The NYT has announced that it’s cutting 500 jobs from its different operations (which are more diverse than just the paper you think of). This amounts to 4% of its overall labor force.
Why?
Because they have fewer readers and fewer profits and so can sustain fewer workers.
Over at Powerline John Hinderaker offers this:
As life-long newspaper junkies, we take no pleasure in the
industry’s current crisis. Apart from anything else, we web-based
commenators need newspapers to produce the raw material for our
commentary. But my sympathy for the Times, the Globe, the Chronicle, et
al. is tempered by the knowledge that there is a path to solvency,
which I think would likely succeed, but that they would never consider:
stop being so liberal. Wouldn’t you think that with newspapers nearly
everywhere sliding inexorably downhill, just one might consider whether
its readers–or former readers–were trying to tell it something? Like,
we’re not interested in supporting far-left nonsense?
But no. They would rather go broke than abandon their reason for
being, which is, with only a handful of exceptions, promoting the
Democratic Party.
Would moderating their hard-left politics help stop the financial
bleeding? It’s hard to say for sure. But don’t you think that if they
were motivated mainly be economics, just one of our major liberal
papers might try it? [SOURCE.]
I agree that stopping being so liberal would help the situation of the major newspapers, and that they’d try it if they were motivated by purely economic considerations, but I don’t think it would fix the situation.
Why?
‘Cause I think newspapers are losing their market for reasons independent of the fact that their political ideology is driving readers away.
Personally, I have no interest in reading newspapers. None. I don’t need any more paper piling up around my house, thankyew. I don’t need burglars knowing that I’m not at home because my sloppy, distracted paperboy keeps throwing papers when I’m out of town. I don’t need anything that the papers have to offer.
Not when I can get it all online.
I can get my news online, read comics online, print coupons online, check movie times online, go to eBay instead of the classifieds. Anything! I can get all of my newspaper-type business done online far faster, cheaper, and more conveniently.
It’s the same reason I don’t watch TV news (except for rare exceptions for major national events like after 9/11 or a presidential election).
If I can get my standard information needs fulfilled online–for free–anytime I want them, then why should I even bother with television, much less something as klunky as a newspaper.
As more people are brought up in the fourth age of human communications, it will be harder and harder for newspapers to have a go of it.
I suspect that they will always exist. There will be a few big ones, probably on the model of USA Today, and there will be lots of little, tiny, local papers, like the weeklies that exist principally to run classified ads and that do a few stories on the side.
But I suspect that within a generation the middle level of papers will simply be gone.
They’ll be yesterday’s news.
What will emerge in their places, I’m not sure. Blogs will be a big part of the picture, but not all of it. Probably the broadcast media will have web sites that provide news, on the model of FOXnews.com or CNN.com.
I’m dubious, though, whether anybody will be able to put together a for-pay online newspaper, not when you have newsgatherers like the broadcast networks wanting to involve people with their web sites so that they can involve them with their TV channels.
The quality of news coverage may suffer, at least for a while.
Ultimately, though, the Internet will serve as a net knowledge gain for society, not a net knowledge loss.
That’s what the fourth age is all about.