I just read that and I want to rant and throw things, it's just *wrong*.
Local sports *are* local news, and in particular school sports are very important to the students and parents (each time their angel gets mentioned, that's another half dozen or more copies of the paper sold, and a copy every other day in case the kid is mentioned).
If you just want news stories, there's TV and the Internet ... you buy a local paper to get an entertainment, information package and ads bundle that is focussed on your location. And that includes ads. Sure the syndicated cooking columns and such aren't "news" but they are part of the entertainment package (along with crosswords, astrology etc.) that make it a value proposition and worth someone spending their money on.
And then again it's a product, so you need an advertising team getting in the ads for both the money, and because it's one of the things that people buying the paper are buying it for ... coupons, sales announcements, and just "hi, we're your local bridalwear shop" or "newly opened Chinese takeaway" and "local washing machine repairs".
And you need photographers, layout people, copy editors (to make sure those news stories are spelling the names correctly, blaming the right people, etc.), web editors (as you must have a web presense nowadays) etc. I've a very good friend who lost her copyediting/webeditor job recently and she's certain that there's not a paper within hundreds of miles that hasn't trimmed staff to the bleeding point, so if they have 59 people on salary, then I'd expect at least 55 of them are essential to producing the product (there may be the publisher's son, plus an aging editor who is retiring soon who they keep on at the protest of the beancounters) ... and of course there will be the subscription department, the printers, the delivery people, the accountants and lawyers either on staff or on retainer/contract.
A local paper isn't a purely "iron fist of news" delivery system. Point missed at line 1.
Newspapers will survive as long as they provide a package you can't get anywhere else. Move the reporters into a non-profit company providing stories and you're just making them local branches of Reuters/AP and killing the newspaper.
I think you miss where Shirky is coming from. He's not arguing for the dissolution of the newspaper business; he's trying to figure out a way to save some parts of it. As you say, newspapers will survive as long as they provide a package you can't get anywhere else – and the reason Shirky is writing his post is that the time when the newspapers did provide such a package is already past. And so, they're currently dropping like flies. Go google "newspapers closing" and read any of the first pages of hits if you don't believe me. It's not just the US either. I've done consulting gigs at major Swedish newspapers, and none of them are expecting to have a paper version ten years from now.
Differently put, Shirky is not recommending moving journalists from a classic-style paper to a non-profit organisation. He's recommending moving them from unemployment to a non-profit organisation.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Local sports *are* local news, and in particular school sports are very important to the students and parents (each time their angel gets mentioned, that's another half dozen or more copies of the paper sold, and a copy every other day in case the kid is mentioned).
If you just want news stories, there's TV and the Internet ... you buy a local paper to get an entertainment, information package and ads bundle that is focussed on your location. And that includes ads. Sure the syndicated cooking columns and such aren't "news" but they are part of the entertainment package (along with crosswords, astrology etc.) that make it a value proposition and worth someone spending their money on.
And then again it's a product, so you need an advertising team getting in the ads for both the money, and because it's one of the things that people buying the paper are buying it for ... coupons, sales announcements, and just "hi, we're your local bridalwear shop" or "newly opened Chinese takeaway" and "local washing machine repairs".
And you need photographers, layout people, copy editors (to make sure those news stories are spelling the names correctly, blaming the right people, etc.), web editors (as you must have a web presense nowadays) etc. I've a very good friend who lost her copyediting/webeditor job recently and she's certain that there's not a paper within hundreds of miles that hasn't trimmed staff to the bleeding point, so if they have 59 people on salary, then I'd expect at least 55 of them are essential to producing the product (there may be the publisher's son, plus an aging editor who is retiring soon who they keep on at the protest of the beancounters) ... and of course there will be the subscription department, the printers, the delivery people, the accountants and lawyers either on staff or on retainer/contract.
A local paper isn't a purely "iron fist of news" delivery system. Point missed at line 1.
Newspapers will survive as long as they provide a package you can't get anywhere else. Move the reporters into a non-profit company providing stories and you're just making them local branches of Reuters/AP and killing the newspaper.
no subject
Differently put, Shirky is not recommending moving journalists from a classic-style paper to a non-profit organisation. He's recommending moving them from unemployment to a non-profit organisation.