Paper Burns

[Matt Deckard]

Once a staple of the world and how we kept our records, the periodical in print is now truly moving toward becoming the buggy whip of our time.

The New York Times has Mortgaged it’s building… papers are not being read and reporters are getting their news from blogs… watch the news, that’s where it’s coming from and there’s no shame in them doing it.

You see them on the shelves but for how long? I don’t think books are going to disappear anytime soon, but magazines and newspapers… unless they get with the society, their names will be just a part of something on an old post on an news website.

I don't think it's sad to see, knowing that I haven't really met anyone under 30 that actually pics up a paper in the morning. I was one that did though stopped after I realized it was feeding me old news, and why wait for a paper when I can get it online.

What do you think?

[B. F. Socaspi]

I read the paper pretty frequently actually, but I know I'm the exception there. I highly doubt any but the biggest papers will remain very long.

Magazines, however, I think will last a good while. To me, there's nothing the same as National Geographic in print.

[MEDIUMMYND]

I read the daily Telegraph every day,its readership holds up well and in my opinion there are many high quality magazines that will continue to sell well,not so sure about daily papers.

[MPicciotto]

The newspaper I think is on it's way to the history books. Like you said it's old news by the time it goes to print. But Magazines I think are here to stay for a while longer anyways. The depth provided by a magazine gives it staying power. I can pick up a ten year old magazine and read it with as much interest as the latest issue of the same mag. But a ten year old paper is only of interest to me as a curiosity. A once a month magazine I can read even if I'm busy. But I tried the daily paper thing for a couple of months. Gave up when the papers still in their plastic bags were piling up. I already had the news I wanted while checking my email and the rest that might have been of interest to me I just didn't get to. Then after a few days I just had that "old news" mentality and didn't even bother to open the paper.

Matt

[LizzieMaine]

I'm a hard-core holdout for print media -- I absolutely despise reading long-form material off a computer. My eyes are bad enough already, thanks, and too much squinting gives me migraines.

I also don't think much of the overall quality of "online journalism," especially the blogger stuff, which strikes me as being far more agenda-driven and prone to yahooism than anything that has to go thru the process of being cast in type and printed on a page. I really don't care about getting the news five minutes after it happens, but I do care that it's written by professionals who've had both training and editorial supervision.

Maybe someday the "new media" will meet that standard, but by then I imagine my eyes will be so far gone it won't matter.

[Lady Day]

Ya know Lizzie, I said the same thing about blogs three years ago, heck, 8 months ago, but like National Geographic vs the National Enquirer, its reputation that builds readership.

There are a few blogs that have the freedom to report stories without the bias that may hinder their editor or paper. True, most 'editorial' blogs are dreck, but there are a few gems out there that are not just about opinions of the writer, but are just as fact driven if not more so, than their in print seniors.

Im just sayin'

LD

[John in Covina]

One thing is that metropolitian papers used to have tremendous competition, NYC had numerous papers, some like the Herald Tribune were actually far superior to the NY Times. As the competition died off many newspapers became entrenched in their own brand of advocacy and lost any semblence of fairness. Editorials by their nature don't have to be fair, but news bias has made it so many will no longer bother with their local paper.

For me the only time I will read the LA Times is for the weekly Food section to see about new restaurants, wine ratings, and maybe some good recipies. Otherwise I would not wrap my fish in it because of the taint.

[LizzieMaine]

True, but don't forget even with all the competition the papers in a typical city all were driven by a particular political slant -- that's nothing new. In New York, the Herald Tribune was a traditional Republican/Wall Street paper, the World-Telegram was Democratic, and the Journal-American was screaming hard-right-wing, with the Daily Mirror not far behind. The Daily News was a rabidly New Deal paper in the thirties, and then broke with FDR during the war years, did an about-face, and became even more right-wing than the Hearst papers. In all cases, the editorial slant was as obvious in the news columns as it was on the opinion page.

[John in Covina]

Most people don't see the bias when it's slanted their way. (Screaming doesn't seem like screaming when it's what you want to hear.)

[MPicciotto]

Let us differentiate between "blogs" and "print media" that is on the internet. I get my news from AP, Reuters and the local papers websites. Sometimes AFP, sometimes Fox. Sometimes Wired Magazine. But generally my "news" is gathered from wire services and local newspaper and TV/Radio station websites. At this time I don't read any "blogs"

Matt