http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2009/01/26/daily23.html?ana=e_du_pap
You don't hire one of these guys if you are swimming in $$$$$
I'd feel sorry for some of their employees, but you wouldn't find me shedding a tear for the Times-Union. The Daily Record and the Biz Journal are obviously a much smaller niche, but frankly, their journalism is already 10x superior to the TU.
If a bankruptcy were in the cards for the TU, the fallout would be interesting. Would a smaller paper expand their content and service? Would another Florida paper expand into Jax? Would the national papers like US Today and the Wall Street Journal be sufficient to fill in the gap? Or perhaps no one would fill the gap, and everyone would keep fleeing newspapers to TV and the internet.
I think it's valid to question whether anyone even needs a paper like the TU anymore. It's not like reprinting yesterday's AP wire is a very valuable service. Or printing other content that's all available on the internet for free. All the local news is covered so much better by TV news and the niche papers anyway.
QuoteThe company lost $163.2 million in the quarter ended Sept. 30, compared to income of nearly $5 million in the same period in 2007, according to its latest earnings report with the SEC.
Metro Jacksonville is more profitable than the Times Union now.
Quote from: Joe on January 28, 2009, 03:57:10 PM
I think it's valid to question whether anyone even needs a paper like the TU anymore. It's not like reprinting yesterday's AP wire is a very valuable service. Or printing other content that's all available on the internet for free.
Indeed. Very prescient point about 'reprinting yesterday's AP wire.' With the maturity of all things Internet, newspapers in general have been facing extinction for quite some time. Why, indeed, would I want to read about something that happened today in tomorrow's newspaper, when I can read it in much-more-closer-to-real-time online?
The immediate viable option is for the newspapers to charge for access to their sites. However, when there are literally hundreds and probably thousands of other media outlets online, is *that* even worth the effort? Probably not.
We're in the middle of a paradigm shift. Just like horse-and-buggie manufacturers faced the paradigm shift of the public towards the automobile. IMO, it's
that revolutionary.
Do you mean sites such as this?
Citizen journalism instead of yesterday's AP wire?
Times-Union aside, I think people often overlook just how much of the news and information available on the internet originates from a print source. Some of the most popular "news" destinations on the internet -- Drudge, DailyKos, Digg, Reddit, Huffington Post -- are simply aggregate sites largely linking back to digital versions of print stories. Citizen journalism absolutely plays a vital role in America, but it can't replace a legitimate newsroom. When I pick up a good local paper with a proven history, nothing matches that authority and trust. I'm fully confident that the reporter in question is properly trained and without an agenda. Best case scenario, I know, but I'll take five seasoned, proven, full-time print journalists over 100 well-meaning bloggers who don't identify their real names and can't differentiate news from opinion.
The irony, of course, is that this topic wouldn't even exist without the original link to a print source.
News isn't free. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars annually to feed the news cycle. Newspaper sales are what brings in the revenue. Even more importantly, advertisements in newspapers make the news cycle spin. Print advertisements still command more money than any other type -- much, much more than internet ad rates -- but without the eyes on the newspapers and with belts tightening everywhere, that revenue is drying up.
When you buy a newspaper, you are at the very least supporting journalism in America and helping to pay the salaries of those in the newsroom. When you get your news for free on the internet, you are contributing nothing but a few paltry click-throughs and ad views. The more people who rely solely on the internet for their news, the more newsrooms will be closed and the crappier top-notch journalism in America will become. It's not a call to action either way, but simply the reality of the situation. Music, television, and Hollywood find themselves in similar situation. It doesn't matter how respected or acclaimed you are, if the money isn't coming in, it's over.
At the end of the day, print journalism is the very backbone of citizen journalism. It's something that can be referenced, from now until forever, as credible fact, supported by the institute and professional editorial board standing behind it. Unless something comes from a legitimate print source or its respective website, there is always going to be an asterisk next to it, deserved or not. How many eyerolls does the opening phrase, "I read on the internet today..." usually get in serious discourse? Print newspapers, magazines, journals. These things are just such an incredibly important part of our society.
THIS is where that god awful bailout money should be going.
How money newspapers could be kept afloat or subsidized for what just one of those fancy Wall Street jets cost taxpayers? A conflict of interest, yes, but I'm sure a workaround would have been possible.
With that being said, if the Times-Union does go under, it certainly made its own bed.
Here comes the ORLANDO SENTINEL !
Ya have to confess that once abandoned, we can knock down that building (like the rest of downtown) and make a dandy Pocket Park.
Another idea would be to take the whole area and turn it into a surface parking lot for the Skyway station across the street. The one we won't even build until there is no longer anything on the North end of Riverside.
I can't wait.
OCKLAWAHA
Ken, you certainly raise many valid points. I especially agree that bloggers cannot replace print media, nor will they.
However, don't think that internet news necessarily needs to be reliant on mainstream print media. What the internet does is allow TELEVISION news to enter the written world. They write out their stories and archive them online. This allows purely "internet" sources to function without the theoretical need for print. Indeed, when I get my news online, it's just as likely to be from a TV website as a newspaper website.
In the past, newspapers have been somewhat protected by obscure legal rules. Local newspapers and local television stations couldn't be owned by the same company. Well, the internet is like a big legal loophole that lets television companies enter the world of written content. I think that's a part of the reason you are seeing such a huge print decline. It's not just that there's a new media, it's also that this new media allows for direct competition from a segment of the business that the local print media had been protected against.
When the T-U recently revised its web site, I corresponded with its web master about the mess it had become and their many missed opportunities. Many local features like letters to the editor and editorials where next to impossible to find. They also have made the archive search more clumsy. The site index is buried at the bottom of the site requiring a lengthy scroll to access. The site is so cluttered with nonsense, its hard to find the real meat anymore. Most of the "lead" articles are now fluff and "human interest", not hard core news.
Just like I posted with Metro Jacksonville's feedback section, I reminded the T-U that its most valued readers should be those engaged in the community and that the T-U needed to emphasize more the happenings of consequence in our local community. The T-U is not going to make it by posting photos of bar promotions and concerts or prioritizing crime stories, accidents, and police blotters happenings (the TV stations have pretty much already over killed this).
The T-U's opportunity is its strengths. Its ability to present detailed and thoughtful pieces on city government, local businesses and sports, major community and complex issues, historical context and retrospectives, local culture and happenings, etc. And, as stephendare noted, the T-U has failed to exploit the mother load of history and information in its archives not available anywhere else. It can't and shouldn't waste time covering a lot of cutesy trivia or national issues (except as to how they impact us or appear locally) as these are better covered by specialized or national media or internet sites.
Bottom line, if I were publisher of the T-U, I would strip it down to my unchallenged and unique strengths - the ability to cover First Coast news and issues in detail, context, and analysis like nobody else including the TV stations. Such articles do not require being the first to press as they are less time sensitive - the T-U will never win the speed war over TV and internet. Everything else is, or will be, lost to others that the T-U will not be able to trump. Such a change may result in the T-U being no longer thought of as a "mass" market medium, but what good is it to be mass market if it isn't profitable? [Note: See the NY Times or Wall Street Journal models where they remain true to their strengths.]
Although there may be fewer readers, a more focused T-U will reach a higher quality engaged audience that no one else can match. With this, the T-U will have less expenses and higher revenue per reader because they will be more valuable to advertisers and this will greatly improve its opportunity to return to profitability.
P.S. As mentioned by Joe in a previous post above, the Daily News and Business Journal are demonstrating well the point I am trying to make. The Daily News does a far better job overall covering city, state, and school government happenings and the Business Journal the same with local business coverage. Add articles of the sort run by Metro Jacksonville that never appear in the T-U, and the T-U is getting beat at its own game!
--------------------------------------------------
It would be a major loss to our community to lose the T-U and we should all hope it remains viable. If it fails, the next best scenario I can see, would be either a local entrepreneur with a more focused vision per the above relaunching it or a national media company distributing its existing national news product in a pairing with a locally produced section, per the above suggestion.
(http://i29.tinypic.com/zja3o2.jpg)
THOUGHT?
What if a really hip person was to haul in an old STEAM PRINTING PRESS? It's not just the steam press, but the whole show, press, office, clothes, gifts, coffee, type setters, loperators, boiler tender, layout, steampunk shirts, art, gallery...EVERYTHING! All of this in plain view - the Krispy Cream of the media.
Everything but the year 2009/10.
Would this make for a super cool downtown business? Would you visit? Would you spend more then a dollar?
Would you pass on the gosip? Wanna hang out? FUN!! FRIENDLY!! No vaults? No secrets? No hidden photo files? SHARED INFORMATION? Neighborhood? Downtown? Local? REIGONAL?
Couple this with cutting edge net news, feeds, wi-fi, steampunk computer bar!
Oh damn, just to have a million dollars.
The TU is bankrupt on ideas, long, long ago.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HjDuAJR-d5Q/SChuh4MMq9I/AAAAAAAAALc/x9vscjk3eYw/s400/stanley%2Bsteamer.jpg)
DELIVERY! (Yes it's a Stanley Steamer)
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Joe on January 29, 2009, 12:26:43 AM
Ken, you certainly raise many valid points. I especially agree that bloggers cannot replace print media, nor will they.
However, don't think that internet news necessarily needs to be reliant on mainstream print media. What the internet does is allow TELEVISION news to enter the written world. They write out their stories and archive them online. This allows purely "internet" sources to function without the theoretical need for print. Indeed, when I get my news online, it's just as likely to be from a TV website as a newspaper website.
In the past, newspapers have been somewhat protected by obscure legal rules. Local newspapers and local television stations couldn't be owned by the same company. Well, the internet is like a big legal loophole that lets television companies enter the world of written content. I think that's a part of the reason you are seeing such a huge print decline. It's not just that there's a new media, it's also that this new media allows for direct competition from a segment of the business that the local print media had been protected against.
You are correct Joe, but it also allows news papers to get into video. Instead of just writing a story about an interview you did with some celebrity or politician, or local hero, you can bring a camera along and actually post the video on the web.
In this regard it gives news papers the advantage. They typically have far bigger news rooms than TV stations (At least in Market 50).
I think the problem with the web, for newspapers at least, is that so much of their classified ad revenue (which used to be the place where most of the money was made) has been lost to craiglist, ebay, ect, that they are having a hard time making ends meet. Web simply doesn't generate as much revenue, even with classified listings. Then include decreasing circulation, and even the traditional ad prices are suffering.
Its a tough world, and while content is king and will drive hits on a website, it wont fill that revenue gap quick enough to save many news papers.