4 ms·

It came from inside as far as their failure to adapt to a new ecosystem. They're still stuck in the print mindset where they think that a newspaper should be wo

by pharke 6y ago

It came from inside as far as their failure to adapt to a new ecosystem. They're still stuck in the print mindset where they think that a newspaper should be words printed on a page. They're stuck in the printing press mindset when they need to be in the digital media mindset. If they want to re-capture their audience they need to put their journalists to work creating more audio content that people can consume in their "found time" along with their other podcasts. They have the infrastructure to one up everyone in this field. If a journalist were to apply the same techniques of deep research, interviews with relevant sources, and the basic footwork necessary to find newsworthy material they could take their market back. People would pay for a subscription to a "paper" that was actually a basket of well researched and news-breaking podcasts. For God's sake though don't invite the radio and TV people in, just throw out your goddamn typewriter already and get a decent microphone and do it yourself.

bilbo0s 6y ago
Again, just pointing out in fairness that places like NPR and CSpan do the sort of thing your comment suggests. I think some people might listen to NPR in their car, some may even donate, but I'm not sure how many people would pay enough to fund the groundwork necessary for stories like the Wirecard series for instance. In the end, that sort of journalism may need to rely on donations. We're simply no longer wired to pay for that sort of information and media. If everyone changed at once, we might be retrained to pay, but I doubt that would happen.
soco 6y ago
I see that donation model turning out pretty swell for The Guardian. There might be more, no idea...
TeaDrunk 6y ago
"If they want to re-capture their audience they need to put their journalists to work creating more audio content that people can consume in their "found time" along with their other podcasts." At least the NYT has a daily podcast, an updating podcast on the impeachment (when the impeachment happened), a podcast series on engagement algorithms in radicalizing people, I think several more. The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, NPR (So many NPR podcasts), etc. also have podcasts. I think podcasts are well covered and this argument is coming from a place of ignorance.
- pharke 6y ago
  I was aware of NPR's offerings but not of the others. That tells you something to start with, those offerings aren't being made a centre piece. The Atlantic has them buried in a sidebar halfway down their page under a list of authors. They also seem to be fairly infrequent and listening to them briefly they are a turn off due to their over-production. They're also short, 30 min. Why would I want to wait 3 weeks for a 30 minute radio show? Pass. NPR has more on offer, they are listed as a menu item at the top of their site, they are more frequent, unfortunately they're still overdone which is why I don't follow them. The NYT daily is actually a pleasant surprise, they feature it a bit more prominently on their site, I'm listening to one right now and it's a straight up interview which is great, daily releases make up for the shorter run length so I'll try this one out. I think my argument still stands, newspapers are still in the print business. Doing a quick search of other papers seems to show a trend of having a podcast as an afterthought and/or treating it as a way to deliver radio content. Putting a radio show on the internet doesn't make it a podcast. Give me a discussion, a long form interview, something real. I don't want cuts, voiceovers, musical interludes, or scripts. I'm coming down hard on the production quality because it's a sure sign that something has been editorialized to death, generally by a committee of people with competing interests and vanities. Too many cooks spoil the broth.
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
>they could take their market back. which market is that? Historically, US newspapers made most of their money by selling advertising. Just was with Google (and Facebook) today, the market wasn't readers - readers were the hook to get the actual customers - advertisers - to pay in. Newspapers are not going to get that market back, no matter what they do.
vharuck 6y ago
You're probably spot on about in-depth journalism being the only path forward. News used to aggregators of what's happening, but social media and customizable feeds do it better and much faster. So journalism should focus on what the social media grapevine isn't good at: investigation, good writing, and using a list of trusted sources and experts gathered over years. And if a newsroom can't do that better than somebody on social media, it should hire that person (or at least commission a piece).
greggman3 6y ago
How do podcasts help? I skip every ad on every podcast I listen to. I click the +30s button a few times. Not sure how any podcasts make money. I get people are paying for ads. I'm curious if there is any proof they work. podcasts are to spoken word as tivo was to TV, in both one killer feature was skipping the ads.
jasonlotito 6y ago
See NYTimes as an example of someone doing everything here, and more.
baddox 6y ago
I don't know if there was a realistic adaptation they could have made. What would they have done, short of simply abandoning their business and becoming a massive social network publisher earlier than the ones that ended up winning? I think what happened is that it turned out the real value newspapers provided wasn't the expensive high-quality content, but simply the printing and distribution which used to have immense barriers to entry. The Internet shattered those barriers to entry, and it turned out that all that people wanted was to have access to some timely shared national/regional/local content and that the cheaper content would tend to win.

by pharke 6y ago

bilbo0s 6y ago

Again, just pointing out in fairness that places like NPR and CSpan do the sort of thing your comment suggests. I think some people might listen to NPR in their car, some may even donate, but I'm not sure how many people would pay enough to fund the groundwork necessary for stories like the Wirecard series for instance. In the end, that sort of journalism may need to rely on donations. We're simply no longer wired to pay for that sort of information and media. If everyone changed at once, we might be retrained to pay, but I doubt that would happen.

soco 6y ago

I see that donation model turning out pretty swell for The Guardian. There might be more, no idea...

TeaDrunk 6y ago

"If they want to re-capture their audience they need to put their journalists to work creating more audio content that people can consume in their "found time" along with their other podcasts." At least the NYT has a daily podcast, an updating podcast on the impeachment (when the impeachment happened), a podcast series on engagement algorithms in radicalizing people, I think several more. The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, NPR (So many NPR podcasts), etc. also have podcasts. I think podcasts are well covered and this argument is coming from a place of ignorance.

pharke 6y ago
I was aware of NPR's offerings but not of the others. That tells you something to start with, those offerings aren't being made a centre piece. The Atlantic has them buried in a sidebar halfway down their page under a list of authors. They also seem to be fairly infrequent and listening to them briefly they are a turn off due to their over-production. They're also short, 30 min. Why would I want to wait 3 weeks for a 30 minute radio show? Pass. NPR has more on offer, they are listed as a menu item at the top of their site, they are more frequent, unfortunately they're still overdone which is why I don't follow them. The NYT daily is actually a pleasant surprise, they feature it a bit more prominently on their site, I'm listening to one right now and it's a straight up interview which is great, daily releases make up for the shorter run length so I'll try this one out. I think my argument still stands, newspapers are still in the print business. Doing a quick search of other papers seems to show a trend of having a podcast as an afterthought and/or treating it as a way to deliver radio content. Putting a radio show on the internet doesn't make it a podcast. Give me a discussion, a long form interview, something real. I don't want cuts, voiceovers, musical interludes, or scripts. I'm coming down hard on the production quality because it's a sure sign that something has been editorialized to death, generally by a committee of people with competing interests and vanities. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

>they could take their market back. which market is that? Historically, US newspapers made most of their money by selling advertising. Just was with Google (and Facebook) today, the market wasn't readers - readers were the hook to get the actual customers - advertisers - to pay in. Newspapers are not going to get that market back, no matter what they do.

vharuck 6y ago

You're probably spot on about in-depth journalism being the only path forward. News used to aggregators of what's happening, but social media and customizable feeds do it better and much faster. So journalism should focus on what the social media grapevine isn't good at: investigation, good writing, and using a list of trusted sources and experts gathered over years. And if a newsroom can't do that better than somebody on social media, it should hire that person (or at least commission a piece).

greggman3 6y ago

How do podcasts help? I skip every ad on every podcast I listen to. I click the +30s button a few times. Not sure how any podcasts make money. I get people are paying for ads. I'm curious if there is any proof they work. podcasts are to spoken word as tivo was to TV, in both one killer feature was skipping the ads.

jasonlotito 6y ago

See NYTimes as an example of someone doing everything here, and more.

baddox 6y ago

I don't know if there was a realistic adaptation they could have made. What would they have done, short of simply abandoning their business and becoming a massive social network publisher earlier than the ones that ended up winning? I think what happened is that it turned out the real value newspapers provided wasn't the expensive high-quality content, but simply the printing and distribution which used to have immense barriers to entry. The Internet shattered those barriers to entry, and it turned out that all that people wanted was to have access to some timely shared national/regional/local content and that the cheaper content would tend to win.