The Day The Newspapers Shut Down Their Sites

I would hope so. Our print product also does not compete against the New York Times. Shocking, I know.

 

Even if that were the case, we now have these crazy things called RSS feeds ... you can get all of the news from multiple sources, right in one convenient place. You should check them out.

 

So give me URLs for my RSS for all my local information that are not linked to newspaper websites.

 

You know that and I know that. But the idiots running newspapers these days will grasp at anything that might bring in one more reader.

Kinda like how a baby is distracted by a shiny object.

 

Again, nobody on this thread is advocating shutting down web sites permanently. A day or a week isn't going to hurt anything, and it just might make a point.

Or maybe it doesn't. But it's not like there's a lot of revenue out there to lose, over the course of a day or a week.

 

Do you guys really believe that snarky bloggers are the only people complaining about newspapers? The people who care about school board meetings and whatnot are still subscribing to the print edition; for the rest, a stunt like Hearst is considering will likely only magnify the fact that, yes, people can indeed get the bulk of what they're looking for without the help of their local paper.

 

My point is that you don't know what you're talking about and you are too lazy to find out.

That's really the difference between newspapers and most other media. The newspaper spends the money to cover the little stories that lead to big stories. You are unlikely to be in a position to find the big stuff unless you are rooted in the community, covering the small stuff. Without the newspaper to steal from, the electronic competition would have almost no content. They'd be trying to make shit up as they go along, like you do.

Here's one tidbit for you: The average staffing level for the Web sites of TV stations in Top 25 markets was a shade less than three in 2007 (2008 survey). Obviously, you need a shade more than four (excluding vacation relief) in order to even update a Web site 24/7 (with no one actually creating content) -- four people would equal 20 shifts and you need 21. And that's the 25 largest markets in the United States.

I'm not gonna tell you what the newsroom size is overall for TV and radio stations. But the idea that they could cover even a midsize town without cribbing from the newspaper is ludicrous. They are no threat.

 

I can see where it would hurt the big guys that do compete with other places with original reporting, like CNN or ESPN.

In my market, there's the one sub-30K daily (where I work), no local TV, no local radio. No competition. In theory, we could pull the plug on the Web site and just sell newspapers.

However, I'm not sure a blackout is the answer.

 

How's that business working out, Frank?

They'd also have far less competition for ad dollars and could afford to expand their newsgathering operations if necessary. But by all means, proceed with the strawman argument that their staffing would remain static, and that newspapers are oh so irreplaceable, all circulation figures and revenue data to the contrary.

 

It's not.

Figuring out how to run a business and transition it onto a new platform is. But that's just a crazy idea.

 

Well, Metin, if you'd bother to check the facts, you'd see that spending more money is not what they do. You have an absurd fantasy, and as I say, you are unwilling to expend the effort to educate yourself.

 

Don't patronize me, Frank, if all you're bringing to the table are delusions of newspapers' grandeur.