Views: 926

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's funny to think of it.  I sometimes wonder how long "paper" newspapers will survive. 

  Is the Huffington Post really reliable?  After all as a news source web sight wouldn't they want news papers to vanish to eliminate the competition?

ClarkKent_DC said:

Frightening news for the industry, from The Huffington Post: "Newspapers on Track to Lose $1 Billion in Ad Sales This Year: Poyn...

They're not making up statistics -- they're just reporting on what Poynter found.

He was estimating based on Gannet. In fact the headline said "Newspapers on track to loose 1 billion in add sales this year: Poynter" while the story said "A recent news release by Gannett, which owns USA Today and 81 other community newspapers, suggests that the newspaper industry will lose more than $1 billion in advertising revenue this year." The headline screamed fact, the story stated a possible trend. When the headline says one thing and the story another I'm not sure I should trust either.

I don't see that the headline contradicts the story. "Newspapers on Track to Lose $1 Billion" is describing a trend. 

You don't see a difference between "Newspapers on track to loose 1 Billion" and "Suggest that the newspaper industry will loose more than 1 billion in advertising revenue this year."? The first sentence tells me that newspapers are going to loose 1 billion dollars, the second one tells me that maybe they will loose 1 billion dollars.

I see that both statements are describing a possibility, not a certainty.

Yeah, I agree with CK. "On Track to Lose 1 Billion" is necessarily an estimate, because it's describing future accounting. 

Rall can be a gadfly, but he's pretty spot on here. The only nitpick I'd make is that he criticizes newspapers for kowtowing to advertisers instead of readers -- but it's always been advertising that kept newspapers alive. You can make a chicken and egg argument, but you're not going to survive without healthy advertising.

I enjoy Rall's stuff, but you always have to keep in mind the various axes that he grinds assiduously. 

 I wonder what my Dad would make of the current state of newspapers. That was a man who, in his prime read at least two and as many as five newspapers a day.

Captain Comics said:

Rall can be a gadfly, but he's pretty spot on here. The only nitpick I'd make is that he criticizes newspapers for kowtowing to advertisers instead of readers -- but it's always been advertising that kept newspapers alive. You can make a chicken and egg argument, but you're not going to survive without healthy advertising.

Many (many) moons ago, I worked for Editor & Publisher, the trade magazine that covers the newspaper industry, and was at a symposium about some aspect of the business. One of the speakers was the publisher of the Baltimore Sun, which used to publish two dailies, the Sun in the mornings and the Evening Sun in the afternoons.* 

Eventually, the Evening Sun was killed off and folded into the Sun.  I remember the Sun publisher saying he didn't see the value in having two political cartoonists, specifically saying he'd rather hire another reporter than another cartoonist. Which I saw then, and now, as shortsighted -- you don't have one metro columnist or one editorial writer or one photographer or one sports columnist, so why insist on only one cartoonist?  But that's the way newsroom managers think: A thousand words is worth more than a picture.

* Like I said, many (many) moons ago. 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome!

No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.

SOME ESSENTIALS:

RULES OF THE ROUND TABLE

MODERATORS

SMILIES FOLDER

TIPS ON USING THE BOARD

FOLLOW US:

OUR COLUMNISTS:

Groups

© 2019   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service