Enquirer Layoffs: The Tally So Far

[TeamCasey]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Where did you get that figure?

Seems kinda low, the country is full of people who don't read the news online daily, some folks can't afford access, or equipment, plus that approach also leaves a huge market open, disdaining them seems somewhat short sighted.

My Dad just got rid of his rotary phone.

[SunDeck]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

What I don't get is why most papers do not charge to access their on line version. how do they make money on line? I know there's a little advertising but really, how can on line stuff really be profitable? If they charged for on line access then readers might think twice about cancelling their print subscriptions

I think papers have tried to use whichever method will generate the most revenue. Take the NYT for instance- they provide their content for free, relying on the ad revenue generated on the site. That's why they often make you click through multiple pages to get an entire article; each time you go to the next page you get new advertisements.

My local paper charges a subscription for online access to content but allows access to classifieds for free. They are leveraging the fact that they have a monopoly on the local news to secure revenue, and they are using the free access to classifieds to justify charging more for them. Additionally, they know the comments on the site are popular reading (talk about your small town gossip!) and they keep those behind the subscription gate as well.

From what I understand, newspapers are still not generating a healthy amount of revenue from their online versions, whether they provide content free or not.

[vaticanplum]

Originally Posted by oneupper

It doesn't help that newspaper holding companies, like Gannett (US Today), McClatchy, NYTimes and of course the Tribune Co, have leveraged themselves up so much that they have left no room for error or a downturn.

Some of these newspapers are still cash flow positive and could be downsized slowly to match a (slowly) shrinking demand. However, the need for cash is driving the industry transformation at a very fast clip.
This kind of disruption is painful, from an economic and a human standpoint. Resources don't get re-deployed quickly.

What were these guys thinking? That they could milk these cows forever?

I have to agree with this. I don't buy into the mentality that the death of the newspaper is bad if it has brought it upon itself. I read the newspaper EVERY day. I'm something of a luddite. I really cling with nostalgia to things like newspapers, heavy books, records, what-have-you. I would feel sad if we lost daily papers and I think it would be criminal not to at least have that as an option. That said, I don't think it's inherently criminal that 10-15% of the population or whatever is reading the paper.

The Enquirer is a terrible paper and getting worse by the day. Its standards are in freefall, no doubt in part because it's understaffed at this point, and the outsourcing has taken a toll. This is in no way a knock against the many wonderful people who work there (one of whom is a relative of mine, who was kind of screwed over for years before finally taking a package last fall). And I feel awful for the people who are getting laid off, and I mourn the loss of a profession they've put so much into and on an individual basis have no doubt done very well. I just have a hard time feeling sympathy for the conglomerate itself, which has fallen victim to the economy but also to its own greed and poor choices. In a world in which there are so many new ways to get news, you have to get better at how you present it, not worse. The only reason the music industry didn't die in the face of its initial resistance to the internet is because there was still good music to be had.

I like holding a newspaper in my hands more than most, I suspect. But I think I'd rather not hold one than hold a bad one.

[cincrazy]

I picked an awful time to graduate with a degree in public affairs journalism.

Newspapers are dying. Browsing through the job market, you can see as much. The Seattle Post Intelligencer closed, the Rocky Mountain News closed, and so on and so forth. The newspaper in my hometown of Springfield, Ohio might as well be closed. Most of their main offices have moved to Dayton, and the paper itself comes closer every day to matching the OSU student paper The Lantern in terms of length.

It's depressing for me. I worked for the student paper at OSU and I loved it. And I would love to make a career out of it. Unfortunately, that's not very realistic.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

The Enquirer is a terrible paper and getting worse by the day. Its standards are in freefall, no doubt in part because it's understaffed at this point, and the outsourcing has taken a toll.

The large mass-media corporations don't care about producing a good newspaper, they care about producing a profitable newspaper. If the newspaper isn't profitable enough, they cut costs to increase profit margins.

At least when things were locally owned there was an owner in town who took the paper every day or watched the news every night and might have some personal pride invested in making it worth reading or worth watching.

Now, the Enqurier is just another row on Gannett's balance sheet.

[Strikes Out Looking]

Here's my story on the newspaper industry. I'm an attorney who deals with some issues that journalist deal with. I used to work for the government, six years ago I started out on my own in a solo practice. I mistakingly thought that one source of clients would be newspapers/media.

I found out that they wouldn't use my services because when they did use the services of an attorney who did what I did, they used their big law firm that handled all their matters. Of course, they didn't pursue these types of actions very much because they found it too expensive (because they used a big law firm that threw lots of associates at it to drive up the bill). While I know get calls from the media for quotes on stories, I still don't have any as clients (I've done well with others so I'm ok).

The way I see it is that newspapers still look at they way they do business inside the box that was created 25 years ago. Until they figure out new ways to do things, they will continue to go away.

I however will continue to take a paper (currently the Washington Post) as long as they print box scores--nothing is better than having that sheet in front of you with a cup of coffee. That is heaven that can't be replaced by a computer.

[reds1869]

I stopped reading the Enquirer due to its poor standards and switched to reading the Wall Street Journal every day. For those of you that have never given it a shot, you should. There is more interesting and relevant reporting in one issue than there is in a whole month of most major dailies. It is not just about business and does not have as much of a rightist slant as it is given credit for.

[vaticanplum]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

The large mass-media corporations don't care about producing a good newspaper, they care about producing a profitable newspaper. If the newspaper isn't profitable enough, they cut costs to increase profit margins.

Exactly. My point is that those things aren't mutually exclusive. This isn't the case for every product, but if a paper isn't good, it ultimately won't be profitable. Now more than ever -- there are just too many other places to get news now.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by cincrazy

I picked an awful time to graduate with a degree in public affairs journalism.

Newspapers are dying. Browsing through the job market, you can see as much. The Seattle Post Intelligencer closed, the Rocky Mountain News closed, and so on and so forth. The newspaper in my hometown of Springfield, Ohio might as well be closed. Most of their main offices have moved to Dayton, and the paper itself comes closer every day to matching the OSU student paper The Lantern in terms of length.

It's depressing for me. I worked for the student paper at OSU and I loved it. And I would love to make a career out of it. Unfortunately, that's not very realistic.

I was a junior in undergrad pursuing journalism back in 2003, and I saw the death of newspapers beginning back then. I made the decision back then while I still had some time left in school to sort of broaden my degree focus a bit and take classes pertaining to other talents I had, and it's ultimately worked out very well. I still use writing as a base, but I've combined it with other talents in my current career.

If you have legitimate writing talent, you'll be ok. You'd be surprised how many poor writers exist in the business world. Good organizations recognize outstanding writing talent when they see it and you should be able to see some opportunities.

[BCubb2003]

What kind of newspaper would RedsZoners design? What would meet your needs? If it were on paper, what would it be like? If it were only online, what would it be like?

[savafan]

I love newspapers, especially when I'm visiting other cities, but it seems like anymore, I can get better news from blogs and social network tools like Twitter.

[reds1869]

Originally Posted by BCubb2003

What kind of newspaper would RedsZoners design? What would meet your needs? If it were on paper, what would it be like? If it were only online, what would it be like?

The traditional newspaper is ideal for me; the quality of writing at most major dailies is not. Many papers are written on to serve a 7th-8th grade reading level. This does not appeal to me and hence I seek out papers written for adults.

I also feel that modern newspapers should focus on analysis as most of us already know of the events being recounted by the time they hit the printing press.

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by reds1869

I stopped reading the Enquirer due to its poor standards and switched to reading the Wall Street Journal every day. For those of you that have never given it a shot, you should. There is more interesting and relevant reporting in one issue than there is in a whole month of most major dailies. It is not just about business and does not have as much of a rightist slant as it is given credit for.

I totally agree. The WSJ is packed with interesting news and it even carries a sports page (literaly one page) now. It covers the news period, not just business matters.
I could easily violate board rules with this comment, not that it is my intent, but reds1869 is also correct IMO regarding its news slant. Its editorial page is clearly conservative, but as I understand it the editorial department is separate from the news department, and the latter appears to me to be pretty much middle-of-the-road and about as straight as you could hope for. All the WSJ needs now is a good comics page, with someone persuading
Bill Watterson to start up "Calvin & Hobbes" again.

[RosieRed]

Originally Posted by savafan

I love newspapers, especially when I'm visiting other cities, but it seems like anymore, I can get better news from blogs and social network tools like Twitter.

Can you provide links to some blogs you read that have original reporting? I'm always curious to see those, and I myself don't come across them very often, unless they are extremely focused niche news blogs.

And what kind of news do you get from Twitter?

[savafan]

Originally Posted by RosieRed

Can you provide links to some blogs you read that have original reporting? I'm always curious to see those, and I myself don't come across them very often, unless they are extremely focused niche news blogs.

And what kind of news do you get from Twitter?

Depends on who you follow on Twitter, but, as an example, news of Michael Jackson's death hit Twitter and TMZ before any of the major news media had picked up the story. I got word on my cell phone before anything was ever reported on TV.

As for blogs, I primarily go to sports related blogs, but Drudge does tend to break a lot of news before it hits anywhere else.