BBC NEWS | USA Today owner’s profits slump — Tick-tock, tick-tock.
Gannett, the US’ largest newspaper publisher, saw profits fall 60% during the January to March quarter. The owner of USA Today and Detroit Free Press said a fall in advertising revenue of more than a third was to blame for the drop.Net profit came in at $77.7m (£52.1m), down from $191.8m from year a earlier.
Separately, Abitibibowater, North America’s largest newsprint producer, has filed for bankruptcy after failing to restructure its massive debts. The company said that day-to-day operations would continue as normal during the restructuring process. The decision to file for bankruptcy “ensures business continuity for Abitibibowater and was made only after all other viable options to recapitalise our long-term debt were exhausted,” said the company’s president David Paterson.
Like other US newspapers, Gannett is suffering from a declining circulation as readers increasingly get their news for free online. The group reported a fall in advertising revenue of 34%. Classified adverts were hit particularly hard.
Found by Mike Cosmi.
Who cares to read stuff in print that we saw 2 or 3 days before online?
As a conservative, I’m not terribly unhappy to see newspapers – which try to pass off their typically liberal opinions as news – go down the tubes.
But as an amateur historian, I’m saddened the the historians of the future won’t have that valuable resource (newspapers on microfilm) to consult.
After all, reading the news on a website is all fine, but how easy is it to find a story from, say, 2 years and 3 months ago. While the internet archive has some, many of them have broken links. And many times a Google search will link to a site with a 404 error.
Cool. The Boston Globe doesn’t even mention the Tea Party protests except for something on page A16 from the AP in Frankfort.
This isn’t journalism.
Special Ed,
Who does the hard work of information gathering.
Not your local news station.
Not cable TV.
Not talk radio.
Not late-night talk hosts.
Some bloggers do a little, on some very narrow issues.
TV network news does some, but not much.
The weekly news magazine do real reporting but only on national issues.
So, when the newspapers are gone, we’ll all be as stupid as those who only watch Fox News or Jay Leno.
I gave up on newspapers when it stopped mattering which one I bought. When “news” began to be more press release than reporting. When the editorials were moved to page one. When they finally gave up all pretense of objectivity.
Remember all the talk, a few years ago, about micro-payments?
Why was that technology never developed?
That was the best idea I ever heard for making news on the web financially viable.
Nimby and others,
I don’t understand this criticism of glaring bias.
Here are the headlines of the today’s New York Times:
Deals Help China Expand Its Sway in Latin America
By SIMON ROMERO and ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO
China’s loans to Latin America are locking in access to natural resources and filling a vacuum of influence that grew during the Bush administration.
Third-World Stove Soot Is Target in Climate Fight
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Reducing soot from tens of thousands of villages in developing countries is a relatively simple climate fix that scientists say should be pursued immediately.
Genes Show Limited Value in Predicting Diseases
By NICHOLAS WADE
The genetic analysis of common disease is turning out to be a lot more complex than expected, according to new commentary.
With Pomp and a New Vigor, Dolan Arrives as Archbishop
By PAUL VITELLO
A three-hour liturgy full of pomp and pageantry welcomed a prelate with a common touch to the nation’s most influential Catholic pulpit.
N.S.A.’s Intercepts Exceed Limits Set by Congress
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
The National Security Agency has intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans on a scale beyond the broad limits Congress has established.
Statehouse Journal
For Gov. Palin, a Rough Return to the Day Job
By WILLIAM YARDLEY
In Alaska’s capital, Gov. Sarah Palin, a Republican star, faces the perception that her national profile poses a distraction from state business.
Afghan Women Protest New Law on Home Life
By DEXTER FILKINS
Three hundred women in Kabul demanded the repeal of a Taliban-like law that permits, among other things, marital rape.
—————–
Can you tell me — specifically — where the gawd-awful horrible bias is in these article?
.. a bias so outrageous that you refuse to even read it?
… so terrible that the paper should die and good riddance?
… so much WORSE than the “fair and balanced” reporting by Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly on Fox news?
Nobody pointed out the fact that newspaper’men’ and not business’men.’
They recently went up to a DOLLAR a copy. An instance of what business/econ 101 teaches you NOT to do …. “Oh, we need more profit. How do we raise profit? We raise price!!”
Do you walk around with a buck in change in your pocket? I didn’t think so.
And, even with all that being said, when did you EVER buy a USA Today?? Never. No matter generation you are. The only time you did ever read it was when it was left outside your door of a hotel. That was there target… traveling business people. Why buy it when your local paper had the same content… plus local news.
The NY Times refused to print an OpEd piece from John McCain after printing a piece by His Holiness Obama. They can’t disappear fast enough and take the Boston Globe with them.
ffred,
You are right in my case — I never read it at home.
I have purchased USA Today, occasionally, when I lived overseas and wanted an American spin on the news. But, even then, I could get the American spin from the International Herald Tribune, with much better reporting.
THAT being said, I enjoy USA Today. It’s kind of perfect when you only have limited time to scan the news.
BillM,
You are so hypersensitive!
Was this recently? Of course they are more likely to print a piece by a sitting president than a failed candidate.
Would you be OUTRAGED! KILL THE PAPER!! if a paper had run a piece by President Bush but declined one from John Kerry?
Also, do you know the subjects of the articles? That effects selection, too.
If you are claiming that newspapers ignored McCain, you’re just nuts.
I read all kinds of positive or neutral reports of him, his speeches and even his op-eds.
————–
But, I’m still waiting for someone to SPECIFICALLY point out the great, horrible, deserving-of-death bias in today’s New York Times. Bias, so much MORE OUTRAGEOUS than Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.
GregAllen,
perhaps timeswatch.org can answer your question.
Can you please post that in the form of an infographic?
The Republicans think they’ll be happier when the big businesses that are newspapers and their “liberal bias” are gone, but they’re going to be just as screwed as the Democrats when no one is questioning the government latest infringement on our rights, or reporting on the latest pollution spill by Engulf & Devour, Inc.
Why average Joes support the party of the plutocrats, has always been strange.
GregAllen – regarding your comment back to me, I beg to differ. You recall when USAIR landed in the Hudson? Twitter circulated that news faster than any outlet. I’m not saying a 140 characters is the ideal medium by any means. I am saying by the time news hits print, it is old news. For in depth analysis of news that impacts the world, I prefer The Economist. Local advertisers would be better off in Craigslist than a daily newspaper. Craiglslist has killed the print want ads anyway.
Also, you mentioned Fox News – luckily my cable system allows me to block channels. Fox and religious channels were my first to be blocked – both being horse shit.
Sorry, that wasn’t too clear… the government and Big Business are going to love it when the newspapers are gone… no one with the resources for detailed, lengthy, in-depth investigative reporting will be left.
Of course, investigative reporting has become too expensive anyway for many newspapers, so it almost doesn’t matter any more.
It’s gonna be scary without a free press.
MikeN,
If they can’t show me specific bias but have to direct me to a web site, you know this is nonsense.
Perhaps the problem isn’t TOO MUCH but NOT ENOUGH bias.
True Believers want uncomfortable facts filtered out of their news.
If they read something that does not fit well with their beliefs, they call it “bias.”
So, they turn to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, who filter out the uncomfortable facts, and they call this un-biased.
Special Ed,
Thanks for clarifying.
The problem with the citizen front-line “Twitter” reporting is that eyewitnesses are often just plain wrong.
I once was a few feet from a murder (I didn’t actually see it) and you wouldn’t believe the nonsense people were saying they saw.
A did see some innocent-looking black guy peer in the window. People were SURE he was the killer and started screaming and barricading the doors. (The killer was a white guy, I later learned from the newspaper.) This included some people who actually saw the murder! The saw the crime but got the race of the guy completely wrong!
If they had Twitter back-then, this would have been eyewitness reporting. Without a local newspaper, as people here wish-for, this would have been the ONLY reporting on the murder. Damn!
I can give you other examples but I think you get my point.
Everything is always biased. Get over it. Bias has nothing to do with the death of the newspapers. More old people than young people read newspapers. Very few people under 30 read the paper on a daily basis. A Pew study found that the only group of people likely to personally miss their local paper if it were to go out of business were people over the age of 65.
And yet, old people are more likely to be conservative than young people who are typically more liberal. One would think that if the papers were so darn liberal young people would be snapping them up.
I guess that darn liberal bias isn’t the reason why newspapers are failing…
On a side note, Zombies!!! is an awesome game that everyone should try!
Its amazing how the newspaper industry deluded itself and lived in the past for so long
Newspapers became flyers with articles – only to sell ads and coupons – all at union wages with no end in sight
Well not at least till now
Ask not for whom the bell tolls
It tolls for thee
I AM BLOGGER,
HEAR ME ROAR!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/blogger.html?q=blogger.html
>Why average Joes support the party of the plutocrats, has
You mean the Democrats?
>when no one is questioning the government latest infringement
Not much better when you only get a check on Republican government.
>True Believers want uncomfortable facts filtered out of their news. If they read something that does not fit well with their beliefs, they call it “bias.”
This is why lefties hate FoxNews so much.
Should we really be bemoaning the loss of all newspapers. Especially not so old ones, like USA Today, that always seemed a bit fluffier that the more serious ones, like the NY Times or Chicago Tribune. Who really needs a national newspaper that mostly covers sports, the weather, and whatever else won’t get it sued.
Fewer papers printed would also mean fewer forest torn down to print them. Frankly, I think the days of the Daily, are over. And the weekly editions might not be far behind. But not just yet. I think these newspapers lost most of their readership, not just because the internet makes following an article much easier (and it does). But because many of these failing papers, got gobbled up by huge corporations, that managed their news coverage. And people have sensed this, even if not outright knowing it. They know what appears on blogs and such, aren’t always being controlled by some boardroom of millionaires, with vested interests in subverting the facts.
Take the startup of the Iraq war. All but one paper fell in lock step with the Bush Administration’s assessment of why we should invade Iraq. Just one paper questioned the evidence. Why? Most like because their owners were financially tied to Halliburton, and big oil. Who stood to profit from the war. I’m sure that major media magnate Rupert Murdoch, has made a bundle off the war, so far.
So most of these papers wouldn’t dare question it. Nor most of the Tv and radio networks either, for the same reason. And in fact they helped sell it to the public, even with no evidence of the WMDs that were its main justification (ff we don’t stop them now, they will be dropping these things on our cities). All of which proved to be a load of pro-war propaganda.
But what the corporations that snapped up and controls all these newspapers, did foresee. Was that in becoming all one big propaganda machine, while a possible alternative was lying in wait. That they’d lie themselves right out of business. Just as soon as their readers started realizing that their brand of journalism was a joke. And that readers were more likely to get the facts from sources that were more of the underground style of press. And if not, no harm done cause it was “free”. Just pick another website, until it starts to become compromised by corporate taint.
# 11 Greg Allen said, in part:
“I’m still waiting for someone to SPECIFICALLY point out the great, horrible, deserving-of-death bias in today’s New York Times. Bias, so much MORE OUTRAGEOUS than Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.”
Why, it’s obvious! They haven’t turned over the keys to the editorial page to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh! And they hardly ever publish op-ed columns by Cal Thomas and Thomas Sowell (no more than two to four times a week!)! How much more biased could you possibly get???
– – – – –
# 15 Special Ed said, in part:
“You recall when USAIR landed in the Hudson? Twitter circulated that news faster than any outlet.”
So? Some of us have other things to do than read Twitter all day. I like to read the newspaper in the morning and this blog in the evening. In between, I like do do stuff.
– – – – –
On the other hand, I remember when our local paper was family-owned (now it’s another Gannett property), and I remember when the daily edition weighed more than half a pound. [I just weighed today’s (April 16th’s) paper — 200 grams or 7 ounces, including all advertising inserts.] When Gordon Brown and then Brian Cowen (Prime Ministers of the U.K. and of Ireland) visited, I saw _nothing_ about it in the local paper (and I looked).
At least there is still some local content, though sometimes I think they only have two or three people covering it. They do good stories on local efforts to decrease air pollution, the apparently unstoppable expansion of urban sprawl, and they have a guy who does a fair-to-middling job of covering the state house. For that, and the one daily crossword (there used to be two) and the comics, we continue to subscribe, but I don’t know for how much longer.
No, the bias is in things like publishing hit pieces on Republican politicians, like the bogus McCain is having an affair story.
Even now the media goes after the perceived Republican frontrunners, Jindal, Palin, and Sanford. Why give money to a newspaper that engages in political advocacy against one party?
# 3 MikeN said, “This isn’t journalism.”
Which is why subscriptions have been falling for FAR longer than the internet has been around.
>They haven’t turned over the keys to the editorial page to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh!
It’s true. I expect them to be as much anti-Obama as they were anti-Bush. Is that unreasonable?
I bet soon that board game Zombies will make more money than USA today. On USA today’s side, they have a great iPhone app
#23 Not much better when you only get a check on Republican government.
You might want to read that book by Bush’s former press secretary in which even he said that the press was easy on Bush. And he should know, he was dealing with them on a daily basis.
The press succumbed to that “if you don’t agree with the President on everything you’re a terrorist lover” just like lots of people did.