So, I'm curious ...

Want to try again? More than 3.5 million page views: http://jimromenesko.com/2012/12/27/more-than-3-5-million-page-views-for-nyts-snow-fall/

 

It's part of, if not a large part of, the problem.

 

From an editing/managing point of view, the hubs/central desks/information centers are a mildly viable front. There are openings, some because the actual tasks can approach burnout, and some because of shifted resources. They aren't for everyone but don't seem to be going away.

 

So much bureaucracy in newspapers today. You can't make a move until somebody you've never met "signs off" on it three days later from seven states over in Corporate.

One of the thrills of the 1980s newsrooms was that you could hash something out in a loud, 30-second argument among five people who also could, and would, hammer out a consensus in that time. And you could do that five or 10 times a night. Every night.

And then everyone would go out for beers afterward. Good times.

 

I agree with what has been said by numerous posters that there should be more local news in many newspapers. That need will only increase with time as more and more older people -- the people who get their national news from newspaper -- die. But that brings up the main point about younger readers -- apathy.

In my area, many just don't care (or don't seem to). I'm not talking just about 20-year-olds, it goes for today's 40-year-olds as well. They couldn't care less about local government and local news. It shows up in voting numbers and trying to interview someone -- anyone -- about any local issue, and they have no idea what you're talking about. No just one or two people, everyone. I have seen the numbers of a few area paper's websites and circulation. More and more around here, younger sports fans are caring less and less about local high schools and colleges. It shows up in ticket sales and pageviews.

 

Another good point on a good thread. The worst part is, it's not just apathetic people in their 40s who have tuned out local news. It's everybody 50 and younger.

For those of you who are parents, next time you're volunteering at a PTO and/or athletic booster club function, ask around to see if any fellow parents read the local paper — online or print. You'll get quite a few blank stares and hear crickets.

And these are parents who are INVOLVED in the school and the community. If they don't read the paper, who will?

 

The idea of community is dying all over.

Pick almost anywhere in the south and you'll see the rural population getting to the nearest urban hub as fast as their feet can take them. The smaller dailies and weeklies that supported those areas are shedding circulation and local advertisers because those towns can't compete with the urban hubs or micro hubs.

So what's left is a rapidly aging population trying to maintain the community traditions and all the other things that made those towns a place to live. But as that population dies off, so do the towns.

Texas Monthly had something interesting in the most current edition.

In 1940, 54 percent of the state's population lived in rural areas. Today, 88 percent of the state's population lives in urban areas.

What's interesting is that the idea of the internet was that people could live where ever and still be able to access what they wanted and get it in a timely fashion.

It turns out what people really want is to live around other people.

 

I know it's getting off topic, but The Texas Monthly stat is interesting. One of the things though is a lot of town that are now urban were very rural in 1940. (Hutto, Killeen (there was no Fort Hood in 1940), most of the DFW mid-cities (heck, Arlington had a population of about 5,000 in 1940). etc...).
And in the 1940s the state's hot commodity was oil, and most of the oil was welled in more rural areas, that eventually became bigger cities. Families settled in these once rural lands, and the descendants never really moved out as the areas grew.
The state hasn't grown, but what's considered urban or rural now certainly has compared to 1940.

 

I agree with the dramatic decline in interest in local news. How, then, would being hyper-local help newspapers?

 

It seems like we're trading furloughs for wage freezes and others are vice versa. A friend of mine just got laid off recently, so, I guess there are those who are doing that, too.

I'm interesting in watching the Advance, couple-days-a-week model ... will it crumble, was that the plan all along or did they just cut the paper back to just enough to where it would remain somewhat relevant, but enough so, so it could keep the website afloat until they can kill the paper altogether.

I'm also interesting in watching the Orange County Register as it expands into L.A. In 18 months they added 198, just laid off about 30. They had a great year, which makes the layoffs seem odd, but I'm curious to see how long the industry will ignore that if you add content to the paper it people will buy as opposed to cutting it to hell and back and expect them to stay.

I've also heard from the inside, that now some papers are basing raises on how many clicks you garner in a recent year. That makes me cringe.

I keep hoping someone will get bitter and that will be exposed and they'll be shamed into stopping the practice and reward people for keeping a watchful eye on things like city council meetings and water boards and whatever else isn't click-sexy.

I'm also interested in seeing what will be the next great experiment.

Sadly, what won't fail, I think, is www.ftw.usatoday.com ... this bastard child of journalism is: here look at this .gif, or watch this youtube video of something that just happened, or, hey, you like lists don't cha? We know you don't like reading. Reading is hard, so, here's a list.

But it's clicks and that's all that matters today. I just pray that the midsized papers will wake up and admit to themselves they can't follow the models of the top-tier papers; they'll never make enough off web advertisement to justify the efforts they're putting into it.

 

It's the only exclusive thing the newspaper can provide.

I'm just not sure that, in itself, is helpful in any measurable way.

It almost certainly isn't with the way it's currently done.

 

My purely anecdotal observation is that people care about local news insofar as they clearly understand how it directly affects them. That's why local weather news, to cite an obvious example, is quite popular.