AP reporter tweets Raiders coach fired, except he wasn't

I agree with a great deal of what you say.

Not this.

You don't just "plug in" world news for local news as if it's nothing. People are a part of their community, moreso in smaller communities. And they believe this news affects them more directly than the world view.

Once again, this is an example of being out of touch with small-town America.

 

So the going rate for an ad on Joe Schmoe's Sport Rant Blog! that gets three clicks is the same thing as a newspaper website that gets 3,000,000 clicks?

 

You make a good point ... although I would consider alt-weeklies a nitch publication, targeting a specific market of urban yuppies and aging hipsters. In theory, print newspapers and websites are "mass" media.

Still, alt-weeklies do a good job of attracting print ads for people younger than 40, which mainstream newspapers almost never do, and some of them have well-written and in-depth news features. A few others (I'm thinking of my region, the Pacific Northwest) are ultra-pretentious and just awful to read.

EDIT: That's "niche"

 

The numbers he posted are specifically dealing with the newspaper industry.

 

I don't know why you are so defensive about this. Of course different communities value different information differently. But in general, people are less likely to pay for information, any information, than they used to be. Even in small towns.

 

As LTL said before, the total revenue is so little that "click" differentials aren't going to mean much, if anything.

In case you didn't look at the graphics you quoted, an entire decade's worth of ad revenue has yet to equal even a single year's worth of decline in print ad revenue.

And, when every website in the world, save the 10 most profitable, are fighting over 30 percent of the available revenue, which in a good year may be $15 billion or so, you're essentially fighting over breadcrumbs, and whoever "wins" is still hemorrhaging money.

 

Damn, Counselor, own what you say. You said that people would simply plug in world news for their "news fix" if they had to pay for local news. And that is patently ridiculous.

 

What about it am I not owning? Many would. Not 100 percent would.

 

There's a certain irony in a message board discussion that features individuals dismissing the value of Twitter as a communication tool.

 

What's ironic about it? They are distinct entities with distinct functions and distinct goals. It has been posited that Twitter does not bring newspapers very much revenue. Indeed, it does not.

 

Twitter is great as a communications tool because it allows people to overvalue their own opinions. Falsely inflated self worth is a great conversation starter.

 

Twitter is great as a communications tool because it allows people to receive news before any other platform.

And, there are a lot of tremendous personalities that deliver (whatever it is I'm looking for).

The people who continue to use "people to overvalue their own opinions" line don't use Twitter therefore don't understand it.

Overvalue their opinions? Falsely inflated self-worth? Sounds like SportsJournalists.com or the other funny farm, or even newspaper columnists.