
When newspapers are gone, what will you miss? - ph0rque
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/01/when-newspapers.html
======
manmanic
The only newspaper I would miss is The Economist - global, comprehensive,
opinionated (for good or bad), analysis in depth. But I won't have to miss it,
since The Economist is doing very well, probably for precisely the same
reasons that so many people like me would miss it...

~~~
biohacker42
The Economist is doing well I believe, as is the Atlantic monthly.

People are willing to pay for quality opinion.

People are also willing to pay for late breaking news from the AP and
Bloomberg.

In addition to the option of paying for late breaking news, TV and radio both
give it away for free.

The papers are just middle men. They add nothing of value to the AP feed that
they just regurgitate.

And their editorial work is not anywhere near as good as that of the Economist
or the Atlantic.

 _They add nothing of value._

~~~
lliiffee
It is oversimplistic to say that papers add nothing of value. Surely you admit
that the NYT, Wash. Post, and WSJ do original investigative research? Others
papers sometimes do this also, although this seems to be decreasing. Everytime
I visit my hometown in flyover country, I am frightened by how worthless the
local paper has become. But there was a time, not long ago, when that paper
had a staff in most major cities around the world. I assume that we are simply
missing stories that would otherwise have gotten broken with more feet on the
ground. (We don't realize we're missing them since we are missing them...)

Maybe the economist et al. are adding staff, but I suspect there are simply
many fewer total investigative journalists, and so less investigative
journalism. Maybe if the Chicago tribune hadn't cut so much, they would have
broken the Blagojevich story instead of the FBI?

~~~
anamax
> Maybe if the Chicago tribune hadn't cut so much, they would have broken the
> Blagojevich story instead of the FBI?

The Trib did break the Blago story - the FBI wanted to keep it under wraps for
a while because they didn't have all the goods. The Trib wanted to sell papers
today.

The Trib has had decades to address Chicago corruption. They didn't do it when
they had lots more resources, so it's silly to think that they'd do it now if
they still had those resources.

------
Locke
I'll miss the quiet "me time" of reading the newspaper in pyjamas in the
morning, or at a restaurant on my lunch break (not in pyjamas).

I'll miss the local sports coverage, box scores, etc. All of this is online,
more or less, but it's just not the same.

I'll miss the local news. Our local newspaper plays a valuable role as
watchdog. They recently brought down a corrupt mayor, for example. But even
the mundane news is useful: road construction, a new restaurant opening,
what's playing at the local theatre, etc.

But, I was raised in a home where both my mom and dad read the newspaper
everyday. So, I've been reading the newspaper for almost my entire life.
Whenever I move, I leave one local newspaper behind and start reading a new
one. It gives me a sense of place. A sense of community.

So it's hard for me to imagine a world without newspapers. Sadly, it appears
to be inevitable. My local paper recently announced that they'll be cutting
home delivery to 3 days per week...

~~~
davi
Re: local news, here's an example of a local paper doing quite nicely:

<http://www.7dvt.com/about-us>

Like your local paper, this one isn't a daily. I think this could be a trend.
Local papers will be weeklies, and they'll continue to exist. The switch from
daily to weekly will be stressful.

(Related submission to HN, didn't get traction when posted, but gives a little
more context: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=431498>)

------
cchooper
I'm not confident that blogs will replace professional commentators. I don't
know any blogs that have the same kind of quality as the Financial Times
comment section (except Willem Buiter's, which the FT publishes). The same
goes for something like The Economist. These people are paid to write, and
given budgets that allow them to research stories. They are a world away from
unpaid blogging.

~~~
maurycy
And there's also a fear factor. If you're alone guy, how can you fight against
big corporation that is able to spend millions on lawyers?

~~~
jonas_b
However, I think it's more likely that someone in the possession of whistle
blower information would contact a prominent blogger than some hot shot
Pulitzer-prize winning investigative journalist at NY Times.

Also if there are a lot of bloggers out there, chances are greater that
"someone" would feel that they have so little to to lose and lots to win from
breaking a controversial story, even though some company would sue them.

------
mynameishere
_What's left is local news, investigative journalism and intelligent coverage
of national news. Perhaps 2% of the cost of a typical paper._

I'd like to see a citation on that "2%". I don't believe it.

What will we miss? Obviously, the basic reportage function of newspapers is
what we'll miss--the boring research, interviewing, verifying, and so on. This
is something that bloggers cannot reproduce without a news infrastructure and
being on salary.

~~~
lliiffee
2% seems to me laughably low. I would think it is something like 50%. It might
take up 2% of the _space_ of a paper, but the reasons we will miss it is
because no one else appears ready to do it. Why not? Expense.

~~~
Alex3917
How many investigative journalists do you think the NY Times employs? IIRC
they have about 800 employees, so maybe 100 tops. Let's say the cost of
employing them is 20M per year. Last year the NYT made 6 million on revenue of
748 million, which means their costs must be 742 million. This makes Seth's
numbers roughly correct.

~~~
lliiffee
You seriously believe that 98% of the NYT expenses are consumed by movie
reviews, the crossword guy, and David Brooks? Anyway, the fact is, Seth pulled
that number out of his ass, and that is irresponsibly sloppy at best. (And,
ironically, an excellent example of the kind of thing editors and fact-
checkers are for...)

~~~
anamax
> You seriously believe that 98% of the NYT expenses are consumed by movie
> reviews, the crossword guy, and David Brooks?

You're forgetting the actual paper and the cost of distributing it.

We know the revenues (roughly) and that the expenses are about the same. How
many actual investigative reporters do you think that the NYT has? Multiply
that number by your guess of their average burdended cost and compare that to
the total expenses.

My guess is that the NYT has at most 30 investigative reporters and they cost,
on average, $200k/year. That's $6M. If there are actually 100, that's $20M.

~~~
lliiffee
Frankly, you are also forgetting about the actual paper and cost of
distributing it! I can believe your kind of calculations only in the context
of a plausible accounting for all NYT expenses. With out factoring management,
lawyers, plane tickets, real estate, etc., you will be way off.

BTW 30 is absurdly low. The NYT has more than 30 _offices_!

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_empl...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_employees)

~~~
Alex3917
According to Wikipedia the Times only has 350 writers total. It's clear that
the majority of these are not doing investigative journalism, they are
following the candidates around and rewriting press releases and such. I don't
see how the number of actual investigative journalists could possibly be more
than 100.

~~~
mynameishere
<http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=NYT>

Full Time Employees: 10,231

The question isn't "writers" but all of the employees involved in actual news
creation. I have no idea what it might actually be, but a 1:10 ratio between
"operatives" and "support staff" is my guess.

------
Tangurena
I'll miss the attention to local politics. Not everyone who runs for office is
honest - as the bush administration showed us. For local politics, the only
attention comes from local newspapers - unless there has been some outrageous
behavior so bad that the stink can be smelled hundreds of miles away.

There are some local issues I care about. Enough to make me run for office.
These issues would get lost in the noise if I only had national media
available. And that the folks who blog about some of them, well, they tend to
be single-issue-cranks who only care about their own spin on things.

disclaimer: I ran for election this past November and lost. My estimate is
that less than 1 in 1000 Americans ever run for political office at any time
during their life.

------
mdasen
Being able to read news on the subway where there is no wireless access for my
phone.

Getting a wider net of news. Maybe others read more broad news online, but
mine tends to be filtered down a lot and so I lose out on certain local
stories and stories that I might not otherwise be interested in, but seem
worth reading after I've read them as a captive audience of their editing.

~~~
jsteele
look into caching rss readers. They're very nice.

------
foulmouthboy
I'll miss actually holding a newspaper in my hands. Folding it into the
perfect size. Tossing a particular section over to somebody within my vicinity
with articles circled. I'll miss ripping articles out and putting them on the
fridge or a cork board. I'll miss taking silly putty, pressing it up against
the sunday funnies and reading it off of the pink blob. I'll miss sharing a
newspaper with somebody on the bus after I'm done with it. There's a bonding
that happens when you're able to leave information with somebody else in a
truly tangible manner.

There's a whole cognitive aspect to newspapers that Seth is deliberately
ignoring. Maybe it's nostalgia, but still. That's what I'll miss.

------
gnaritas
Won't miss anything, haven't picked up a newspapers in years.

~~~
justindz
Likewise. I kind of felt like saying "I'll miss all the same stuff I missed
already 10 years ago, like investigative reporting." But now I can't even
remember if they were doing that 10 years ago.

~~~
gnaritas
Actually, I do know one thing I'll miss... I'll miss the cheap packing
material for my dishes when I move.

~~~
justindz
I grew up with the family tradition of wrapping gifts in the comics sections.
The kids would actually unwrap the gifts and then read any comics that were
still legible too, haha.

------
tom_rath
I'll miss settling down in my favourite pub with a weekend edition full of
analysis and commentary from people who are truly experts in their fields.

Casually reading a broadsheet on a Sunday afternoon is a decadent pleasure
(pretty-much gone now that many newspapers have moved to a smaller format) and
I will truly miss it.

------
maurycy
Hmm... I guess that newspapers' collapse means mostly lack of deep analysis in
one place; instead, you'll have to find them in many blogs, and sometimes it
is hard to either find them or evaluate their credibility.

There's also a personal bit. My mother used to work for a small local
newspapers for many years; she's not working there anymore but somehow I felt,
especially in the small communities, newspapers integrated the people and them
more aware about the local events.

------
teuobk
I will miss the serendipitous discovery of information gained by casually
browsing a newspaper. Kind of like reading a social news site. I rarely pick
up a paper to read a particular article; I read for the sake of reading.

However, I disagree with the underlying assumption: newspapers are not going
to go away completely. Instead, the industry will become strongly segmented
into hyperlocal and national divisions.

Hyperlocal papers (the myriad 20k-circ dailies and weeklies) are doing great
right now, primarily because they provide coverage of news and events that
isn't available anywhere else.

A handful of national papers will survive, too, in order to satisfy those who
still enjoy getting national news from dead trees (a segment that, while
shrinking, is unlikely to completely disappear). My money is on The Wall
Street Journal, USA Today, and perhaps The New York Times weathering the
storm.

Mid-level papers, on the other hand, are doomed. They are the "mushy middle,"
satisfying nobody's needs well.

I used to work at a newspaper, and I feel sentimental about them, but emotion
does not change business reality.

------
puzzle-out
Despite the financial weaknesses, Seth ignores one reason why newspapers
remain valuable: influencing opinion. Look down the ownership of significant
papers - it does not matter if they cost money, as long as they create
goodwill / influence opinion in favour of their owning tycoon's other
businesses and activities. Their readership figures may be dropping generally,
but if you go to important opinion forming places - parliament's private
chambers, college common rooms - there remains a vibrant newspaper reading
culture.

------
gills
There seems to be some confusion between the concept of 'newspapers' and 'news
printed on paper.' This post jumps between talking about gasping for air under
huge debt and tree farmers going out of business.

The only thing I will miss from 'news printed on paper' is the crossword
puzzle. My grandmother would miss the obituaries.

I am confident that the news organizations which do a good job of keeping
government in check will survive, though the delivery medium will likely
become entirely electronic.

------
wensing
I work at a newspaper. If they do it right, they won't be gone, they'll just
adapt.

~~~
mainsequence
What is "right", moving online, incorporating bloggers, interactive visuals?
(legitimately curious)

~~~
wensing
Get small fast, hire hackers, leverage your position as a middle-man between a
local audience and local businesses online, and capitalize on the decades of
valuable content sitting in your archives. Forget breaking news in print,
focus on investigative stories that no one else is going to do but some will
pay for. Reduce your publishing cycle to one or two times a week. Adopt a
"can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality when it comes to Craigslist and other
local competitors. Launch your own local self-serve ad network. Map your area
to an insane depth and resell that content to local businesses and utilities.
Watch what Google is doing with Google Local and Street View, mimic and
surpass.

All of this is possible, but the change is so dramatic that most newspapers
will not do it or will go into shock and instead of focusing on long-term
recovery will destroy the one asset they have (a local audience) by adopting
fast-money tactics (obnoxious banners and spammy marketing).

~~~
fatty
can i pick you to be on my team?

~~~
wensing
Our team is hiring: <http://djangogigs.com/gigs/468/> :-)

~~~
jimbokun
"Experience with Smalltalk or a dialect of Lisp a plus."

Clever filter :).

------
sown
I already miss watching my grandma do the crossword and crypt-o-quip puzzles.
:`(

------
davepeck
I don't know; when books are gone, what will you miss?

Or: when vinyl is gone, what will you miss?

Etc.

------
rokhayakebe
Seating on a porch and spreading a crisp newspaper with my two hands while
sipping on a hot coffee. That I will miss, but certainly not the content.

~~~
danohuiginn
That's quite some maneuver. Do you have a tail?

~~~
rokhayakebe
There is nothing like it on a sunday morning. Specially if you have a nice
view (which I do not have).

------
diN0bot
perfectly sized and flexible dog poop bags.

relaxing morning read without getting sucked into internet. i still prefer the
multiple perspectives and interaction i get from web 2.0 news, but i can
imagine the nostalgia for simpler, more passive times :-)

also, nytimes is really annoying to read online because i have to find login
info.

~~~
p858snake
If your using Firefox just use the bugmenot addon so you just have to right
click on the username field.

------
gcheong
Being able to go around to my co-workers desks and get old WSJs to use as bird
cage liner.

------
jamesbritt
The serendipity of browsing for one thing and reading something else.

------
Maascamp
Research and less bandwagon reporting.

------
TweedHeads
sunday funnies

~~~
mechanical_fish
Not unless they bring back gigantic Winsor McKay-style full-page
illustrations. Or long-form Will Eisner-style comic tales. Otherwise I'll read
'em online. Small one-to-five panel jokes work just as well online.

The last comic I can remember that tried to take any real advantage of the
print medium was _Calvin and Hobbes_.

~~~
eru
How?

~~~
spc476
Watterson convered this in some of Calvin and Hobbes reprint books, but
basically, a Sunday strip is at most 12 panels (call it 12 units) long. By
modern convention, you have a 4-unit title panel, a 2 unit panel with a single
throw away joke (or two 1 unit panels with a throw away joke), leaving 6 units
left for the main Sunday joke.

A newspaper then has several options for displaying the Sunday comic. They can
run the full 12 units. They can eliminate the 4-unit title and run 8 units.
They can also substitute the 4-unit title for a 1-unit title and run a 9-unit
strip. They can drop the 2 unit throw-away joke for a 10 unit strip. They can
drop the title and throw away joke for a 6 unit strip (smallest they can run).

After Watterson's sabbatical in the early 90s (I think it was 1990), he fought
for a full 12-unit (in a 4x3 layout), and won (since his strip was so
popular), in which he was able to work without any constraint. He could
basically do a huge 1-unit Sunday strip, or a 24 small panel strip, or strips
without panels, or what ever he felt was needed for the Sunday strip. The
artwork for the late Calvin and Hobbes Sunday strips was phenomenal and
probably nothing like it had been seen for 60 or 70 years (and nothing like it
since).

~~~
eru
Thanks. I remember.

But didn't he remove a special limitation of newspapers instead of exploiting
a special feature?

