L.A. Times drops Jazz Coverage

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

couldnt a few ads pay off teh salary to keep don heckman?

[7/4]

Once upon a time, it would have been natural to see a jazz review in a "popular music" section of a paper (had they existed 50 years ago). Now we want to see it where? In the "serious music" section of the paper?

Its obviously a sad state of affairs when a paper like the L.A. Times essentially stops covering jazz, but does that reflect the state of jazz in the market or the state of newspapers in general?

there was an article in the Business Section of the L.A. Times today (i believe) which was about all the layoffs at the paper in various departments.

Maybe not an example, but a trend:

Christian Science Monitor Ends Daily Print Edition

"The cost-cutting measure makes The Monitor the first national newspaper to essentially give up on print."

Newspaper Circulation Continues to Decline Rapidly

"The long decline in newspaper circulation over the years continues to accelerate, with sales in the spring and summer falling almost 5 percent from the previous year, figures released on Monday show, deepening the financial strain on the industry."

The Media Equation

Mourning Old Media’s Decline

By DAVID CARR

The news that Google settled two longstanding suits with book authors and publishers over its plans to digitize the world’s great libraries suggests that some level of détente could be reached between old media and new.

If true, it can’t come soon enough for the news business.

It’s been an especially rotten few days for people who type on deadline. On Tuesday, The Christian Science Monitor announced that, after a century, it would cease publishing a weekday paper. Time Inc., the Olympian home of Time magazine, Fortune, People and Sports Illustrated, announced that it was cutting 600 jobs and reorganizing its staff. And Gannett, the largest newspaper publisher in the country, compounded the grimness by announcing it was laying off 10 percent of its work force — up to 3,000 people.

Clearly, the sky is falling. The question now is how many people will be left to cover it.

It goes on.

[Guest youmustbe]

We will all get used to it, those of us that are 'old school'. The 'youngsters' won't even know what all the fuss was about.

[Lazaro Vega]

I think the loss is more profound than that, especially as regards Democracy.

[papsrus]

I think the loss is more profound than that, especially as regards Democracy.

Newspapers are being replaced by something better, more relevant.

Us. Here. Now.

That's good for democracy, I think!

[JSngry]

I think the loss is more profound than that, especially as regards Democracy.

Newspapers are being replaced by something better, more relevant.

Us. Here. Now.

That's good for democracy, I think!

Yeah, nothing builds a more perfect union like being the center of your own universe.

[ValerieB]

I think the loss is more profound than that, especially as regards Democracy.

Newspapers are being replaced by something better, more relevant.

Us. Here. Now.

That's good for democracy, I think!

Yeah, nothing builds a more perfect union like being the center of your own universe.

[papsrus]

I think the loss is more profound than that, especially as regards Democracy.

Newspapers are being replaced by something better, more relevant.

Us. Here. Now.

That's good for democracy, I think!

Yeah, nothing builds a more perfect union like being the center of your own universe.

Maybe you missed it. By "Us. Here. Now." I mean the immediacy and interaction of the internet. Instant news. Instant fact check. Real-time dialog (even among people with whom you may disagree ... gasp!). Many more points of view than can be represented in a single newspaper. You might be less informed now than you were from reading your afternoon daily 10 years ago. You'd be in the minority, I'm guessing.

Me, I have access to every latest poll out there, can watch a story break in the morning and be debunked by noon. Engage in discussion in forums like this one. Seems to have a little more depth and immediacy than a newspaper page with 8-hour old stuff in it.

That said, I love newspapers. I work for one. I just don't think they're economically feasible anymore. Advertisers will determine the tipping point.

Edited October 30, 2008 by papsrus

[7/4]

I used to be in the magazine biz. I wonder how much longer it's going to be around.

.

[seeline]

paps, I agree with you in general (on the financial aspects of newspapers), but can't imagine how most elderly people - and people who can't afford internet access - will get local news if small-town papers start going belly-up.

There are so many people who either don't want to be "bothered" with computers, or feel confused by them. What happens to them when their daily print news sources start disappearing?

[7/4]

They watch TV.

[papsrus]

paps, I agree with you in general (on the financial aspects of newspapers), but can't imagine how most elderly people - and people who can't afford internet access - will get local news if small-town papers start going belly-up.

There are so many people who either don't want to be "bothered" with computers, or feel confused by them. What happens to them when their daily print news sources start disappearing?

I would argue that people who rely on their local newspaper as their lone source of information are already at a severe disadvantage in the information age. In any case, the whole thing is driven by advertising, as we all know, and advertisers don't care too much about the elderly or people who can't afford internet access, certainly. The elderly will die off and young people simply do not read daily newspapers. They go online. Online is where the eyeballs are. () ()

The cost of printing and delivering newspapers is considerable and growing. The efficiencies realized by simply going online (both cost efficiencies and in terms increased flexibility in gathering and packaging the news) will be tremendous, once advertisers hit that tipping point. The NYT will someday be online only, I'm certain. They and other news organizations will be healthier for it, and will deliver a much more useful and compelling product. ... One would hope, anyways.

IMO

[Dan Gould]

paps, I agree with you in general (on the financial aspects of newspapers), but can't imagine how most elderly people - and people who can't afford internet access - will get local news if small-town papers start going belly-up.

There are so many people who either don't want to be "bothered" with computers, or feel confused by them. What happens to them when their daily print news sources start disappearing?

I would argue that people who rely on their local newspaper as their lone source of information are already at a severe disadvantage in the information age. In any case, the whole thing is driven by advertising, as we all know, and advertisers don't care too much about the elderly or people who can't afford internet access, certainly. The elderly will die off and young people simply do not read daily newspapers. They go online. Online is where the eyeballs are. () ()

The cost of printing and delivering newspapers is considerable and growing. The efficiencies realized by simply going online (both cost efficiencies and in terms increased flexibility in gathering and packaging the news) will be tremendous, once advertisers hit that tipping point. The NYT will someday be online only, I'm certain. They and other news organizations will be healthier for it, and will deliver a much more useful and compelling product. ... One would hope, anyways.

IMO

My father hates the Times yet continues to read it, and is quite happy being completely unconnected to modern technology (he once asked me, how do you pay to send all those emails?) so I can only say that I hope the tipping point doesn't come til after he's gone.

[seeline]

Newspapers are invaluable for local news, especially for those who live outside of large urban/suburban areas. (Though I have to confess that the only reason i read The Washington Post is because it's D.C.'s local paper!) You know, it's very difficult to get *any* kind of high-speed internet access in a lot of rural areas - there have been some good articles about this recently on Lifehacker.com I know plenty of people who are on dial-up, and I really hope that my next move (early next year) will be to a neighborhood that's got high-speed access.

You have to have some serious bandwidth and speed to read anything other than plain vanilla text online, and that's just not an option for many, many people. (As is, there's only 1 DSL carrier in my neck of the woods - that's a fairly literal description of my immediate locale, BTW. )

Edited October 30, 2008 by seeline

[papsrus]

My father hates the Times yet continues to read it, and is quite happy being completely unconnected to modern technology (he once asked me, how do you pay to send all those emails?) so I can only say that I hope the tipping point doesn't come til after he's gone.

I think so. We're talking decades, not years, I think. But the percentage of revenues from print vs. OL will continue to shift until it is no longer economically feasible to print a paper and deliver it to your doorstep, particularly if you're the only one on your street who's getting it.

[papsrus]

Newspapers are invaluable for local news, especially for those who live outside of large urban/suburban areas. (Though I have to confess that the only reason i read The Washington Post is because it's D.C.'s local paper!) You know, it's very difficult to get *any* kind of high-speed internet access in a lot of rural areas - there have been some good articles about this recently on Lifehacker.com I know plenty of people who are on dial-up, and I really hope that my next move (early next year) will be to a neighborhood that's got high-speed access.

You have to have some serious bandwidth and speed to read anything other than plain vanilla text online, and that's just not an option for many, many people. (As is, there's only 1 DSL carrier in my neck of the woods - that's a fairly literal description of my immediate locale, BTW. )

Maybe there will continue to be a market for local papers in more rural areas long after the big metro dailies go digital. That would be nice.

[Teasing the Korean]

I prefer getting the news online - Pacifica, Salon, Slate, Truthdig, and Propublica, for starters.

Still, seeking out the news online is an active experience. Large, bold headlines in papers that everyone sees, whether they want to or not, is a form of passive news transmission. This shared experience is being lost now, for better or for worse.

[seeline]

I prefer getting the news online - Pacifica, Salon, Slate, Truthdig, and Propublica, for starters.

Still, seeking out the news online is an active experience. Large, bold headlines in papers that everyone sees, whether they want to or not, is a form of passive news transmission. This shared experience is being lost now, for better or for worse.

Ditto for kicking back with the Sunday paper, passing the different sections around - reading the funnies, all of that.

I won't regret losing all that paper, but I definitely will miss the recreational aspect of it all - reading papers online (which is what I've mostly been doing since 2001) just isn't the same.

[Lazaro Vega]

And the localism of, say, a jazz concert happening at a certain venue -- a daily paper can rally a crowd much more effectively than a bunch of on-line sources. The print version of The Grand Rapids Press reaches more households than any single local Internet news site. However, the likelyhood of the paper covering any event with an attendance under 1,000 is getting less and less as they model and more on a USA Today type presentation. It seemed counter-intuitive to go that way, to a more generalized news approach and away from localism, and as far as the arts are concerned that is not a good move. There are some innovative things happening in the local arts scene. For instance a group of church choirs banded together and commissioned a piece from Micheal Abene, I believe it was. The choirs all debuted his work as he toured to their locales, and by having more than one group involved in the commission they could afford it. The paper didn't cover this. Great story. Could have garnered them a lot of good will. There are many members to a choir. In a town whose social fabric is based in the church communities to have ignored this because it wasn't "big" enough from an audience point of view, i.e. stadium concert, was suicide. If there's no talking to a paper, if it is all one way, what can they expect?

A multiplicty of voices encourages Democracy. To have as large and easily accessed a "voice" as print newspapers cut out of the dialogue is not a good thing. That's on the downside of capitalism (for anyone keeping score).

[papsrus]

A multiplicty of voices encourages Democracy. To have as large and easily accessed a "voice" as print newspapers cut out of the dialogue is not a good thing. That's on the downside of capitalism (for anyone keeping score).

Yeah, I agree. But what we're really talking about here is the method of delivery. By eliminating the costly print edition and going 100 % online, your local newspaper may (will, eventually) make more money and thus be able to hire more reporters, cover more events -- in short, become more relevant.

I'm all for print, believe me. I'm also all for saving jobs, and packaging and delivering the news in the way that people and technology demand -- and that means digitally, whether online, over your cell phone, on TV, on your PDA -- whatever. Paper as a method of delivery is a technology that is becoming too costly, slow and irrelevant.

Newspapers will more and more become promotional devices steering people to the internet. Want complete stock listings? Go to our internet site. Want to see video of that controversial town hall meeting from last night? Our internet site has it. And don't forget to leave your comments. Plus, direct email links to all the town councilmen and women.

More relevant, more immediate, more participatory ... maybe even more democratic.

My glass is half full.

Edited October 31, 2008 by papsrus

[Dan Gould]

It has nothing to do with capitalism. Papers that publish online will still do it with the profit motive in mind. Changing attitudes of readers and changing decisions by publishers aren't a reflection of capitalism's perceived deficiencies.

[ejp626]

Yeah, I agree. But what we're really talking about here is the method of delivery. By eliminating the costly print edition and going 100 % online, your local newspaper may (will, eventually) make more money and thus be able to hire more reporters, cover more events -- in short, become more relevant.

... My glass is half full.

I have trouble seeing this, mostly because people have simply refused to pay for on-line content with a handful of exceptions. Far more troubling is that advertisements make up the vast majority of newspaper revenue (not subscribers). And to date, the revenue from on-line advertising is puny in comparison to the revenues these papers are used to getting from advertisers. And whole categories of advertising are migrating to craigslist where it is essentially free. I just don't think there is going to be some sudden sea change where the advertising revenue springs back to pre-internet levels, so I don't see how papers are ever going to be hire again in significant numbers. And this goes back to the sea change in people -- people just do not pay for stuff on-line and feel they have a right to free content, and the younger generation (Gen Y/Z) is even worse than Gen X. It's very hard to see how the genie will go back in the bottle for an awful lot of content-based industries, newspapers included.

[papsrus]

I have trouble seeing this, mostly because people have simply refused to pay for on-line content with a handful of exceptions. Far more troubling is that advertisements make up the vast majority of newspaper revenue (not subscribers). And to date, the revenue from on-line advertising is puny in comparison to the revenues these papers are used to getting from advertisers. And whole categories of advertising are migrating to craigslist where it is essentially free. I just don't think there is going to be some sudden sea change where the advertising revenue springs back to pre-internet levels, so I don't see how papers are ever going to be hire again in significant numbers. And this goes back to the sea change in people -- people just do not pay for stuff on-line and feel they have a right to free content, and the younger generation (Gen Y/Z) is even worse than Gen X. It's very hard to see how the genie will go back in the bottle for an awful lot of content-based industries, newspapers included.

You're right. Online advertising may never match the heyday of newspaper advertising. But newspapers have to deal with the advertisers they have left, primarily real estate, auto, retail, supermarkets, restaurants and the like.

You correctly point to Craigslist as an outfit that siphoned off huge chunks of classified advertising from newspapers. Newspapers will likely never again have the volume of classified ads they once had. Why? Craigslist reached that tipping point, and when they did a mass migration of classified advertising took place very quickly. Newspapers ignored the threat until it was too late.

What to do, what to do? ... Get ahead of the curve with the advertisers you have left. Channel them to your internet site. Partner with some of the big boys like Yahoo. I don't know the marketing game, but there's got to be a million opportunities out there to sell the internet and attract advertisers.

And I wouldn't minimize the cost savings that a newspaper could realize by eliminating the paper edition (which is getting more expensive each year, thus the shrinking of the broadsheet to smaller and smaller sizes that you see taking place everywhere), shutting down printing presses and eliminating delivery trucks, etc.

The shift is inevitable, I think. It's a matter of managing it in way that benefits your business -- the news business.

Then maybe the LAT can afford to rehire a jazz critic. ... Maybe.

[kenny weir]

More relevant, more immediate, more participatory ... maybe even more democratic.

My glass is half full.

As a journalist who has one week left to work on the newspaper for which I have toiled for about 15 years - and the company for which I have worked for 19 years - I, too, am a half-full thinker on these issues.

I'll need to get employed before the golden handshake runs out, but I fully expect that my future will be online, and more than likely with a whole bunch of employers and publications/whatever, rather than a single boss/paycheck.

[papsrus]

More relevant, more immediate, more participatory ... maybe even more democratic.

My glass is half full.

As a journalist who has one week left to work on the newspaper for which I have toiled for about 15 years - and the company for which I have worked for 19 years - I, too, am a half-full thinker on these issues.

I'll need to get employed before the golden handshake runs out, but I fully expect that my future will be online, and more than likely with a whole bunch of employers and publications/whatever, rather than a single boss/paycheck.

Bummer. Sorry to hear about the job. Good things can come out of seemingly bad situations sometimes, right? Fifteen / nineteen years is a pretty good run. I'll have completed 20 years next Aug. 1. ... Hired in 1989. Whew.

Edited October 31, 2008 by papsrus