Updated below:
One of
my favorite snarky political columnists, Todd Dorman,
left the Quad City Times in late September in order to get a job at the Cedar Rapids Gazette.
Well, no wonder I haven't seen Dorman's name in a while.
The problem with the
Cedar Rapids Gazette is that you have to subscribe to the newspaper in order to read anything online.
They should have called their web site: www.gazette
NOTonline.com
Oh, they give you a few stories here and there, but most news and opinion is kept behind "the wall" - kind of like how the New York Times did things up until a few weeks ago.
Update: A commenter who is in the newspaper biz said:
He left the QCTimes for the Gazette?
Not sure if that's a step down or a step sideways. Ick.
And in regards to your fav topic of how our industry is dying, I'm also not sure how papers will deal with the transition to e-reading if they don't offer the same services as other papers (in this case, superior papers).
At least he's away from Lee Enterprises, a company which
had to resort to an accounting trick involving the calendar in order to post positive numbers in their recent quarter.
Down here, the
Kansas City Star is owned by McClatchy. It's an unexceptional bloated rag filled with the usual suspects on the editorial page and too much advertising that I always tune out, although they have a really exceptional movie reviewer in
Bob Butler. That's one thing I miss about the Des Moines Register, a local movie reviewer, especially of the caliber of Joan Bunke (
who had retired a few years before replacement Jeffrey Bruner took over). What was idiot editor Carol Washburn thinking when she
eliminated movie reviews from the Register almost two years ago?
The KC Star is currently offering buyouts to about 60-65 of their most senior employees. Not a good sign for the future.
How do papers deal with the transition? Well, I think they're going to throw a lot of money at technology for stupid purposes that won't get them much in return except headaches.
The new way comments are displayed on stories on the Register's web site is lame. You get maybe six comments per "view" before you have to click Next or "2" or whatever. Who designed that nonsense? Somebody still using a 28.8 modem? If I want to read all 79 comments lambasting a Rekha Basu column, show all 79 at once. Otherwise, I'm never going to look.
I'm still amazed that the Register has gotten so deep into "blogs", especially after comments in the past by columnists
Ken Fuson and
Nancy Clark. The blogs they do host
are pretty lame or are given to
Jew-haters. Now they've got some "post your pictures" thing that surely sucks. What are they trying to be? And who would use this? And what kind of revenue do they expect to get out of it?
Pluck, the company who set up the Register's recent "Social Media" services, must be making a lot of coin off the newspapers who use their services. But when I look at the Register's web site it just seems like a hodgepodge.
I think for newspapers it's "
too little, too late" for them. Advertising, the driving factor of the newspaper industry, is going elsewhere.
Say you're looking for a car. Are you going to buy a newspaper and call a phone number based on a tiny ad with no picture or description that cost a lot of money for the seller to place....... or would you rather go on Craigslist and have -
WOW! - a whole bunch of things to choose from, and complete with descriptions and even pictures. Oh, and the Craigslist ad is
free.
Why would anybody put a used car ad in the Des Moines Register in this day and age? You might as well burn $50. Advertising dollars for newspapers are going to plummet in the next three years. You just watch.
Newspapers have to invest in the community. Their focus has to be local. This reliance on wire service copy and rewritten stories from other media outlets has driven a lot of people away. Unfortunately, most major-minor newspapers like the Register or Star are owned by giant corporate conglomerates who install corporate lifers from other parts of the country to run the place.
And newspaper reporters and columnists have to take a step back from the locals they are writing about or commenting on. When you have such
an obvious turd like the Rainforest floating around for most of a decade, why can't there be an advocate for the taxpayer or at least somebody with a BS detector who can flush this project down the toilet?
Give the reader a reason to tune in every day rather than allowing the subscriber to eventually say, "
Now exactly why do I keep getting the newspaper every day????"
Where will the newspaper industry be some 7-10 years down the road? It wouldn't surprise me if Google owned a bunch of them, or even Microsoft and Yahoo. How would "reporting" get done? Same way as it did before. Reporters would be hired by the parent companies, as would editors. Competition for good reporters and columnists with a following will be fierce because stats and click-through data will be kept. The emphasis on "local" news will be as easy as configuring a widget within Google Desktop, MyYahoo, and MSN.
Somebody like Todd Dorman will continue to have value because readers like me will promote his writing, tell other people to read it, subscribe to it, click through to it, or whatever is needed. Good stuff survives.
And stuff we "paid for" in the past, like classified ads, will be free. It already is free if you look around. It will eventually just
BE FREE. That will kill off the traditional newspaper.
But this idea that the local monopoly corporate paper is going to last.... it's a joke. They're buggy whips... Rotary-dial phones...