9 ms·

Denver Post Rebels Against Its Hedge-Fund Ownership

142 points by johnny313 9y ago

otoburb 9y ago
A Denver Post editorial[1] links to the Digital First Media Workers campaign site[2] which aims to "win fair contracts with wage increases for the nearly 1,000 Guild-represented employees of Digital First Media." The campaign site tries to lay out in more detail(s) how Alden Global Capital is supposedly taking profits from DFM media properties. As majority shareholders, Alden might be in their rights to do as they see fit, but at least a pattern of behaviour being called out. [1] https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/06/as-vultures-circle-the-denver-post-must-be-saved/ https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/06/as-vultures-circle-the... [2] https://dfmworkers.org/about/ https://dfmworkers.org/about/
GiorgioG 9y ago
As much as I want to blame the hedge fund for running this paper into the the ground, the reality is the paper was financially dead long before the hedge fund came along. The hedge fund ultimately prolonged the paper’s life. Short of a billionaire buying into it as a money losing affair, this paper’s days are numbered.
- nerdwaller 9y ago
  I have two perspectives on this: 1. From what I have found, the hedge fund involved is big into distressed assets. That could mean either trying to turn them around or finding a way to profit from the eventual house clearing. My guess is the deal was structured so they could come out ahead in either result. 2. Being in/from Denver - the post has long just reposted or otherwise used alternate media to be their sources. Meaning their journalistic side has been spotty for quite some time.
  - lotharbot 9y ago
    as a Denver native, I completely agree with point 2. The post hasn't produced much quality-original content for quite some time. I can't think of any specific type of coverage where they provide the best available. They're beat on national news by national papers, local news by several of our TV stations, sports by blogs like BSN Denver, and so on. There's nothing right now that makes me say "I think they could turn it around".
    - shozab 9y ago
      Hello Sir i need some information can i submit url my website ? when share url this blog say remove link and submit question ?
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    For 2, Denver is a small enough market that it's no surprise that it is not large enough to support a local paper like the New York Times.
    - Trill-I-Am 9y ago
      Are you saying that only the largest cities in the country can support local journalism? What does mean for the civic future of the country?
- mirimir 9y ago
  Sure, the hedge fund is merely doing its job. Which is bleeding as much money as possible from the paper. To benefit its shareholders. Right?
bartart 9y ago
The main problem with these newsgroups is that they have _so_many_ competitors. Most people don't want to and don't have to pay to get around a paywall because chances are someone else offers a similar article for free. Even for local news you have tv stations, print outlets, and npr. It is a tough business.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  If you live in a major city, perhaps. I get the town newspaper and there is plenty of information published there that will never appear anywhere else.
  - lb1lf 9y ago
    Yup, same story here in Norway - the smaller a population the paper covers, the better it does (generally speaking) I can think of a few reasons why - a) Local papers have gotten much of their revenue from subscriptions for a long time; their customers are used to this model. b) Their ads are local, targeting perhaps a few thousand people at most. That makes a paper (with high penetration and trust in the target audience) a viable alternative to Google ads. c) They provide news which doesn’t have a lot of alternative sources, while still being of interest to the readers. This encourages readers to keep subscribing (providing stable income), and the continuing subscriptions encourages advertisers to keep spending their ad dollars (or kroner, as it were) on the local paper.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      Things are a little different here, in that many of the small-town (when I say small-town here I really mean everything other than major cities) papers are not doing that well and are owned by faraway, faceless national concerns. But the fact remains that there's not a good replacement (the candidates, I guess, are Patch and town Facebook groups).
      - davidw 9y ago
        I follow the local reporter on twitter, who sits through the entire city council meeting every time. Except for rare cases, I just don't see volunteers doing that, because it is a huge time commitment, and while some issues get people worked up, there is often quite a bit of minutiae (what kinds of signs are allowed is a recent example).
astura 9y ago
Since it's the Rockies first weekend at home, the Denver Post ran a "Guide to Coors Field" story yesterday. Except the story featured a large photo of... Citizen's Bank Park, which is in Philadelphia. Its an especially embarrassing mistake because, while it's also a baseball stadium, Citizen's Bank Park is branded "Phillies" prominently in multiple places. People were real quick to point out "this is what happens when you fire half your staff." The Phillies also couldn't resist a Twitter jab: https://twitter.com/Phillies/status/982260422744027139 https://twitter.com/Phillies/status/982260422744027139
officialchicken 9y ago
A screengrab, a photo of the editor, and a link to a previous NYT article, but no external links in the article itself to the Denver Post opinion [0]. NYT supports embedded tweets and photos - so it supports hypermedia, but does anyone know why there are no external hyperlinks inside articles like this one? Is the abandonment or rarity of external links the key to newspaper success? [0] https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/06/as-vultures-circle-the-denver-post-must-be-saved/ https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/06/as-vultures-circle-the...
bkohlmann 9y ago
It's striking that the only mention of financials comes at the very end and as an afterthought. I don't know whether the hedge fund is to blame for the demise of the Denver Post in specific, but in general, it's obvious print media is on a significant, general decline for all the reasons we here know about. You can't have "quality" journalism without paying people for their talent. You can't pay people for their talent if you don't have revenue. You don't get revenue if your readership is moving to other platforms. Not once was any of this mentioned or alluded to. Hedge Funds are easy to tar and feather, but doing so will do nothing to stem the Post's financial collapse. Who would they prefer as owner? Which financial decisions will keep high numbers of employees and high quality journalism...with decreasing ad revenue?
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  I think they somewhat bring this up, but the "midmarket" newspaper business is toast. I think print journalism will go forward as: 1. Large "destination" national papers like NYT and WSJ. 2. Papers that are bought by a "patron" as alluded to in the article, like Patrick Soon-Shiong at the LA Times or Jeff Bezos at the Washington Post. 3. Small local papers will be owned by large companies like Gatehouse Media. They will have very little if any hard-hitting journalism and focus more on the quotidien aspects of local life, e.g. new restaurant openings.
  - black_puppydog 9y ago
    Point 3 seems the most problematic one to me, seeing in how many very concrete ways decisions by local government affect the residents if a city, and how much corruption there would be to hit hard on...
- mudil 9y ago
  When Google and FB control 85% of the digital ad market and the rest goes to all the content creators, the situation is dire not only on the print side but also on the digital side. Without blatant invasion of privacy by GoogleFacebook, regional newspapers and content creators would have a level playing field. But they don't. And that's why newspapers are struggling.
mudil 9y ago
Facebook and Google control close to 85% of the digital ad market. The rest 15% goes to the content creators and to the journalism. If Google and FB would not be able to invade everyone's privacy, that would create a level playing field for national, regional, and specialized media to prosper. But because they know who you are, they can display an ad for you on any platform, say Candy Crush Saga. If you are from Denver, here's an ad for a Denver event on your stupid game. So who needs journalism if an article in Denver Post is on par to Candy Crush? Who needs quality content on the internet? There is a reason why there is no VC investment in the content whatsoever. For this miserable situation thank Google and FB. And say goodbye to your privacy and to ad-supported quality content. PS Number of countries are looking into the destruction of the news media by Google and FB. The most notable is Australian ACCC efforts. https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-seeking-views-on-news-and-digital-platforms-inquiry https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-seeking-views-on-...
- mudil 9y ago
  Newspapers had a double whammy. One was Craigslist. But Craigslist at least was a new technology compared to the newspaper classified pages. People could post ads on the spot for free. Better technology, fair competition. But what Google and FB have done is to learn about people based on their interests, based on what pages they visited, what newspapers they read, and so forth. And then GoogleFacebook NSA-type duopoly weaponized that knowledge against the content creators, and it's now killing the journalism.
  - pravda 9y ago
    >the content creators, and it's now killing journalism. Nah. What has happened is that newspapers have lost their monopoly. In most markets, there was one newspaper and that newspaper could charge advertisers far in excess of their costs. Might as well been printing money with the presses. Now, their monopoly rents have gone away. Now, they have to earn their money! Earning money is hard compared to having a monopoly.
    - username223 9y ago
imagetic 9y ago
The newspaper is such a pivotal piece of society. It's heartbreaking to go to a photojournalism conference that used to be 400 newspaper photographers, and now there's maybe a handful. Everyone is doing editorial or surviving on grants and corporate work. I was in journalism school when the industry collapsed. I saw it coming early on and moved to TV work, an industry that I'm seeing make similar mistakes and is taking steps towards its own demise. But TV has a lot more money and will bleed out much slower. My local paper in unbearable though. So much to the point where if it wasn't for a cops and courts section there wouldn't be much point to it at all. But then again, NPR has it's highest ratings ever. So maybe there's some unknown hope still out there. Radio moved towards digital delivery and podcasts, but the newspaper is a far more complex problem. I don't think general society cares about real news anymore. Maybe we just don't have the attention span for what it takes to matter. I don't see a new medium making a difference.
- mudil 9y ago
  People consume news now more than ever. Google-FB spying duopoly is killing journalism.
- black_puppydog 9y ago
  > But TV has a lot more money and will bleed out much slower. As someone who's working in the field, would you say that would be a similar tragedy to the demise of newspapers? I have the impression that TV in general in the US (and not just local) is no force for good at best, and a propaganda and pacification machine at worst. Then again I never watched much TV and never lived in the US.
  - grigjd3 9y ago
    There are certainly propaganda machines on American TV, but mostly its just niche programming and reality tv. I think its more fair to see American TV as a waste of time.
5715 9y ago
www.usconditiontoday.com
nabla9 9y ago
Newspapers and magazines should come up with digital subscription syndicate that works like Netflix. You pay $10-15 per month and you can read any article anywhere. From the local paper to the Economist or Denver Post to other local papers and Playboy.
- Swizec 9y ago
  The problem is they each want to be this syndicate and don’t want to give up control to others.
  - nabla9 9y ago
    It would not be giving up control. Just billing differently. They already have print syndication but it's backwards format in digital era. Instead of users determining what to read, editors pick news from the print syndication to republish.
  - OscarCunningham 9y ago
    Just like TV and movie studios are behaving toward Netflix.
oculusthrift 9y ago
weird how hedge funds are evil yet everyone’s with bezos owning wapo with his monopoly and 300million dollar contract with the CIA

142 points by johnny313 9y ago

A Denver Post editorial[1] links to the Digital First Media Workers campaign site[2] which aims to "win fair contracts with wage increases for the nearly 1,000 Guild-represented employees of Digital First Media." The campaign site tries to lay out in more detail(s) how Alden Global Capital is supposedly taking profits from DFM media properties. As majority shareholders, Alden might be in their rights to do as they see fit, but at least a pattern of behaviour being called out. [1] https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/06/as-vultures-circle-the-denver-post-must-be-saved/ https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/06/as-vultures-circle-the... [2] https://dfmworkers.org/about/ https://dfmworkers.org/about/

GiorgioG 9y ago

As much as I want to blame the hedge fund for running this paper into the the ground, the reality is the paper was financially dead long before the hedge fund came along. The hedge fund ultimately prolonged the paper’s life. Short of a billionaire buying into it as a money losing affair, this paper’s days are numbered.

nerdwaller 9y ago
I have two perspectives on this: 1. From what I have found, the hedge fund involved is big into distressed assets. That could mean either trying to turn them around or finding a way to profit from the eventual house clearing. My guess is the deal was structured so they could come out ahead in either result. 2. Being in/from Denver - the post has long just reposted or otherwise used alternate media to be their sources. Meaning their journalistic side has been spotty for quite some time.
- lotharbot 9y ago
  as a Denver native, I completely agree with point 2. The post hasn't produced much quality-original content for quite some time. I can't think of any specific type of coverage where they provide the best available. They're beat on national news by national papers, local news by several of our TV stations, sports by blogs like BSN Denver, and so on. There's nothing right now that makes me say "I think they could turn it around".
  - shozab 9y ago
    Hello Sir i need some information can i submit url my website ? when share url this blog say remove link and submit question ?
- greglindahl 9y ago
  For 2, Denver is a small enough market that it's no surprise that it is not large enough to support a local paper like the New York Times.
  - Trill-I-Am 9y ago
    Are you saying that only the largest cities in the country can support local journalism? What does mean for the civic future of the country?
mirimir 9y ago
Sure, the hedge fund is merely doing its job. Which is bleeding as much money as possible from the paper. To benefit its shareholders. Right?

bartart 9y ago

The main problem with these newsgroups is that they have _so_many_ competitors. Most people don't want to and don't have to pay to get around a paywall because chances are someone else offers a similar article for free. Even for local news you have tv stations, print outlets, and npr. It is a tough business.

emodendroket 9y ago
If you live in a major city, perhaps. I get the town newspaper and there is plenty of information published there that will never appear anywhere else.
- lb1lf 9y ago
  Yup, same story here in Norway - the smaller a population the paper covers, the better it does (generally speaking) I can think of a few reasons why - a) Local papers have gotten much of their revenue from subscriptions for a long time; their customers are used to this model. b) Their ads are local, targeting perhaps a few thousand people at most. That makes a paper (with high penetration and trust in the target audience) a viable alternative to Google ads. c) They provide news which doesn’t have a lot of alternative sources, while still being of interest to the readers. This encourages readers to keep subscribing (providing stable income), and the continuing subscriptions encourages advertisers to keep spending their ad dollars (or kroner, as it were) on the local paper.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Things are a little different here, in that many of the small-town (when I say small-town here I really mean everything other than major cities) papers are not doing that well and are owned by faraway, faceless national concerns. But the fact remains that there's not a good replacement (the candidates, I guess, are Patch and town Facebook groups).
    - davidw 9y ago
      I follow the local reporter on twitter, who sits through the entire city council meeting every time. Except for rare cases, I just don't see volunteers doing that, because it is a huge time commitment, and while some issues get people worked up, there is often quite a bit of minutiae (what kinds of signs are allowed is a recent example).

astura 9y ago

Since it's the Rockies first weekend at home, the Denver Post ran a "Guide to Coors Field" story yesterday. Except the story featured a large photo of... Citizen's Bank Park, which is in Philadelphia. Its an especially embarrassing mistake because, while it's also a baseball stadium, Citizen's Bank Park is branded "Phillies" prominently in multiple places. People were real quick to point out "this is what happens when you fire half your staff." The Phillies also couldn't resist a Twitter jab: https://twitter.com/Phillies/status/982260422744027139 https://twitter.com/Phillies/status/982260422744027139

officialchicken 9y ago

A screengrab, a photo of the editor, and a link to a previous NYT article, but no external links in the article itself to the Denver Post opinion [0]. NYT supports embedded tweets and photos - so it supports hypermedia, but does anyone know why there are no external hyperlinks inside articles like this one? Is the abandonment or rarity of external links the key to newspaper success? [0] https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/06/as-vultures-circle-the-denver-post-must-be-saved/ https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/06/as-vultures-circle-the...

bkohlmann 9y ago

It's striking that the only mention of financials comes at the very end and as an afterthought. I don't know whether the hedge fund is to blame for the demise of the Denver Post in specific, but in general, it's obvious print media is on a significant, general decline for all the reasons we here know about. You can't have "quality" journalism without paying people for their talent. You can't pay people for their talent if you don't have revenue. You don't get revenue if your readership is moving to other platforms. Not once was any of this mentioned or alluded to. Hedge Funds are easy to tar and feather, but doing so will do nothing to stem the Post's financial collapse. Who would they prefer as owner? Which financial decisions will keep high numbers of employees and high quality journalism...with decreasing ad revenue?

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
I think they somewhat bring this up, but the "midmarket" newspaper business is toast. I think print journalism will go forward as: 1. Large "destination" national papers like NYT and WSJ. 2. Papers that are bought by a "patron" as alluded to in the article, like Patrick Soon-Shiong at the LA Times or Jeff Bezos at the Washington Post. 3. Small local papers will be owned by large companies like Gatehouse Media. They will have very little if any hard-hitting journalism and focus more on the quotidien aspects of local life, e.g. new restaurant openings.
- black_puppydog 9y ago
  Point 3 seems the most problematic one to me, seeing in how many very concrete ways decisions by local government affect the residents if a city, and how much corruption there would be to hit hard on...
mudil 9y ago
When Google and FB control 85% of the digital ad market and the rest goes to all the content creators, the situation is dire not only on the print side but also on the digital side. Without blatant invasion of privacy by GoogleFacebook, regional newspapers and content creators would have a level playing field. But they don't. And that's why newspapers are struggling.

mudil 9y ago

Facebook and Google control close to 85% of the digital ad market. The rest 15% goes to the content creators and to the journalism. If Google and FB would not be able to invade everyone's privacy, that would create a level playing field for national, regional, and specialized media to prosper. But because they know who you are, they can display an ad for you on any platform, say Candy Crush Saga. If you are from Denver, here's an ad for a Denver event on your stupid game. So who needs journalism if an article in Denver Post is on par to Candy Crush? Who needs quality content on the internet? There is a reason why there is no VC investment in the content whatsoever. For this miserable situation thank Google and FB. And say goodbye to your privacy and to ad-supported quality content. PS Number of countries are looking into the destruction of the news media by Google and FB. The most notable is Australian ACCC efforts. https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-seeking-views-on-news-and-digital-platforms-inquiry https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-seeking-views-on-...

mudil 9y ago
Newspapers had a double whammy. One was Craigslist. But Craigslist at least was a new technology compared to the newspaper classified pages. People could post ads on the spot for free. Better technology, fair competition. But what Google and FB have done is to learn about people based on their interests, based on what pages they visited, what newspapers they read, and so forth. And then GoogleFacebook NSA-type duopoly weaponized that knowledge against the content creators, and it's now killing the journalism.
- pravda 9y ago
  >the content creators, and it's now killing journalism. Nah. What has happened is that newspapers have lost their monopoly. In most markets, there was one newspaper and that newspaper could charge advertisers far in excess of their costs. Might as well been printing money with the presses. Now, their monopoly rents have gone away. Now, they have to earn their money! Earning money is hard compared to having a monopoly.
  - username223 9y ago

imagetic 9y ago

The newspaper is such a pivotal piece of society. It's heartbreaking to go to a photojournalism conference that used to be 400 newspaper photographers, and now there's maybe a handful. Everyone is doing editorial or surviving on grants and corporate work. I was in journalism school when the industry collapsed. I saw it coming early on and moved to TV work, an industry that I'm seeing make similar mistakes and is taking steps towards its own demise. But TV has a lot more money and will bleed out much slower. My local paper in unbearable though. So much to the point where if it wasn't for a cops and courts section there wouldn't be much point to it at all. But then again, NPR has it's highest ratings ever. So maybe there's some unknown hope still out there. Radio moved towards digital delivery and podcasts, but the newspaper is a far more complex problem. I don't think general society cares about real news anymore. Maybe we just don't have the attention span for what it takes to matter. I don't see a new medium making a difference.

mudil 9y ago
People consume news now more than ever. Google-FB spying duopoly is killing journalism.
black_puppydog 9y ago
> But TV has a lot more money and will bleed out much slower. As someone who's working in the field, would you say that would be a similar tragedy to the demise of newspapers? I have the impression that TV in general in the US (and not just local) is no force for good at best, and a propaganda and pacification machine at worst. Then again I never watched much TV and never lived in the US.
- grigjd3 9y ago
  There are certainly propaganda machines on American TV, but mostly its just niche programming and reality tv. I think its more fair to see American TV as a waste of time.

5715 9y ago

www.usconditiontoday.com

nabla9 9y ago

Newspapers and magazines should come up with digital subscription syndicate that works like Netflix. You pay $10-15 per month and you can read any article anywhere. From the local paper to the Economist or Denver Post to other local papers and Playboy.

Swizec 9y ago
The problem is they each want to be this syndicate and don’t want to give up control to others.
- nabla9 9y ago
  It would not be giving up control. Just billing differently. They already have print syndication but it's backwards format in digital era. Instead of users determining what to read, editors pick news from the print syndication to republish.
- OscarCunningham 9y ago
  Just like TV and movie studios are behaving toward Netflix.

oculusthrift 9y ago

weird how hedge funds are evil yet everyone’s with bezos owning wapo with his monopoly and 300million dollar contract with the CIA