de-indexing would suddenly have millions of readers tapping in the URL of their favourite blatt, you're living in dreamland, son.

Why do you think metadata is such a big deal? Why is the race to be first more important than the desire to be right? Believe me, as a working staff hack on a daily newspaper I wish you were right ... but you're miles off, I'm afraid.

Actually, thinking about this as I got off the bus and walked up to my door: I can envisage something like this actually happening, ie a small, misguided bunch of publishers taking their metaphorical ball home in a fit of pique. And that will be us totally an utterly fucking screwed.

It's a horrible situation but there ain't no simple, or even not-so-simple, fix.

The only reason Google News is a problem is it exposes newspapers to competition they've rarely had -- the local monopolies break down at that scale. The solution is exclusive stories, but they're expensive and papers have sacked most of the people who would write them.

Getting pissed off about the ads is fucking stupid; it's like complaining about the money newsagents make from cigs and sweets.

Google news is only a threat to shit PA-rehashing papers. For everyone else it drives traffic, which is what they claim to want.

It's a horrible situation but there ain't no simple, or even not-so-simple, fix.

That's basically what it is, yeah. But Google is gonna walk this, I'm sure.

xp

Stet, I do agree with you for the most part. Though people seem less and less keen on exclusive stories (if you don't read the paper that haas an exclusive story, or does some muckraking or investigative journalism, people will know about it when the press agencies or other (online) media copy it). I work for a regional newspaper and that makes it a bit more easy, I think. The connection between the newspaper and the reader is stronger. The 'big' (inter)national news can't be missed anymore today, not even if you tried. The 'smaller' news doesn't have that problem, at least, not as much yet.

Yeh, I don't mean exclusive in the sense of Big Scoop, just in the sense that "nobody else has it" -- yr competitors aren't going to steal the Googlejuice from you if you're the only one carrying the story about that cat who likes custard. Regionals definitely have it easier, here.

A desperate measure to arrest ad-revenue decline?

Row erupts over far-right group's newspaper ads

i see my first paper was one of the ones that took the ads. depressing. expect it never occurred to the ad depts that this would be controversial.

NQ ad depts don't give a fuck: they'll put any old shit in p1 solus if they pay the fee, regardless of damage it could do to the paper. I've seen editors fight stuff like that, and not always win.

I'm beginning to wonder whether the end result is not going to be that Google and other Internet companies wind up buying the newspapers. After all, they're the only ones making money from them.

xpost true - that reminds me of a newsquest paper in london that ran the edition after september 11 with an advert for "twin towers language college".

how is google making money from newspapers, ZZ?

Huff Post hires Washington Post editor to head new investigations unit

Nothing has changed! The written word—the love of it and the power of the written word—it hasn’t changed. It’s a matter of fostering it, fertilizing it, not giving up on it, and having faith. Don’t get down. I actually have established an e-mail address, degg✧✧✧@826natio✧✧✧.o✧✧—if you want to take it down—if you are ever feeling down, if you are ever despairing, if you ever think publishing is dying or print is dying or books are dying or newspapers are dying (the next issue of McSweeney’s will be a newspaper—we’re going to prove that it can make it. It comes out in September). If you ever have any doubt, e-mail me, and I will buck you up and prove to you that you’re wrong.

Dave Eggers will prove you wrong

What a bag of dicks.

There is that.

The fate of The Observer hangs in the balance...

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6736037.ece

And given the size of losses reported in that article, the future of The Guardian must seem a bit shaky too...

some real dick comments on that article.

this would be such a disaster - no omm, review or food monthly. hope something saves it.

Separate thread here now (although there's probably not a great deal else to say just yet, is there?)

The Observer RIP (possibly)

no omm, review or food monthly

Shamefully, I thought this was sarcasm when I first read it. I guess I expect everyone to be as cynical about newspapers as me.

the future of The Guardian must seem a bit shaky too

Er, yes, what with it being a newspaper and everything :)

no, i love all those sections! (though i know they get a bad rap on here)

a bit of good news for uk journalism. if i won the lottery i would do something like this. as it is, i might just beg them for a job instead:

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=43986

Fuck yes, tremendously good news. All the best to them with that.

My only problem is here:

Its aim is to dig out - and then sell - the stories

Who do they plan to sell to, who will buy, and -- most important of all -- what will they do with the stories once they've bought them? If they put together (say) broadcast packages to be aired uncut, great; however, at what point do they relinquish editorial control?

Still. You're right: fundamentally excellent news. For once.

yeah, i dunno. the american models (centre of public integrity, propublica) are all for free distribution but this has much less start-up funding. although i hope they will get more eventually. weirdly you can't donate even if you want to at the moment!

i suspect the idea is that they will sell to the "quality" press/panorama etc, but they're offering news orgs the chance to avoid the risk and expense of a failed investigation - papers will still shell out for a guaranteed tale as the expenses story showed. as for editorial control - i dunno, they could sort out a standard contract to have copy approval?

i dunno, they could sort out a standard contract to have copy approval?

Depends on how forward-thinking the buyer is. There's no precedent, and that sort of thing is anathema to most editors ...

... but desperate times call for desperate measures, and if you're dealing with top-flight hacks who are doing all your investigative legwork for you, then why the bloody hell not, eh?

One to watch with tremendous interest, I think.

do papers not want in-depth investigative reporting? i presumed the only real barrier to it was a lack of budget, rather than editors not wishing to publish it?

Er, I meant "copy approval" is anathema to most editors.

well, if you think of the bureau as more like a star freelance contributor rather than, say, a pr company touting a story it wouldn't be that weird. it's normal for subs to call columnists etc to run any changes by them. maybe it's not really "copy approval" in the sense that the editor might still have the last word, but that sort of consultation is probably all they need.

it's normal for subs to call columnists etc to run any changes by them

Hahahah HAHAHAHAHAH ... yeh, right.

maybe it's not really "copy approval" in the sense that the editor might still have the last word

See, there are some editors who -- if I was the agency in question -- I really, really wouldn't want having anything like the last word. But then I guess that's down to them: they have to decide if there are some editors/papers they just won't deal with.

well, all i can say is i'm glad you don't handle giles coren's copy.

Oh, me too! And I'm sure he is as well:

Sub-editors: how can I avoid killing them?

Actually: I have a soft spot for Coren, and when I was the (award-winning) production editor of a (multiple-award-winning) newspaper magazine, I really went out of my way to build constructive dialogue with all the regular writers -- not to mention some of the one-offs; Louise Wener, I remember, was a joy to work with! -- because some of them had bled every single beautiful word. Sadly, in just five or six short years, the entire landscape has changed to the extent that I think such practices would now be frowned upon and end up with me getting my arse whipped about not getting shit done quickly enough.

(The above is Reason #243 why I'm extricating myself from journalism.)

http://www.markpack.org.uk/the-future-of-newspapers-as-it-looked-in-1994/

those folding instructions are wtf. assume that bit's a joke?

burkesworks says:
4 August 2009 at 3:08 pm

Good old Graun; even in a parallel universe, its headlines contain spelling mistakes. There is no "c" in "dietitian".

Apparently the newspaper of the future looked a bit like a student magazine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8186701.stm

Murdoch signals end of free news

News Corp is set to start charging online customers for news content across all its websites.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

May 2010: Murdoch calls for the shut-down of BBC News website, claiming 'anti-competitive'...

From the copy of Press Gazette in front of me, it's estimated that the revenue for a Times Online behind a subscription wall would come in at £3.6m a year. That's fuck all.

More importantly, why would anyone pay for an online subscription when they could just buy the paper? PAYG use for the website might be the way forward here but I still don't see it.

Aye but think of the income from The Sun. I mean who wouldn't pay for quality coverage like this

http://i29.tinypic.com/29dwkgl.jpg

Where will we go for our shonky Arshavin photoshops now?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/business/media/17ft.html?_r=2&ref=media

sounds like a good idea to me.

Great idea for business papers, yeah. But financial firms are a) rich and b) used to paying through the nose for useful information. Don't think that works as well with people happy with the Metro.

Did the crash mean we missed out on pouring one out for thelondonpaper? Not that I didn't get a good enough dose of that from 80% of my Facebook list but wh'ever.

Dulce et decorum est pro [NEWS INTERNATIONAL] mori

NewsInt irony LOL: report the Obs is to close, then be the company to shut down a paper. I have a friend there and it sucks he'll have to redouble his work effort. It also sucks (although proportionally much less) that I won't ride shotgun to do restaurant reviews any more, best plus-one scenario there is outside of free air travel.

I'm reliably informed that the Murdoch machine pursued that fake scoop in revenge for the NOTW wiretap scandal exposé.

people on twitter seriously concerned for the future of "em". no word yet from creator maria smedstad. will no one think of the twee middle class professionals living in shared houses?

xp "fake scoop" is pushing it a bit considering it was... factually accurate in all respects and leaked by observer execs?