6 ms·

The most important factor is that on the internet local news media lose their geographical monopoly. So everyone can subscribe to NYT or WSJ no matter where the

by gerash 5y ago

The most important factor is that on the internet local news media lose their geographical monopoly. So everyone can subscribe to NYT or WSJ no matter where they live. This effectively creates a winner takes all situation like in many other industries which get closer to a free market. Add to that the fact that classified ads have been taken over by likes of ebay, LinkedIn, craigslist, etc. Basically the business model of the old newspapers have been disrupted and trying to blame it on popular targets like Google and FB is pointless.

giarc 5y ago
Hasn't that always been the case? Even before the internet, I remember seeing copies of the NYT or WSJ on newsstands everywhere. I believe you could subscribe and it would get delivered to your door.
- athenot 5y ago
  I receive the NYT on my doorstep on weekends and my copies say "Printed in Georgia". The content does not vary, though.
  - reaperducer 5y ago
    It does vary, depending on your region. My observation is that not all regions get extra content. NYT papers in New Jersey used to have different content. I'm not sure if that's still the case. West coast editions printed in Los Angeles used to have an entire extra section. The last time I checked, that section is no longer there, but there are other subtle changes. Like the weather forecast in the upper right corner of the front page.
    - athenot 5y ago
      Ah yes the weather is specific to the South East. But I don't recall seeing ads for local businesses nor articles about local affairs.
netcan 5y ago
I agree with most of this, but I suggest a 2nd look at the concept of free market. Free from what? Geographic locality? It's notable that Adam Smith's free market seems to have been free also of monopolies and cartels. In any case, whether an open internet would have resulted in newspapers' bankruptcy is speculative... even though I share your speculation. What actually happened was that FB & google achieved control over who sees what on the internet, who earns ad revenue and how much. That is how their business models actually died. It makes sense to sue, lobby, beg or otherwise try to get what you can from them. There is no market, just them. Maybe it would have happened anyway in a free market, but it didn't happen that way. What happened was that big tech took over content delivery and online advertising.
bsedlm 5y ago
It's as close as they can get to suing the internet
- gumby 5y ago
  If more than a metaphor then that is a good case for antitrust.
alex_young 5y ago
> ...local news media lose their geographical monopoly I realize what you're saying, but really, local news will always have a geographical monopoly. Can the NYTimes or WSJ even think about covering local issues? How will investigative reporting function for say a local office holder or a local environmental problem? To my knowledge the real problem is that the traditional business model supporting reporting has dried up. Running classified ads or selling marketing inserts is an obsolete practice. This doesn't really change the need for local reporting though.
- MR4D 5y ago
  > local news will always... "local news" and "local news media" are not the same. I may pay attention to local news through google, facebook, etc, but never read the local paper or watch local TV news.
- dralley 5y ago
  And the shift from local news to national news (cable and the internet), and news conglomerates created by private equity buying up local papers and gutting their staff, has largely not broken down any geographical monopolies, it has for the most part simply removed local news from existence. And no, Twitter and Facebook are not suitable replacements.
  - mfer 5y ago
    > removed local news from existence Removing local news has created a hyper focus on national news. People forget about their local communities where a ton is happening. This isn't good for local communities. We need more focus on the local. Not everything is national.
    - charcircuit 5y ago
      In the age of the internet local doesn't matter anymore. I'm now part of a community that spans the globe.
      - 5y ago
reaperducer 5y ago
The most important factor is that on the internet local news media lose their geographical monopoly. The other side of that coin, however, is that everybody knows the national news, but the vast majority of people know nothing about what's happening in their own backyard. I'd estimate that at least 80% of Americans don't even know what days their city council meets.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
KarlKemp 5y ago
The NYT and WSJ were always available outside of their respective home markets. You would maybe get each day's issue a day late. But that still meant you got the same stories on the day the local paper reported on them.
onenightnine 5y ago
old school media feels like its on its way out. which happens right? new ways of consuming content will almost always take a longer mind share than previous technology if the newer technology offers added value. like radio is big, but before tv ad def before streaming it was king, now it is just something you listen to when you don't have internet access or are trying to listen to a certain show that is only found on the radio (very rare this days considering most radio broadcast can be streamed these days anyways). a smart move would be to eventually move all broadcast online, like have backup communications (analog) for emergency situations but at this point it is almost a waste of bandwidth broadcasting local tv and radio channels. if that spectrum was reclaimed by internet providers we could fix the remote areas where internet is scarce, something we has seen is a must considering how many people are still doing remote learning because of the pandemic. anyways that was a bunny trail, newspapers are great but realistically they waste a lot of paper and online is good enough, most people do not flip through newspapers anymore, it just a waste of resources in all actuality. i get why big media is kicking and screaming, but one could argue that its better to evolve than do business as usual. if you are like me, we knew this was coming, we were the geeky people into technology when others were saying "what's the internet gonna be good for anyways?" we were in chat rooms building bots and talking to people from new york to people in uni in amsterdam, tokyo, auckland etc. they had an opportunity to listen and evolve with the times, not sticking up for google and facebook but there was def an opportunity for old school media to embrace a new model and they dragged their feet. "stop slipping on pimpin'" is a street term similar to, "you snooze, you loose"
Abishek_Muthian 5y ago
> So everyone can subscribe to NYT or WSJ no matter where they live. This effectively creates a winner takes all situation like in many other industries which get closer to a free market. Only that the winner alleged here is neither NYT or WSJ but Google and Facebook; So is it really a free market when horizontal monopolies eat others lunch? Total gross ad revenue of Google & FB for FY21 in India: 23,213 Crores (~ 3 Mil USD). Total gross ad revenue of Top 10 listed media companies for FY21 in India: 8,396 Crores (~ 1.12 Mil USD). At the end of the day it's the consumer's loss, Traditional print media had strict editorial guidelines and journalistic principles. Now the digitized versions of them are in pressure to roll out content at an ever increasing rate as dictated by Google & FB for those ad revenue and So there's no need for journalists but just content-writers rehashing the title into short articles which are not even proof-read nowadays. [1]: https://indianexpress.com/article/business/ad-revenue-facebook-and-google-make-more-than-top-10-media-firms-put-together-7655241/ https://indianexpress.com/article/business/ad-revenue-facebo...

by gerash 5y ago

giarc 5y ago

Hasn't that always been the case? Even before the internet, I remember seeing copies of the NYT or WSJ on newsstands everywhere. I believe you could subscribe and it would get delivered to your door.

athenot 5y ago
I receive the NYT on my doorstep on weekends and my copies say "Printed in Georgia". The content does not vary, though.
- reaperducer 5y ago
  It does vary, depending on your region. My observation is that not all regions get extra content. NYT papers in New Jersey used to have different content. I'm not sure if that's still the case. West coast editions printed in Los Angeles used to have an entire extra section. The last time I checked, that section is no longer there, but there are other subtle changes. Like the weather forecast in the upper right corner of the front page.
  - athenot 5y ago
    Ah yes the weather is specific to the South East. But I don't recall seeing ads for local businesses nor articles about local affairs.

netcan 5y ago

I agree with most of this, but I suggest a 2nd look at the concept of free market. Free from what? Geographic locality? It's notable that Adam Smith's free market seems to have been free also of monopolies and cartels. In any case, whether an open internet would have resulted in newspapers' bankruptcy is speculative... even though I share your speculation. What actually happened was that FB & google achieved control over who sees what on the internet, who earns ad revenue and how much. That is how their business models actually died. It makes sense to sue, lobby, beg or otherwise try to get what you can from them. There is no market, just them. Maybe it would have happened anyway in a free market, but it didn't happen that way. What happened was that big tech took over content delivery and online advertising.

bsedlm 5y ago

It's as close as they can get to suing the internet

gumby 5y ago
If more than a metaphor then that is a good case for antitrust.

alex_young 5y ago

> ...local news media lose their geographical monopoly I realize what you're saying, but really, local news will always have a geographical monopoly. Can the NYTimes or WSJ even think about covering local issues? How will investigative reporting function for say a local office holder or a local environmental problem? To my knowledge the real problem is that the traditional business model supporting reporting has dried up. Running classified ads or selling marketing inserts is an obsolete practice. This doesn't really change the need for local reporting though.

MR4D 5y ago
> local news will always... "local news" and "local news media" are not the same. I may pay attention to local news through google, facebook, etc, but never read the local paper or watch local TV news.
dralley 5y ago
And the shift from local news to national news (cable and the internet), and news conglomerates created by private equity buying up local papers and gutting their staff, has largely not broken down any geographical monopolies, it has for the most part simply removed local news from existence. And no, Twitter and Facebook are not suitable replacements.
- mfer 5y ago
  > removed local news from existence Removing local news has created a hyper focus on national news. People forget about their local communities where a ton is happening. This isn't good for local communities. We need more focus on the local. Not everything is national.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    In the age of the internet local doesn't matter anymore. I'm now part of a community that spans the globe.
    - 5y ago

reaperducer 5y ago

The most important factor is that on the internet local news media lose their geographical monopoly. The other side of that coin, however, is that everybody knows the national news, but the vast majority of people know nothing about what's happening in their own backyard. I'd estimate that at least 80% of Americans don't even know what days their city council meets.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

KarlKemp 5y ago

The NYT and WSJ were always available outside of their respective home markets. You would maybe get each day's issue a day late. But that still meant you got the same stories on the day the local paper reported on them.

onenightnine 5y ago

old school media feels like its on its way out. which happens right? new ways of consuming content will almost always take a longer mind share than previous technology if the newer technology offers added value. like radio is big, but before tv ad def before streaming it was king, now it is just something you listen to when you don't have internet access or are trying to listen to a certain show that is only found on the radio (very rare this days considering most radio broadcast can be streamed these days anyways). a smart move would be to eventually move all broadcast online, like have backup communications (analog) for emergency situations but at this point it is almost a waste of bandwidth broadcasting local tv and radio channels. if that spectrum was reclaimed by internet providers we could fix the remote areas where internet is scarce, something we has seen is a must considering how many people are still doing remote learning because of the pandemic. anyways that was a bunny trail, newspapers are great but realistically they waste a lot of paper and online is good enough, most people do not flip through newspapers anymore, it just a waste of resources in all actuality. i get why big media is kicking and screaming, but one could argue that its better to evolve than do business as usual. if you are like me, we knew this was coming, we were the geeky people into technology when others were saying "what's the internet gonna be good for anyways?" we were in chat rooms building bots and talking to people from new york to people in uni in amsterdam, tokyo, auckland etc. they had an opportunity to listen and evolve with the times, not sticking up for google and facebook but there was def an opportunity for old school media to embrace a new model and they dragged their feet. "stop slipping on pimpin'" is a street term similar to, "you snooze, you loose"

Abishek_Muthian 5y ago

> So everyone can subscribe to NYT or WSJ no matter where they live. This effectively creates a winner takes all situation like in many other industries which get closer to a free market. Only that the winner alleged here is neither NYT or WSJ but Google and Facebook; So is it really a free market when horizontal monopolies eat others lunch? Total gross ad revenue of Google & FB for FY21 in India: 23,213 Crores (~ 3 Mil USD). Total gross ad revenue of Top 10 listed media companies for FY21 in India: 8,396 Crores (~ 1.12 Mil USD). At the end of the day it's the consumer's loss, Traditional print media had strict editorial guidelines and journalistic principles. Now the digitized versions of them are in pressure to roll out content at an ever increasing rate as dictated by Google & FB for those ad revenue and So there's no need for journalists but just content-writers rehashing the title into short articles which are not even proof-read nowadays. [1]: https://indianexpress.com/article/business/ad-revenue-facebook-and-google-make-more-than-top-10-media-firms-put-together-7655241/ https://indianexpress.com/article/business/ad-revenue-facebo...