5 ms·

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

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
  This is from Peggy Noonan's latest column in WSJ: "Facebook ’s failings are now famous and so far include but are perhaps not limited to misusing, sharing and scraping of private user data, selling space to Russian propagandists in the 2016 campaign, playing games with political content, starving journalism of ad revenues, increasing polarization, and turning eager users into the unknowing product. The signal fact of Mr. Zuckerberg is that he is supremely gifted in one area—monetizing technical expertise by marrying it to a canny sense of human weakness. Beyond that, what a shallow and banal figure. He too appears to have difficulties coming to terms with who he is. Perhaps he hopes to keep you, too, from coming to terms with it, by literally dressing as a child, in T-shirts, hoodies and jeans—soft clothes, the kind 5-year-olds favor. His public reputation is now damaged, and about this he is very concerned. Next week he will appear before Congress. The Onion recently headlined that he was preparing for his questioning by studying up on the private data of congressmen. The comic Albert Brooks tweeted: “I sent Mark Zuckerberg my entire medical history just to save him some time.” Tim Cook of Apple, in an impressive and sober interview with Recode’s Kara Swisher and MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, said last week something startling, almost revolutionary: “Privacy to us is a human right.” This was stunning because it was the exact opposite of what Silicon Valley has been telling us since social media’s inception, which is: Privacy is dead. Get over it. Some variation on that statement has been made over and over by Silicon Valley’s pioneers, and they say it blithely, cavalierly, with no apparent sense of tragedy. Because they don’t do tragedy. They do children’s clothes." https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-adults-wont-grow-up-nobody-will-1522970344 https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-adults-wont-grow-up-nobody-w...
untog 9y ago
In this specific case the hedge fund already admitted that they were syphoning off profits from their newspapers to finance totally unrelated ventures: https://dfmworkers.org/hedge-fund-alden-siphoned-100s-of-millions-from-newspapers-in-scheme-to-gamble-on-other-investments-suit-says/ https://dfmworkers.org/hedge-fund-alden-siphoned-100s-of-mil... Unrelated, but the execs of Tronc, another multi-newspaper owner, have massive salaries and perks that in no way match the current state of the business: https://latguild.com/news/2017/11/21/private-jets-and-golden-parachutes-the-la-times-guild-asks-where-is-the-money https://latguild.com/news/2017/11/21/private-jets-and-golden... > Which financial decisions will keep high numbers of employees and high quality journalism...with decreasing ad revenue? Pivoting to subscriber revenue. I suspect a lot of companies will be learning this lesson in time. No doubt newspapers needed to shrink compared to their size a decade or two ago, but I really don't think the outlook for many needs to be so dire. I'd much rather see newspapers experiment with becoming a non-profit than be owned by a hedge fund that'll eat them alive.
- DrScump 9y ago
  syphoning off profits They were allegedly siphoning off assets. Were those papers even making any profit? The concept reminds me of the story arc in "The Sopranos" where the mob looted the sporting goods chain to collect on the gambling debts of its owner.
  - cptskippy 9y ago
    Assets are invested profits. In either case it's a revenue stream the paper might have leveraged to sustain it while it pivoted into a new model. Instead the Headgefund raiders have done to it what they've done with so many other businesses. They undervalued it, bought it at a discount, disassembled and sold off the profitable bits, left an empty encumbered husk to default on outstanding debts. This behavior should be illegal.
- black_puppydog 9y ago
  > No doubt newspapers needed to shrink compared to their size a decade or two ago Interesting statement... Do you mean this in the sense that "it is/was obvious that they'd be hit hard by social media etc" or do you believe there was somehow too much news being produced?
forapurpose 9y ago
Perhaps the problem is the assumption that journalism organizations have to be run as for-profit businesses. There are many other models for institutions, from non-profits to public institutions (universities) to utilities to essential public/private institutions (hospitals) to etc. Capitalism is very useful but it isn't the solution to every problem. Journalism, where the incentives of profit don't align well with the mission, might need another model. Newspapers have been for-profit organizations for generations, but perhaps times have changed; also, that model gave advertisers great influence over the news. The model would have to be insulated from government interference, sustainable, insulated from public whim (the journalists should be able to report news that the public dislikes), and incentivize journalists to do a good job. Perhaps power split between several groups with checks and balances? Or how about a producer cooperative, if I'm using the term correctly - isn't the Guardian controlled by its journalists? Where does its money come from? EDIT: Another model is the news associations, such as the AP. Also, I just came across the following, which is relevant: https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/about-us/trust-principles.html https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/about-us/trust-principles....
- icelancer 9y ago
  There is nothing inherently at odds with non-profits under capitalism... not sure what that has to do with anything.
- core-questions 9y ago
  > Journalism, where the incentives of profit don't align well with the mission, might need another model. I agree with this sentiment, but I don't know that I've seen another model demonstrated that works much better. State-run media like the CBC or BBC are still incentivized by advertisers, and also beholden to government - this still sets an implicit bias, as viewpoints that would have the government reduce funding to the state-run media aren't likely to be heavily popularized on there (go figure), the same way viewpoints that are counter to what advertisers want their products associated with aren't going to be seeing much if any airtime. > Another model is the news associations, such as the AP What you have there is a media cartel, something that provides far too powerful of a megaphone. Just like that recent Sinclair clip that was going around last week with multiple newscasters reading the same script in sync, the AP has the power to set the tone and message for thousands of newspapers. I think the massive resulting feedback waves that come from such loud voices is damaging; it sets into play social oscillations so strong they can tear people apart. If anything, I'd like to see a model that pushes for more decentralization, that puts more competition into the game, that makes the individual players smaller. Give me a reason to want to read one paper over another other than my own confirmation bias.

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
This is from Peggy Noonan's latest column in WSJ: "Facebook ’s failings are now famous and so far include but are perhaps not limited to misusing, sharing and scraping of private user data, selling space to Russian propagandists in the 2016 campaign, playing games with political content, starving journalism of ad revenues, increasing polarization, and turning eager users into the unknowing product. The signal fact of Mr. Zuckerberg is that he is supremely gifted in one area—monetizing technical expertise by marrying it to a canny sense of human weakness. Beyond that, what a shallow and banal figure. He too appears to have difficulties coming to terms with who he is. Perhaps he hopes to keep you, too, from coming to terms with it, by literally dressing as a child, in T-shirts, hoodies and jeans—soft clothes, the kind 5-year-olds favor. His public reputation is now damaged, and about this he is very concerned. Next week he will appear before Congress. The Onion recently headlined that he was preparing for his questioning by studying up on the private data of congressmen. The comic Albert Brooks tweeted: “I sent Mark Zuckerberg my entire medical history just to save him some time.” Tim Cook of Apple, in an impressive and sober interview with Recode’s Kara Swisher and MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, said last week something startling, almost revolutionary: “Privacy to us is a human right.” This was stunning because it was the exact opposite of what Silicon Valley has been telling us since social media’s inception, which is: Privacy is dead. Get over it. Some variation on that statement has been made over and over by Silicon Valley’s pioneers, and they say it blithely, cavalierly, with no apparent sense of tragedy. Because they don’t do tragedy. They do children’s clothes." https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-adults-wont-grow-up-nobody-will-1522970344 https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-adults-wont-grow-up-nobody-w...

untog 9y ago

In this specific case the hedge fund already admitted that they were syphoning off profits from their newspapers to finance totally unrelated ventures: https://dfmworkers.org/hedge-fund-alden-siphoned-100s-of-millions-from-newspapers-in-scheme-to-gamble-on-other-investments-suit-says/ https://dfmworkers.org/hedge-fund-alden-siphoned-100s-of-mil... Unrelated, but the execs of Tronc, another multi-newspaper owner, have massive salaries and perks that in no way match the current state of the business: https://latguild.com/news/2017/11/21/private-jets-and-golden-parachutes-the-la-times-guild-asks-where-is-the-money https://latguild.com/news/2017/11/21/private-jets-and-golden... > Which financial decisions will keep high numbers of employees and high quality journalism...with decreasing ad revenue? Pivoting to subscriber revenue. I suspect a lot of companies will be learning this lesson in time. No doubt newspapers needed to shrink compared to their size a decade or two ago, but I really don't think the outlook for many needs to be so dire. I'd much rather see newspapers experiment with becoming a non-profit than be owned by a hedge fund that'll eat them alive.

DrScump 9y ago
syphoning off profits They were allegedly siphoning off assets. Were those papers even making any profit? The concept reminds me of the story arc in "The Sopranos" where the mob looted the sporting goods chain to collect on the gambling debts of its owner.
- cptskippy 9y ago
  Assets are invested profits. In either case it's a revenue stream the paper might have leveraged to sustain it while it pivoted into a new model. Instead the Headgefund raiders have done to it what they've done with so many other businesses. They undervalued it, bought it at a discount, disassembled and sold off the profitable bits, left an empty encumbered husk to default on outstanding debts. This behavior should be illegal.
black_puppydog 9y ago
> No doubt newspapers needed to shrink compared to their size a decade or two ago Interesting statement... Do you mean this in the sense that "it is/was obvious that they'd be hit hard by social media etc" or do you believe there was somehow too much news being produced?

forapurpose 9y ago

Perhaps the problem is the assumption that journalism organizations have to be run as for-profit businesses. There are many other models for institutions, from non-profits to public institutions (universities) to utilities to essential public/private institutions (hospitals) to etc. Capitalism is very useful but it isn't the solution to every problem. Journalism, where the incentives of profit don't align well with the mission, might need another model. Newspapers have been for-profit organizations for generations, but perhaps times have changed; also, that model gave advertisers great influence over the news. The model would have to be insulated from government interference, sustainable, insulated from public whim (the journalists should be able to report news that the public dislikes), and incentivize journalists to do a good job. Perhaps power split between several groups with checks and balances? Or how about a producer cooperative, if I'm using the term correctly - isn't the Guardian controlled by its journalists? Where does its money come from? EDIT: Another model is the news associations, such as the AP. Also, I just came across the following, which is relevant: https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/about-us/trust-principles.html https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/about-us/trust-principles....

icelancer 9y ago
There is nothing inherently at odds with non-profits under capitalism... not sure what that has to do with anything.
core-questions 9y ago
> Journalism, where the incentives of profit don't align well with the mission, might need another model. I agree with this sentiment, but I don't know that I've seen another model demonstrated that works much better. State-run media like the CBC or BBC are still incentivized by advertisers, and also beholden to government - this still sets an implicit bias, as viewpoints that would have the government reduce funding to the state-run media aren't likely to be heavily popularized on there (go figure), the same way viewpoints that are counter to what advertisers want their products associated with aren't going to be seeing much if any airtime. > Another model is the news associations, such as the AP What you have there is a media cartel, something that provides far too powerful of a megaphone. Just like that recent Sinclair clip that was going around last week with multiple newscasters reading the same script in sync, the AP has the power to set the tone and message for thousands of newspapers. I think the massive resulting feedback waves that come from such loud voices is damaging; it sets into play social oscillations so strong they can tear people apart. If anything, I'd like to see a model that pushes for more decentralization, that puts more competition into the game, that makes the individual players smaller. Give me a reason to want to read one paper over another other than my own confirmation bias.