Newspapers, a dying breed.
OffTheBackAdam
Posts: 1,869
Daily sales, ABC circulation bureau data, with percentage difference over the same period last year.
Death of the paper paper?
Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
0
Comments
-
This was one of the interesting things to come out of Ruperts appearance at the Leveson inquiry, apparently he dismissed online media as 'a nuisance'. I found this quite reassuring as he clearly doesn't have a clue how things have changed and the day's of people like him dominating the media through newspapers are numbered. I grew up in a household that had a morning and an evening newspaper everyday pretty much but now I hardly know anyone from my generation who bothers with the printed press.0
-
As I say to the guy next to me at work who has to get a paper every day -
Why do you want to read yesterday's news?None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
The only time I read a paper is when somebody is there to help me with the big words
In all honesty I've gone cheapskate when it comes to newspapers in grabbing the Metro when I use the bus or getting the local paper when I go to Ronalds restaurant for coffee. I used to by a red top on a daily basis but I get more news via Twitter and online these days. I've added a signature to prove it is still possible.0 -
daviesee wrote:As I say to the guy next to me at work who has to get a paper every day -
Why do you want to read yesterday's news?
To which I'd reply - in what way does it being a few hours out of date matter to me?
As it happens, generally I find that the paper (be it Metro or the Grauniad on Saturday) has the same news in it as the internet does. And I'd rather read a paper at lunchtime than spend any more time staring at a monitor.Faster than a tent.......0 -
To which I would answer that there are at least 2 stories added to the BBC News website since 3 AM which will affect decisions that I have to take before close of business today. Reading those stories tomorrow will be too late.Rolf F wrote:Why do you want To which I'd reply - in what way does it being a few hours out of date matter to me?
Then there are the inevitable breaking stories that will break during the day.
Remember 9/11? Most people remember reading it on the web, or watching it on TV, live. A few hours maybe doesn't matter but that was a huge event that couldn't fully get the impact across on printed paper. IMHO.
Personal decisions made on a personal basis. Agree to disagree?
Back to topic. If there are enough people like me (around 60% of 30 people in my office) then the printed press will have to downscale due to lack of demand.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Looking at the list, which one(s) do you think will amalgamate/cease publishing over the current year>
The Indy is looking pretty moribund - will its Russian owner sell it (& recoup the £1 he bought it for?) , obvious synergies by merging the Guardian & Observer.
The News of the World MkII (aka The Sunday Sun) has crippled the Sunday Star; how long will the FT be produced in paper form?Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
I know that the Guardian recently started to consider going 'paper-free' and online only. Not sure if they made a decision or if others are considering the same - I would expect so."That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0
-
I buy the Guardian at a weekend for the features and TV guide mainly.
In the week I don't bother, as has been said, why pay out to read yesterdays news when you can log on and read todays for nothing...0 -
I have only ever bought six newspapers in my life thus far, The Telegraph when I wanted the jobs pages about 25 years ago. My father and one of my best mates buys a redtop everyday, I have never understood this, becuase I never been that interested in anything the papers have write about, which, when I have read their papers was mostly inaccurate, it never made sense to me to spend money on newspapers when I could have all the news I wanted on the television and radio ( every hour at least) for nothing.
And now with the Internet I can watch, read and listen to news every second of the day now.
Newspapers are on the way out, they are not much use to anyone anymore, you are not even allowed to wrap ya fish n chips in em any more.Trek Madone 3.5
Whyte Coniston
1970 Dawes Kingpin0 -
I disagree - although as a magazine journalist, I suppose I have something at stake. Yes, I too monitor the website news and yes, it is far more immediate than a newspaper, let alone a magazine. But that is also one of the instant press's big drawbacks; everything is immediate and off the cuff. That is not to say web news is inaccurate - although there is of course a higher probability of missing important points in the rush to the news on the web. What I am talking about here is its depth of coverage, and the exploring of collateral issues, motives, reasons and back stories which you can only really get through more considered reporting and writing.
Obviously in-depth features can appear on a web page - but they tend not to. The news is delivered in bite-sized chunks. Good for up-to-the-minute basic information or fast developing events, but not so good for nuance.
We need both if you really want to be informed.0 -
While ever flies and wasps exist, there will be a legitimate need newspapers. Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Hoopdriver wrote:I disagree - although as a magazine journalist, I suppose I have something at stake. Yes, I too monitor the website news and yes, it is far more immediate than a newspaper, let alone a magazine. But that is also one of the instant press's big drawbacks; everything is immediate and off the cuff. That is not to say web news is inaccurate - although there is of course a higher probability of missing important points in the rush to the news on the web. What I am talking about here is its depth of coverage, and the exploring of collateral issues, motives, reasons and back stories which you can only really get through more considered reporting and writing.
Obviously in-depth features can appear on a web page - but they tend not to. The news is delivered in bite-sized chunks. Good for up-to-the-minute basic information or fast developing events, but not so good for nuance.
We need both if you really want to be informed.
You make good points, as always. I think that I am in the minority that I have never felt the need to be " really informed". I want just enough news to know wether I need to head for the bunker or not. I don't need to know all the details.
On a related note and slightly OT I was offerd a magazine subscription this week for National Geographic for only £ 15 for the year. I thought that seemed like good value but how the heck does it make any money at that price?Trek Madone 3.5
Whyte Coniston
1970 Dawes Kingpin0 -
Frank the tank wrote:While ever flies and wasps exist, there will be a legitimate need newspapers.
But do they care if they are killed by yesterday's news or last week's? Presumably one could purchase a single newspaper and store it for occasional swatting puproses.0 -
GiantMike wrote:Frank the tank wrote:While ever flies and wasps exist, there will be a legitimate need newspapers.
But do they care if they are killed by yesterday's news or last week's? Presumably one could purchase a single newspaper and store it for occasional swatting puproses.
Personally I use one of those freebie ones or my weekly, local, rag.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Frank the tank wrote:GiantMike wrote:Frank the tank wrote:While ever flies and wasps exist, there will be a legitimate need newspapers.
But do they care if they are killed by yesterday's news or last week's? Presumably one could purchase a single newspaper and store it for occasional swatting puproses.
Personally I use one of those freebie ones or my weekly, local, rag.
And how will I light my log burner??????"There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world, t'would be a pity to damage yours."0 -
I get all my serious news from Radio 4, and all my 'on-a-lighter-note' news from Cake Shop links. I don't trust newspapers because I know how completely wrong they are when they report on stories I know about so I assume they're completely wrong for all other stories.
In the main journalists care about the story more than the accuracy, Editors care about circulation figures and the readership cares about having their political/social views reinforced. People buy the news (or the spin) they want to read, regardless of how accurate it actually is.0 -
there are roughly 2m daily mail readers
how depressing"I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
--Jens Voight0 -
p9uma wrote:Hoopdriver wrote:I disagree - although as a magazine journalist, I suppose I have something at stake. Yes, I too monitor the website news and yes, it is far more immediate than a newspaper, let alone a magazine. But that is also one of the instant press's big drawbacks; everything is immediate and off the cuff. That is not to say web news is inaccurate - although there is of course a higher probability of missing important points in the rush to the news on the web. What I am talking about here is its depth of coverage, and the exploring of collateral issues, motives, reasons and back stories which you can only really get through more considered reporting and writing.
Obviously in-depth features can appear on a web page - but they tend not to. The news is delivered in bite-sized chunks. Good for up-to-the-minute basic information or fast developing events, but not so good for nuance.
We need both if you really want to be informed.
You make good points, as always. I think that I am in the minority that I have never felt the need to be " really informed". I want just enough news to know wether I need to head for the bunker or not. I don't need to know all the details.
On a related note and slightly OT I was offerd a magazine subscription this week for National Geographic for only £ 15 for the year. I thought that seemed like good value but how the heck does it make any money at that price?
Ah yes - the National Geographic Society as a whole is a non-profit organization; while parts of the organization are run for profit these days, the magazine remains non-profit and thus is essentially not taxed.0 -
I can see a time in the near future when daily papers will die out altogether with publishers down to one edition at weekends containing TV and radio guides and in depth analysis of the weeks news.LeicesterLad wrote:I buy the Guardian at a weekend for the features and TV guide mainly.
In the week I don't bother, as has been said, why pay out to read yesterdays news when you can log on and read todays for nothing...
I work part-time in my local shop/post office and newspaper sales have reached a critical level, to a point where daily deliveries are fast becoming uneconomical.0 -
I was a staffer on Time Magazine years ago, before my present gig, and even then the selling point of the magazine was its ability to offer in-depth and thoughtful analysis (well, hopefully, anyway) of the week's events, not to try to compete directly with the daily papers (let alone TV or websites) and their constant flow of news. As one of the editors earthily explained to me when I joined the staff - don't look to break news here, it's like a prostitute having a baby, it happens, but not often.0
