
Denver Post Rebels Against Its Hedge-Fund Ownership - johnny313
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/business/media/denver-post-opinion-owner.html
======
astura
Since it's the Rockies first weekend at home, the Denver Post ran a "Guide to
Coors Field" story yesterday. Except the story featured a large photo of...
Citizen's Bank Park, which is in Philadelphia. Its an especially embarrassing
mistake because, while it's also a baseball stadium, Citizen's Bank Park is
branded "Phillies" prominently in multiple places.

People were real quick to point out "this is what happens when you fire half
your staff."

The Phillies also couldn't resist a Twitter jab:
[https://twitter.com/Phillies/status/982260422744027139](https://twitter.com/Phillies/status/982260422744027139)

------
bkohlmann
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?

~~~
forapurpose
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....](https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/about-us/trust-
principles.html)

~~~
core-questions
> 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.

------
imagetic
The newspaper is such a pivotal piece of society. It's heartbreaking to go to
a photojournalism conference that used to be 400 newspaper photographers, and
now there's maybe a handful. Everyone is doing editorial or surviving on
grants and corporate work.

I was in journalism school when the industry collapsed. I saw it coming early
on and moved to TV work, an industry that I'm seeing make similar mistakes and
is taking steps towards its own demise. But TV has a lot more money and will
bleed out much slower.

My local paper in unbearable though. So much to the point where if it wasn't
for a cops and courts section there wouldn't be much point to it at all.

But then again, NPR has it's highest ratings ever. So maybe there's some
unknown hope still out there. Radio moved towards digital delivery and
podcasts, but the newspaper is a far more complex problem. I don't think
general society cares about real news anymore. Maybe we just don't have the
attention span for what it takes to matter. I don't see a new medium making a
difference.

~~~
black_puppydog
> But TV has a lot more money and will bleed out much slower.

As someone who's working in the field, would you say that would be a similar
tragedy to the demise of newspapers? I have the impression that TV in general
in the US (and not just local) is no force for good at best, and a propaganda
and pacification machine at worst. Then again I never watched much TV and
never lived in the US.

~~~
grigjd3
There are certainly propaganda machines on American TV, but mostly its just
niche programming and reality tv. I think its more fair to see American TV as
a waste of time.

------
officialchicken
A screengrab, a photo of the editor, and a link to a previous NYT article, but
no external links in the article itself to the Denver Post opinion [0].

NYT supports embedded tweets and photos - so it supports hypermedia, but does
anyone know why there are no external hyperlinks inside articles like this
one? Is the abandonment or rarity of external links the key to newspaper
success?

[0] [https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/06/as-vultures-circle-
the...](https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/06/as-vultures-circle-the-denver-
post-must-be-saved/)

------
nabla9
Newspapers and magazines should come up with digital subscription syndicate
that works like Netflix. You pay $10-15 per month and you can read any article
anywhere. From the local paper to the Economist or Denver Post to other local
papers and Playboy.

~~~
Swizec
The problem is they each want to be this syndicate and don’t want to give up
control to others.

~~~
nabla9
It would not be giving up control. Just billing differently.

They already have print syndication but it's backwards format in digital era.
Instead of users determining what to read, editors pick news from the print
syndication to republish.

------
GiorgioG
As much as I want to blame the hedge fund for running this paper into the the
ground, the reality is the paper was financially dead long before the hedge
fund came along. The hedge fund ultimately prolonged the paper’s life. Short
of a billionaire buying into it as a money losing affair, this paper’s days
are numbered.

~~~
nerdwaller
I have two perspectives on this:

1\. From what I have found, the hedge fund involved is big into distressed
assets. That could mean either trying to turn them around or finding a way to
profit from the eventual house clearing. My guess is the deal was structured
so they could come out ahead in either result.

2\. Being in/from Denver - the post has long just reposted or otherwise used
alternate media to be their sources. Meaning their journalistic side has been
spotty for quite some time.

~~~
lotharbot
as a Denver native, I completely agree with point 2. The post hasn't produced
much quality-original content for quite some time. I can't think of any
specific type of coverage where they provide the best available. They're beat
on national news by national papers, local news by several of our TV stations,
sports by blogs like BSN Denver, and so on. There's nothing right now that
makes me say "I think they could turn it around".

------
otoburb
A Denver Post editorial[1] links to the Digital First Media Workers campaign
site[2] which aims to "win fair contracts with wage increases for the nearly
1,000 Guild-represented employees of Digital First Media."

The campaign site tries to lay out in more detail(s) how Alden Global Capital
is supposedly taking profits from DFM media properties. As majority
shareholders, Alden might be in their rights to do as they see fit, but at
least a pattern of behaviour being called out.

[1] [https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/06/as-vultures-circle-
the...](https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/06/as-vultures-circle-the-denver-
post-must-be-saved/)

[2] [https://dfmworkers.org/about/](https://dfmworkers.org/about/)

------
bartart
The main problem with these newsgroups is that they have _so_many_
competitors. Most people don't want to and don't have to pay to get around a
paywall because chances are someone else offers a similar article for free.
Even for local news you have tv stations, print outlets, and npr. It is a
tough business.

~~~
emodendroket
If you live in a major city, perhaps. I get the town newspaper and there is
plenty of information published there that will never appear anywhere else.

~~~
lb1lf
Yup, same story here in Norway - the smaller a population the paper covers,
the better it does (generally speaking)

I can think of a few reasons why -

a) Local papers have gotten much of their revenue from subscriptions for a
long time; their customers are used to this model.

b) Their ads are local, targeting perhaps a few thousand people at most. That
makes a paper (with high penetration and trust in the target audience) a
viable alternative to Google ads.

c) They provide news which doesn’t have a lot of alternative sources, while
still being of interest to the readers. This encourages readers to keep
subscribing (providing stable income), and the continuing subscriptions
encourages advertisers to keep spending their ad dollars (or kroner, as it
were) on the local paper.

~~~
emodendroket
Things are a little different here, in that many of the small-town (when I say
small-town here I really mean everything other than major cities) papers are
not doing that well and are owned by faraway, faceless national concerns. But
the fact remains that there's not a good replacement (the candidates, I guess,
are Patch and town Facebook groups).

~~~
davidw
I follow the local reporter on twitter, who sits through the entire city
council meeting every time. Except for rare cases, I just don't see volunteers
doing that, because it is a huge time commitment, and while some issues get
people worked up, there is often quite a bit of minutiae (what kinds of signs
are allowed is a recent example).

~~~
emodendroket
That and some of the remarks are, frankly, insipid.

------
oculusthrift
weird how hedge funds are evil yet everyone’s with bezos owning wapo with his
monopoly and 300million dollar contract with the CIA

------
mudil
Facebook and Google control close to 85% of the digital ad market. The rest
15% goes to the content creators and to the journalism. If Google and FB would
not be able to invade everyone's privacy, that would create a level playing
field for national, regional, and specialized media to prosper. But because
they know who you are, they can display an ad for you on any platform, say
Candy Crush Saga. If you are from Denver, here's an ad for a Denver event on
your stupid game. So who needs journalism if an article in Denver Post is on
par to Candy Crush? Who needs quality content on the internet? There is a
reason why there is no VC investment in the content whatsoever. For this
miserable situation thank Google and FB. And say goodbye to your privacy and
to ad-supported quality content.

PS Number of countries are looking into the destruction of the news media by
Google and FB. The most notable is Australian ACCC efforts.
[https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-seeking-views-
on-...](https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-seeking-views-on-news-and-
digital-platforms-inquiry)

~~~
mudil
Newspapers had a double whammy. One was Craigslist. But Craigslist at least
was a new technology compared to the newspaper classified pages. People could
post ads on the spot for free. Better technology, fair competition.

But what Google and FB have done is to learn about people based on their
interests, based on what pages they visited, what newspapers they read, and so
forth. And then GoogleFacebook NSA-type duopoly weaponized that knowledge
against the content creators, and it's now killing the journalism.

~~~
pravda
>the content creators, and it's now killing journalism.

Nah. What has happened is that newspapers have lost their monopoly.

In most markets, there was one newspaper and that newspaper could charge
advertisers far in excess of their costs.

Might as well been printing money with the presses.

Now, their monopoly rents have gone away. Now, they have to earn their money!

Earning money is hard compared to having a monopoly.

~~~
username223
So what's the future of how we keep up with goings-on near where we live,
after local news dies? Random yapping bloggers with Google AdSense? (Talk
about monopoly rents...)

