Newspapers dying? Hogwash!

[Free Press Publisher Jim Santori]

OK, enough is enough. Frankly, I've stood on the sidelines for far too long listening the ongoing litany about how newspapers are dying. They point to the depressed advertising market and the bankruptcy filings of Star-Tribune and Chicago Tribune as evidence. "Nobody reads newspapers anymore," we're told by newspaper writers no less. National Public Radio says newspapers are struggling to find a viable business model. Gloomy TV news anchors project their reports as though they are on a death watch of news.
The problem with all of this hand wringing is the premise is wrong, dead wrong.
And finally some newspaper executives are starting to fight back. You may have noticed the newspaper advertisement Monday after the Super Bowl that said more people (100 million) will read a newspaper in one day than all of those who watched the Super Bowl (95 million). This is being touted by a grassroots effort call the Newspaper Project with a website at http://www.newspaperproject.org (It should be noted that one of the founders of this group is the CEO of Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., the parent company to The Free Press.)
Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, has taken to the columns to point out there is now a demand for journalism and for newspapers. Link to NYT column (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/business/media/02askthetimes.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all)
Thank heaven we are starting to hear the other side.
Newspapers, especially community newspapers like The Free Press, are very much alive. And our business model is sound -- cover your community, watchdog your government, design effective advertising the moves traffic through the door and do it every day.
We are not losing readership. In fact, our daily circulation GAINED in our annual audited report. And our website traffic continues to grow and add to those readership numbers.
“The roar of misinformation swirling around newspapers is deafening,” said Donna Barrett, CNHI’s president and CEO. “We must cut through the noise to set the record straight.”
That's not to say we aren't affected by the economy or the changes in our media habits. We are adapting and adjusting just like everyone else. We will continue to experiment and because of our size we can be nimble in our execution.
But the basics, the blocking and tackling of newspapers, remains the same -- to inform and educate our readers. To bring results for our advertisers like no other medium. The need for newspapers, for journalism, was never more urgent than now during these difficult times. That's why I'm bullish on community newspapers and have stuck with this business for more than 30 years.

[Bob Jentges]

National newspapers like the NY Times, etc., may be in financial trouble, but they are by no means as important to regular everyday people as are "community" newspapers. Community newspapers can give in depth coverage of local news that is not provided by national publications, TV or even radio. Also, that coverage is available at the readers convience.

[Free Press Publisher Jim Santori]

In fairness regarding the last post noting NPR's questioning of our business model, I should point out a good piece starting today.
In the first of a two-part series, NPR reports on "Imagine A City Without Its Daily Newspaper." Click here for the NPR story (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100256908)
It points out a few obvious but overlooked roles the newspaper plays that is vital to the community besides its watchdog function. For instance, arts and entertainment coverage drives ticket sales, other local news organizations that have little or no news staff rely on the newspaper for their own coverage or the more indepth coverage of the local sports teams beyond just the scores. But more importantly we lose a sense of community, of commonality. Newspapers are the barometer by which others check their own sense of what is important locally and what side they should take on an issue. At least that's what we strive to do. Thoughts?

[Dan Conner]

Bob--

I think you forget that the NY Times is a local newspaper for aout 10 million people. I'm sure a major problem for the NY Times is it's world class reporting, to include reporters in many of the countries around the world. Also, they have "experts" like no other paper. In case you missed it, a syndicated columnist, Paul Krugman, was recently awarded a Nobel Prize for his work in economics. He makes all sorts of political/econimic comments, as an employee of the NY Times. Well, having the volume of quality reporters and the reach of the paper all appreciatively add to the overhead of the paper. It is not often that they quote the Associated Press. They report most of their own news. In fact, they "break" a lot of news.

I subscribe to The Free Press because of the local coverage. If they didn't have local coverage, I would be subscribing to the Star tribune or the NY Times. I consider both to be great papers.

I think the primary reason papers are having a hard time financially, is because of advertising dollars. I think if you talk to most newspaper people they will tell you that their largest source of revenue is from advertising. The primary reason for decline in advertising revenue is the competition for advertising dollars from the internet, TV, etc. Companies have so much to spend on advertising, but an increasing number of outlets. This whole problem is made worse by our country's economic plight.

I think one way a paper might help increase their following in the paper, and maybe advertising, is through "blogging." I think many people are "addicted" to it. Advertising $$ might more readily find their way to these "blogging" sights, if it is prominent in the community.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, the NY Times may be a local newspaper for "about 10 million people", but what about the approximate other 300 million people. Their stock is worth almost nothing and the Star Tribune is either bankrupt or close to it. There are reasons in addition to a loss in advertising revenue.

[Dan Conner]

Bob--

I don't follow your reasoning here. I never indicated, nor did you, that the NY Times is to be the "national paper." I simply stated that it served a local audience of about 10 million people. I'm sure the NY Times would love to be the national paper, but there is a problem for it to cover local issues. It would then have to publish all sorts of editions for the area. No doubt, a daunting task. As you stated in your blog, The Free Press serves the Mankato area. They cover local events. I don't think they should have to cover 300 million people either. They have their established market area.

I did notice that you are off and running again denigrating things without much research. Besides stating the obvious, that the NY Times and the Star Tribune are having financially challenging days, I don't know if you reasearched the condition of The Free Press? I took what you said to be a comparison of the three papers. I think your statement would have had more meaning, if you fairly compared the three. You quite astutely said there were more reasons for the NY Times and Star Tribune's financial problems. If you know that, I would appreciate it if you would enlighten me. Otherwise, you are just making another baseless claim.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, I joined the Free Press Forum looking forward to a civil exchange of ideas/opinions, not to be bombarded with a series of rambling innuendo's, accusations, assumptions, and insults. So after this response to your last post, as far as I am concerned this "swearing match" is over.

The way I see it a national newspaper is one that covers national issues and is circulated nationally e.g. USA Today, Wall Street Journal, etc. I think the NY Times meets that criteria, but if you prefer not to call them a national newspaper that's fine with me.

I consider the Star Tribune a state wide or regional newspaper. They publish metro, west metro, and outstate editions covering national and regional news.

In response to your request to be "enlightened" about other reasons the NY Times and Star Tribune might be having financial problems I will state what is probably the most obvious: They are not selling enough newspapers! The reasons for that are open to debate.

Regarding "the condition of the Free Press" I took Publisher Jim Santori at his word when he said: "...community newspapers like The Free Press, are very much alive. And our business model is sound--".

[Free Press Publisher Jim Santori]

Part (and only part) of the problem with metro newspapers is many face multiple competitors. Besides the Twin Cities with the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press, look at Chicago (Sun Times and Tribune against the Northwest Herald), New York (Times, Daily News, Post, Newsday), Denver (Post, Rocky Mountain News) and others. Madison, Wisconsin -- while not a major metro but a harbinger of what is ahead -- saw the shuttering of its afternoon paper the Capital Times because it couldn't compete with the State Journal for both readers and advertising dollars.
One way the New York Times thought it could compete in that environment was to go national. Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal was predicated on his business plan to go against the New York Times, not just for the city penetration but to capture more of the national audience beyond those interested in business news.
In the end, we will see some major metros fold as happened in Philadelphia and now Baltimore after that grand experiment with a "free" daily newspaper.
Detroit will be trying another experiment this spring when it moves to a three-day a week publication and rely on its online editions to carry the rest of the week. We all will be watching the outcome of that move very closely.
It's a winnowing out process for some. It's not a time for the faint of heart.

[Dan Conner]

Part (and only part) of the problem with metro newspapers is many face multiple competitors. Besides the Twin Cities with the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press, look at Chicago (Sun Times and Tribune against the Northwest Herald), New York (Times, Daily News, Post, Newsday), Denver (Post, Rocky Mountain News) and others. Madison, Wisconsin -- while not a major metro but a harbinger of what is ahead -- saw the shuttering of its afternoon paper the Capital Times because it couldn't compete with the State Journal for both readers and advertising dollars.
One way the New York Times thought it could compete in that environment was to go national. Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal was predicated on his business plan to go against the New York Times, not just for the city penetration but to capture more of the national audience beyond those interested in business news.
In the end, we will see some major metros fold as happened in Philadelphia and now Baltimore after that grand experiment with a "free" daily newspaper.
Detroit will be trying another experiment this spring when it moves to a three-day a week publication and rely on its online editions to carry the rest of the week. We all will be watching the outcome of that move very closely.
It's a winnowing out process for some. It's not a time for the faint of heart.

I agree Jim. There will be a tendency for papers to get larger after mergers and acquisitions. The WSJ is even subject to problems. They are not doing well these days either. In fact the Rupert Murdoch News Corp just announced a $6.4 billion loss. All media is having a hard time, most of it do to the economy and scarce advertising dollars. I also believe the internet has taken a toll on papers. People, particularly young people, now find out about national and local issues through the internet, not the print media. Interesting news outlets have sprung up by the thousands all over the internet. This will undoubtedly affect the print media, especially after the younger people dominate the economy. ALL THINGS MUST CHANGE, and I believe the print media will gradually fade away into and electronic media, or maybe something that hasn't even been invented yet. More of the print media will be competing in a smaller and smaller market, where it will be survival of the fittest. An extra benefit of the electronic media is less of a valuable renewable resource (paper) is used, and more staying out of landfills. We are the old timers sticking to the print media because that was the way it was and the way it's supposed to be. Well, that changes too.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, I joined the Free Press Forum looking forward to a civil exchange of ideas/opinions, not to be bombarded with a series of rambling innuendo's, accusations, assumptions, and insults. So after this response to your last post, as far as I am concerned this "swearing match" is over.

The way I see it a national newspaper is one that covers national issues and is circulated nationally e.g. USA Today, Wall Street Journal, etc. I think the NY Times meets that criteria, but if you prefer not to call them a national newspaper that's fine with me.

I consider the Star Tribune a state wide or regional newspaper. They publish metro, west metro, and outstate editions covering national and regional news.

In response to your request to be "enlightened" about other reasons the NY Times and Star Tribune might be having financial problems I will state what is probably the most obvious: They are not selling enough newspapers! The reasons for that are open to debate.

Regarding "the condition of the Free Press" I took Publisher Jim Santori at his word when he said: "...community newspapers like The Free Press, are very much alive. And our business model is sound--".

Well Bob, I'm sorry you feel like you do, but I think you are reading things into what I've said, and even what you've said, that weren't there. I have looked forward to a discussion about the issues, yes issues, not accusations about peoples failure to save, that Federal employees aren't allowed to work over 40 hours, that you looked at my bio and know how I think, etc., etc. It means discussing issues at a non-personal level.

While you accuse me a "swearing", I think you need to review your, and my, posts, I can not recall a curse word being used. And insults? I can't remember directing anything malicious at you, I guess, unless you mean these "rambling innuendos". I'm sorry I come across as rambling, I just try to accurately state my point of view, like you. Also, I don't recall any accusations I have made about you, contrary to one you made about me and government workers. As far as bombarding you with "assumptions", I try to clarify what I said to be as accurate as possible, eliminating assumptions as much as possible. I just tried to caution you to do the same. I just asked for references for your statements, so the I too could verify what you said.

Bob, I think the object here is to discuss ideas, even when they diverge. That doesn't occur when unbased statements are made and responses are dealt by some one with a "thin skin." I look forward to further discussions with you, should you feel inclined, but I feel it necessary to try to clarify statements someone makes, in a public forum, that are incorrect or misleading. I hope others would do the same for me as well.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Bob, Dan and Ben
First of all, thanks for the energy you're putting into our new forum. I think as a civil discourse forum it has great potential and is really unique for newspaper web sites. Two observations: I have found that in this "debate" business, people often have developed over the years "ways they view the world and general human behavior." I have found that debating people's views on those principles is often a situation that ends up being personal to one person or another. A better approach is to discuss particular issues etc...versus general beliefs....I ask everyone to keep it civil, and based on issues, versus personalities....I have articulated this more in an email to each of you. Go to your "user CP' and click on "list messages"
Again, Thank you. We're moving in the right direction despite some bumps along the way.
Joe

[Bob Jentges]

Months, probably over a year, ago I removed the NY Times and Washington Post from my "Favorites" and "Bookmarks" for the reasons Fred Barnes mentions in his WSJ article, among others.

I do not spend much time with the Star Tribune, except for sports news. I find the St. Paul Pioneer Press the most objective of the large State of Minnesota newspapers, but their outstate print circulation is limited at best.

If the kind of stuff that Tucker Carlson brought to our attention in the last few day's, which many of us expected but did not have hard evidence to support our opinions, continues and/or expands as SOP I think it is almost over for any newspaper that slants the NEWS, one way or the other.

Editorials, commentaries, letters from readers are one thing, but hard news from reporters, including wire services, is altogether differrent.

http://online.wsj.com?article/SB10001424052748704684604575381083191313448.html