4 ms·

> the bread and butter of the newspaper industry is celebrity gossip, which is the very opposite of local information, and is a commodity product, which is why

by derleth 14y ago

> the bread and butter of the newspaper industry is celebrity gossip, which is the very opposite of local information, and is a commodity product, which is why people are unwilling to pay for local newspapers. This directly contradicts itself, which is probably your point. Focusing on local news is a necessary but perhaps not a sufficient condition for local newspapers to survive: They don't have a monopoly on any other product, but there's no guarantee they'll be able to survive on that one. Or maybe they can create local celebrities to follow around and gossip about. (They might run up against tougher defamation laws that way, though.)

jbarham 14y ago
Celebrity gossip is fungible. E.g., suppose I cared about the gory details of the Cruise/Holmes divorce. A quick search tells me there are almost 2600 articles on Google News for "TomKat". Clearly there is very little incentive to buy a local newspaper when so much information is available for free from so many different suppliers online. Anecdotally, I live in Melbourne and get a weekly local newspaper, but I don't pay for it since it comes with a bundle of advertising flyers. We sometimes glance through the newspaper, but I wouldn't be willing to pay for it. I'll wager that given the choice, most people would rather ditch the newspaper and keep the flyers. FWIW the future of journalism will probably increasingly look like http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/. It's trivia and gossip mainlined straight to the optic nerve. Addictive and profitable? Sure. "Great journalism"? No.
jeffool 14y ago
>Focusing on local news is a necessary but perhaps not a sufficient condition for local newspapers to survive: They don't have a monopoly on any other product, but there's no guarantee they'll be able to survive on that one. I disagree. I think we'll still have local coverage. I just don't think it'll be very in depth for a long time, and it will be very understaffed. (And in case there's any doubt, I mean these statements from a personal, moral standpoint, not an economics one.) My city (Albany, Georgia,)has one supremely dominating TV station, one tiny one, one dominating newspaper, and one that puts out 50 issues a year. The neighboring, largely rural, Worth County, has a news site called WorthIt2U.net Sure, that's an infuriatingly bad name to me, but to the people of the community there, who kinda new AOL, and got faster Internet when it came bundled with their TV and came with their phones? It's where they go. And often times, they beat the larger places to stories that get hits (wrecks, arrests,) because they're local. People have responded. People that stereotypically would be considered as "not online" have a new primary source of local information, it's just ran by a much smaller crowd. What's not able to survive is an old model, and I don't think anyone on HN has a problem leaving behind old models. The only thing missing is this same thing targeting the prime demographic.
- digisth 14y ago
  Local news seems more and more that it's being served by ad-supported local/hyper local blogs and blog aggregators. What used to be the province of ultra thin printed dailies (when I was a kid, many neighborhoods seemed to have one in Brooklyn) is now handled by one and two person operations. Take a look at the blogroll covering neighborhoods in Brooklyn: http://www.brooklynpaper.com/ http://www.brooklynpaper.com/ You've also got aggregatorish/news sites like Nearsay and regionals like Gothamist. They may need local, but it remains to be seen how much local needs them anymore. Certainly, in-depth local reporting is in trouble in this new world, but it's hard to see right now how we'd fund such things. So far, that seems like it'll be covered by large regionals (or bigger), and only when it crosses over with bigger national/regional issues or is sufficiently dramatic/quirky.
  - brandnewlow 14y ago
    And all those sites are struggling and barely making money. It's a tough, tough scene. That's why Gawker pivoted into national news and celeb gossip a few years back. The only way to make lots of money from blog advertising (i.e. enough to support a full-time staff) is to snag national brand dollars. Indi hyperlocals are beloved and do great stuff, but they're replacing companies that used to make millions providing similar services.
    - digisth 14y ago
      Agree completely. The hyperlocals seem like they'll be cost-covering only operations run by what amount to dedicated, self-motivated volunteers. Big wads of cash do not seem to be in their futures anytime soon.
      - jeffool 14y ago
        I agree the money isn't flowing in yet, but I have no doubt it will. That's where my last line about demographics comes into play. It's hilarious/depressing that a generation with the demand for more information than ever before, and the technology to make it happen, is written off. "That group doesn't read news." Sure they do. Just on Twitter or Facebook, or in texts. Also, I wonder if a tv station will ever attempt to contract these sites directly as bureaus. Pay them as a reporter, but let them work for themselves as well. Just demand copyright save a non-transferable license to the reporter. That would give more money, and thus more resources, to a reporter.

by derleth 14y ago

jbarham 14y ago

Celebrity gossip is fungible. E.g., suppose I cared about the gory details of the Cruise/Holmes divorce. A quick search tells me there are almost 2600 articles on Google News for "TomKat". Clearly there is very little incentive to buy a local newspaper when so much information is available for free from so many different suppliers online. Anecdotally, I live in Melbourne and get a weekly local newspaper, but I don't pay for it since it comes with a bundle of advertising flyers. We sometimes glance through the newspaper, but I wouldn't be willing to pay for it. I'll wager that given the choice, most people would rather ditch the newspaper and keep the flyers. FWIW the future of journalism will probably increasingly look like http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/. It's trivia and gossip mainlined straight to the optic nerve. Addictive and profitable? Sure. "Great journalism"? No.

jeffool 14y ago

>Focusing on local news is a necessary but perhaps not a sufficient condition for local newspapers to survive: They don't have a monopoly on any other product, but there's no guarantee they'll be able to survive on that one. I disagree. I think we'll still have local coverage. I just don't think it'll be very in depth for a long time, and it will be very understaffed. (And in case there's any doubt, I mean these statements from a personal, moral standpoint, not an economics one.) My city (Albany, Georgia,)has one supremely dominating TV station, one tiny one, one dominating newspaper, and one that puts out 50 issues a year. The neighboring, largely rural, Worth County, has a news site called WorthIt2U.net Sure, that's an infuriatingly bad name to me, but to the people of the community there, who kinda new AOL, and got faster Internet when it came bundled with their TV and came with their phones? It's where they go. And often times, they beat the larger places to stories that get hits (wrecks, arrests,) because they're local. People have responded. People that stereotypically would be considered as "not online" have a new primary source of local information, it's just ran by a much smaller crowd. What's not able to survive is an old model, and I don't think anyone on HN has a problem leaving behind old models. The only thing missing is this same thing targeting the prime demographic.

digisth 14y ago
Local news seems more and more that it's being served by ad-supported local/hyper local blogs and blog aggregators. What used to be the province of ultra thin printed dailies (when I was a kid, many neighborhoods seemed to have one in Brooklyn) is now handled by one and two person operations. Take a look at the blogroll covering neighborhoods in Brooklyn: http://www.brooklynpaper.com/ http://www.brooklynpaper.com/ You've also got aggregatorish/news sites like Nearsay and regionals like Gothamist. They may need local, but it remains to be seen how much local needs them anymore. Certainly, in-depth local reporting is in trouble in this new world, but it's hard to see right now how we'd fund such things. So far, that seems like it'll be covered by large regionals (or bigger), and only when it crosses over with bigger national/regional issues or is sufficiently dramatic/quirky.
- brandnewlow 14y ago
  And all those sites are struggling and barely making money. It's a tough, tough scene. That's why Gawker pivoted into national news and celeb gossip a few years back. The only way to make lots of money from blog advertising (i.e. enough to support a full-time staff) is to snag national brand dollars. Indi hyperlocals are beloved and do great stuff, but they're replacing companies that used to make millions providing similar services.
  - digisth 14y ago
    Agree completely. The hyperlocals seem like they'll be cost-covering only operations run by what amount to dedicated, self-motivated volunteers. Big wads of cash do not seem to be in their futures anytime soon.
    - jeffool 14y ago
      I agree the money isn't flowing in yet, but I have no doubt it will. That's where my last line about demographics comes into play. It's hilarious/depressing that a generation with the demand for more information than ever before, and the technology to make it happen, is written off. "That group doesn't read news." Sure they do. Just on Twitter or Facebook, or in texts. Also, I wonder if a tv station will ever attempt to contract these sites directly as bureaus. Pay them as a reporter, but let them work for themselves as well. Just demand copyright save a non-transferable license to the reporter. That would give more money, and thus more resources, to a reporter.