Bloodbath at the Enquirer

[mdccclxix]

Actually, I've found our little local paper has decent finds in the classifieds. It's also still the best/only place to get local news stories. The online content is 11/mo. For the same price you get online content and Sat. Sun. papers. 14/mo for online and all week delivery. And none of the online content is free - just the headline and the first sentence, which is always a grabber.

I wonder what the Enquirer thinks people would do if they forced them to pay for all online content in a similar way? Ignore them - but for how long can you if you are interested in local news? If the product has value, you should be able to extract that from the public.

[mdccclxix]

I think they should go to very limited info online if you don't subscribe.

[Joseph]

I stopped reading the Enquirer a few years back when that hack editor put up her article about charging for online readers. It basically equated those of us reading for free to kids on Napster in the 90's. Far too full of herself in my opinion and like many have said, this stuff is always out there if you want it. There's more than one source for things worth reading.

[Cooper]

I used to pay for Baseball Prospectus, but it got to the point where they either passed me by or they changed writer's too often. It felt like every new kid on the block got a job writing there -would stay for 6 months and then move on --they lost their voice --or their voice grew up. Also, there were not near enough good solid articles based on what they knew for sure --they seemed to always try to break new ground without having the basics figured out (you know -i sound like i'm an old man and maybe i am --they passed me by). I do subscribe to Bill James site and i enjoy it, often for it's non-related content than it's baseball related stuff. He's just a good writer. I was a part of espn insider for 26 weeks --that sucked and wasn't worth 1/10th the value charged.
DougDirt - is Baseball America worth the content --i figured you knew more than they did-- well, i know that's true about the Reds-my guess is you need it for the other teams.

[gilpdawg]

I'll pay for content if it's good. I pay for BP, the Play Index, and Sheehan's newsletter.

[IslandRed]

There are a lot of free services out there and if you search long enough, you can probably find what you are looking for somewhere else. But, there is a price to pay for convenience and not having to spend time weeding through stuff that isn't what you are looking for. A few of the educational services I have paid for in the past could have eventually been found for free online, but I didn't want to track down 30 different things to go through and waste time on 20 of them to find the good ones. Some things are worth paying for. I'm not sure most news is these days. I feel a lot more comfortable paying for long-form stories than on "breaking news" types of stuff. Not that I pay for either of them, but if a publication started showing more long-form stories of my interests, I'd pay for that a lot sooner than I would for 9000 "breaking news" stories a month, of which I may read 40 of them that are all about sports.

Good post.

The main thing that concerns me about newspapers going down the drain is this: there might be a lot of free news content out there, but that content still comes from an ecosystem where someone somewhere is being paid to write it. Kill the ecosystem and the content dies with it. Okay, not all content. There will never be a shortage of people who want to write online movie reviews or sports blogs, or lecture people about Washington politics. But real journalism on important local issues? Who's going to be doing that? Who are going to be the watchdogs who are not -- pardon the expression -- also dogs in the fight?

Journalism fails in many ways, large and small, all the time. But I think we'll miss it when it's eventually gone.

[Caveat Emperor]

I stopped reading the Enquirer a few years back when that hack editor put up her article about charging for online readers. It basically equated those of us reading for free to kids on Napster in the 90's. Far too full of herself in my opinion and like many have said, this stuff is always out there if you want it. There's more than one source for things worth reading.

I weep for the death of newspapers in this regard -- the internet is pretty crap at unbiased (or making an effort to be unbiased) coverage of local issues.

[BillDoran]

Good post.

The main thing that concerns me about newspapers going down the drain is this: there might be a lot of free news content out there, but that content still comes from an ecosystem where someone somewhere is being paid to write it. Kill the ecosystem and the content dies with it. Okay, not all content. There will never be a shortage of people who want to write online movie reviews or sports blogs, or lecture people about Washington politics. But real journalism on important local issues? Who's going to be doing that? Who are going to be the watchdogs who are not -- pardon the expression -- also dogs in the fight?

Journalism fails in many ways, large and small, all the time. But I think we'll miss it when it's eventually gone.

Journalism isn't going away. It's a social construct and will always exist. It's a matter of what we want it to look like. The mid-sized cities will be on the vanguard of how we'll determine the next step. The big cities produce national news of value outside their city. The small local papers fulfill a specific niche, and in a way experienced the tumult long ago.

Cincinnati is large enough to require a daily. Enough actions and activities occur that outside reportage simply won't suffice. But as of right now, the support (and frankly, the content) isn't there. What happens when The Enquirer shutters? How do you learn about the streetcar, the local election, the high school scores? I imagine The Enquirer will stick around just enough to fulfill that obligation, but do little more.

We're about to find out what this means to the fabric of our society. There are some really smart guys out there (namely Benedict Anderson) who think newspapers were the galvanizing force of contemporary society and identity. Maybe we're evolved past the stodgy newsprint and the Internet is actually covering precisely what we want and need.

[medford]

I think we've evolved past that. The biggest challenge facing newspapers is that they are no longer anywhere close to the fastest source of news. Think about the 3 major US tragedies in the last 75ish years. Pearl Harbor, while not alive at the time, I imagine most people heard radio reports, but if you were news conscience, you were sure to pick up the paper the next day to read about it. JFK, word got out a little quicker, and you could turn into TV to follow the reports along, but the newspaper was still worthy of reading the next day. 911, you found out almost instantly, all over the radio and you could turn into any TV station and catch live reporting, all day long, for weeks, you may have bought a paper, but it wasn't going to tell you much you didn't already know.

Now think about today, thru twitter or other social media you get the news even quicker, the internet is even bigger than it was in 2001, you can watch live coverage from your phone in most of the US. If something on the level of those 3 tragedies should break, the traditional news paper isn't going to be anywhere close to ground breaking, and most don't have the resources to do any sort of in depth investigation/reporting on the subject.

And that is just major stories that are "must know about", what about everything else? If its national, take your pick, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN you can get coverage anywhere any time. Cruise the web and you can pick up a blog about the subject from wherever your preference. So now that the national stuff is covered, what about the local stuff? More and more often, you'll get more information from various blogs/message boards on local stuff than you will from a newspaper. Who has better coverage on Reds Games, Redszone or the Enquirer? Sure the Enquirer can get you into the clubhouse and talk directly with the players, but with every game being broadcast, Redszone has significantly more voices that can add to the narrative of how the Reds are performing. You get much better analysis here than you'll find anywhere else (though you often have to shift thru the minutia) Want local HS football schools, there are sites that put up the scores for all the games across the state of OH each weekend. Truth is, if you really care about a HS football score, you probably only care about 1 or 2 schools, and I'll bet you can find the student paper online from most high schools in the country these days.

Really, when it comes down to it, the local papers are really only left with niche markets to draw attention to, and generally those niche markets are not going to generate enough diverse interest long term. Having lost classified revenue from ebay, etc... I think its going to be tough for most papers to survive.

[BillDoran]

I think we've evolved past that. The biggest challenge facing newspapers is that they are no longer anywhere close to the fastest source of news. Think about the 3 major US tragedies in the last 75ish years. Pearl Harbor, while not alive at the time, I imagine most people heard radio reports, but if you were news conscience, you were sure to pick up the paper the next day to read about it. JFK, word got out a little quicker, and you could turn into TV to follow the reports along, but the newspaper was still worthy of reading the next day. 911, you found out almost instantly, all over the radio and you could turn into any TV station and catch live reporting, all day long, for weeks, you may have bought a paper, but it wasn't going to tell you much you didn't already know.

Now think about today, thru twitter or other social media you get the news even quicker, the internet is even bigger than it was in 2001, you can watch live coverage from your phone in most of the US. If something on the level of those 3 tragedies should break, the traditional news paper isn't going to be anywhere close to ground breaking, and most don't have the resources to do any sort of in depth investigation/reporting on the subject.

And that is just major stories that are "must know about", what about everything else? If its national, take your pick, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN you can get coverage anywhere any time. Cruise the web and you can pick up a blog about the subject from wherever your preference. So now that the national stuff is covered, what about the local stuff? More and more often, you'll get more information from various blogs/message boards on local stuff than you will from a newspaper. Who has better coverage on Reds Games, Redszone or the Enquirer? Sure the Enquirer can get you into the clubhouse and talk directly with the players, but with every game being broadcast, Redszone has significantly more voices that can add to the narrative of how the Reds are performing. You get much better analysis here than you'll find anywhere else (though you often have to shift thru the minutia) Want local HS football schools, there are sites that put up the scores for all the games across the state of OH each weekend. Truth is, if you really care about a HS football score, you probably only care about 1 or 2 schools, and I'll bet you can find the student paper online from most high schools in the country these days.

Really, when it comes down to it, the local papers are really only left with niche markets to draw attention to, and generally those niche markets are not going to generate enough diverse interest long term. Having lost classified revenue from ebay, etc... I think its going to be tough for most papers to survive.

Good points all, but I suppose I disagree on some level. My primary concern is original reporting, which no doubt can be accomplished by the paid and unpaid alike, but I think the end of many mid-size newspapers will result in a problem covering issues of social import that many don't have the time or inclination to cover, schoolboard and zoning meetings and other small local events that don't engender much public interest, but, I would argue, are of the utmost import in keeping a city functional.

We're about to find out if coverage of these types of events is of social value. Like I said above, I imagine Enquirer-type publications will find their niche in closely covering mayoral elections and keeping folks up-to-date on local civic issues. I think these discussions are vital in establishing successful cities. Perhaps not. Bit scary to think about what elected officials may be able to get away with if there is no one keeping them in-check (as they seem to do a pretty good job at not serving public when scrutinized by a paid press). A volunteer media, which I think you're advocating, is certainly of value, but can and will they provide the day-to-day reportage on civic operations that get overlooked, yet matter greatly?

[Redsfaithful]

This sort of thing is probably the future:

http://columbusunderground.com/

Whether that's good or bad, I really don't know. I've never thought the Cincinnati Enquirer or Columbus Dispatch were exceptional (the two papers I am most familiar with in my life.) I certainly don't think either were populist or serving the best interests of the citizenry.

[paintmered]

I'm still conflicted about Columbus Underground. I discovered it shortly after moving to Cbus and got in the habit of checking it regularly (note: I don't read or subscribe to the Dispatch). It's a good source for local developments and weekend events. Mrs. Paint and I discovered the Moonlight Market through CU. Maybe there's a better source for that kind of thing, but I haven't found it yet.

Beyond this, it has a bad case of drinking the Columbus kool-aid. "Everything is Awesome" from the Lego Movie pops in my head whenever I head over there.



It's hard to find any source, local or otherwise, that isn't pushing an agenda. Especially for no charge.

[Redsfaithful]

That's why I'm kind of apprehensive. I think CU has been doing some lightweight advocacy reporting regarding Columbus City Schools, but they seem much more concerned with being boosters of Columbus than anything else. Columbus needs that, so I'm not bashing them, but I keep hoping it'll evolve into something more comprehensive.

I vended at the Moonlight Market I believe the second or third time they had it - I sell vintage clothing as a hobby. Haven't had the chance to do it again, too busy with main business for side businesses.

[Caveat Emperor]

That's why I'm kind of apprehensive. I think CU has been doing some lightweight advocacy reporting regarding Columbus City Schools, but they seem much more concerned with being boosters of Columbus than anything else. Columbus needs that, so I'm not bashing them, but I keep hoping it'll evolve into something more comprehensive.

I vended at the Moonlight Market I believe the second or third time they had it - I sell vintage clothing as a hobby. Haven't had the chance to do it again, too busy with main business for side businesses.

The term "Advocacy Reporting" makes me cringe.

[Redsfaithful]

The term "Advocacy Reporting" makes me cringe.

Investigative is what I meant, sorry.