I often read posters here and elsewhere lambasting the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for its content.
Why?
In a recent thread here under the subject line "WTF @ Journal-Sentinel picture," poster Wade4Life writes: "Live in MKE right now; the JS is the worst paper in the US. Their reporting is equal to a 5th grade reading level."
This simplistic, ill-informed, baseless and seemingly naïve assessment is plain dopey.
There are times I wish the Journal Sentinel would cover certain topics or events more thoroughly (or at all), but overall the newspaper does a fine job covering the city and state. Its staff seems to know and understand its readers and delivers much that those readers want or need to know.
These sweeping, groundless attacks on the Journal Sentinel often seem to originate with overly emotional people who, I am guessing, know nothing about what is involved in producing a newspaper for a broad readership.
Specific to Wade4Life's post, I am curious how he or she is in a position to have determined that the Journal Sentinel is "the worst paper in the US."
If I were Wade4Life, I would be more concerned with the number of agreement, grammatical and punctuation errors that I manage to squeeze into even the briefest of posts.
The JS is terrible.
Any reason this is on the basketball board?
I was going to make a similar comment yesterday. I think the MJS is a much better paper now than it was a decade ago. Their in-depth reporting is fantastic, and they actually have content to their paper. Look at the Wisconsin State Journal for instance to see how far a newspaper can fall. Considering the newspaper industry is basically dying, at least the MJS is putting forth an effort.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 18, 2009, 07:49:50 AM
The JS is terrible.
Any reason this is on the basketball board?
Anyone care to add that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "sucks."
Please, someone, show that even the slightest amount of thought goes into these seemingly empty assaults on the Journal Sentinel.
Another note...papers are supposed to be writing to a 3rd-5th grade reading level. They are for the general public, you may be surprised at the overall reading comprehension of our nation. So the quote "Their reporting is equal to a 5th grade reading level." is actually what they are trying to do.
In about 18 months, when the paper closes down, everyone will remember the MJS fondly.
(Note to self, get Rosiak on board CrackedSidewalks.)
Rosiak has brought a new much higher standard to Marquette coverage in the JS.
It's a tough time for newpaperrs and those who work for them. Papers are closing and those that are not are cutting back. I have friends in the industry who are being put on unpaid leave and are in daily fear for their job.
Out in Pasadena a newspaper has outsourced reporting to India. I kid you not. They use the Internet, phones and net cams to cover city council and even sporting events.
The times we are living in and the economy.
We all should be thankful that a quaility person and reporter like Rosiak is covering the Marquette beat. No --I am not a relative and have never met the man. I just follow his work closely. He does need to clean up his act a bit on camera. (Hey guy all future reporters have to be multi-media ready ;) and the knit hat has to go unless you can dominate a game on the floor. )
This doesn't pertain to the sports section of the JS but I am getting kinda tired of the JS pasting their lastest 'award' for journalism excellence on the front page. It's getting to be a little too much.
I know you might be kidding, but the MJS won't be closing. The papers you see closing now are the less popular of two dailies in the same city.
There's a paranoia among many older Marquette fans about a bias in the J/S that borders on hysteria. There are some who have gone so far as to measure column inches to support these claims of bias. It's completely nuts.
Does the Tribune have a bias against the Bulls because their game story was on page 3 today, even though they beat the mighty Celtics?
Get a grip. Nobody is "against" Marquette and that includes Doug Gottlieb, Andy Katz, Tim Higgins, Bruce Pearl, the Journal-Sentinel or anybody else who has been cited on this (and particularly the other) board.
Wanna bet? I am probably on the thin side with 18 months, but 2-4 years, it won't be published 7 days/week. Just Sundays. Online the other 6 days. Not sure how sustainable that model is, though, so .. the future is grim.
It's just .. classified ad revenue is headed toward ZERO. .. Nearly zero people born after, say 1980, will ever subscribe to the paper, as they get their news online, for free. If it's not the economy, ad rates, classified ads .. their paid circulation is, well, a dying breed.
Sounds like a new niche may open up for CS. News AND sports daily on line.
JS stock has lost something like 80 percent of its value in the past five yearsm which I, as a journalist, find very, very sad. People just don't pay for something to read if they can get it for free online. And for all the handouts Obama has offered to GM and AIG and the banks, does anyone care that thiousands of journalists lose their job ever year?
As for the JS itself, Rosiak is outstanding, especially when compared to his predecessor. My ONLY argument with the paper is when MU has to play second fiddle to UW. If the paper wants to take that attitude (and I understand why they do it), take the name "Milwaukee" off the masthead.
I get the WSJ and MJS at home, If the WSJ had USA Todays sports page or the MJS dropped Rosiak there would be NO reason (for me) to get the MJS.
Quote from: ecompt on March 18, 2009, 09:34:47 AM
JS stock has lost something like 80 percent of its value in the past five yearsm which I, as a journalist, find very, very sad. People just don't pay for something to read if they can get it for free online. And for all the handouts Obama has offered to GM and AIG and the banks, does anyone care that thiousands of journalists lose their job ever year?
The print journalism industry is failing. It's an antiquated delivery method that people aren't willing to pay for in a digital age.
Insurance and cars aren't going away anytime soon. Physical newspapers are.
Quote from: Phi Iota Gamma 84 on March 18, 2009, 10:31:56 AM
I get the WSJ and MJS at home, If the WSJ had USA Todays sports page or the MJS dropped Rosiak there would be NO reason (for me) to get the MJS.
Your comment, Phi Iota Gamma 84, tells me that you care little or not at all about local or state news and only read the newspaper for the sports page.
Otherwise, what you have written makes no sense and is another empty attack on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which remains a fine newspaper that covers its readership areas well. Substantiate your criticisms with facts.
If you do not care about local or state news and events, admit it and stop blaming the local daily newspaper for your apathy toward or disinterest in topics or events that do not involve teams in uniforms, a ball and a lot of sweat.
I have trouble believing you delve deeply into The Wall Street Journal each day or that you have a sincere appreciation for the outstanding writing found in that newspaper, which remains quite good even under its new ownership.
Pop quiz:
Who on this forum works for the MKE Journal Sentinel and takes personal offense to every gripe that anyone on this forum has ever made about his or her paper?
Obvious PR employee is obvious.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on March 18, 2009, 10:44:02 AM
The print journalism industry is failing. It's an antiquated delivery method that people aren't willing to pay for in a digital age.
Insurance and cars aren't going away anytime soon. Physical newspapers are.
Still need journalists to write for the online pages.
More importantly, people need their 'news' sources whether it be local or global to be trustworthy. People of Wisconsin will follow the MJS online if the print version went to a more minimal subscription. They trust the paper, and will support it online. I'm not saying it needs a bailout, but the name won't be going anywhere.
Yeah, you do need writers, just not nearly as many of them.
I enjoy reading and newspapers in particular and the JS is a terrible paper, I half joke with my wife on Sunday that it takes about 15 minutes to read that paper and that is spending 10 minutes on the sports section. The business section is predominately reprints for the WSJ and the travel and feaure sections are all wire services some origional writing in the front and local sections but that isn't much in the whole context of things. Rosiak does a nice job covering MU but the inordinate amount of ink devoted to the Badgers is another reason it doesn't take long to read th papaer.
The most annoying thing about the JS is when they have the sports show that they sponser and presumably make money off of and have editorial content extolling the great sports show seems to more than cross the line of an independent voice.
I realize most papers are declining in quality including the NYT which I get on Sundays but has less and less content than in the past.
Quote from: sailwi on March 18, 2009, 11:15:50 AM
I enjoy reading and newspapers in particular and the JS is a terrible paper, I half joke with my wife on Sunday that it takes about 15 minutes to read that paper and that is spending 10 minutes on the sports section. The business section is predominately reprints for the WSJ and the travel and feaure sections are all wire services some origional writing in the front and local sections but that isn't much in the whole context of things.
This is the case with about 90% of the major daily papers in the U.S., outside of the top dozen or so. Even great papers like the WSJ, NYT, WaPo, (formerly) ChiTrib and LAT are losing money hand over fist; it makes no sense for a paper in a second-tier city to staff a foreign bureau when it's not even profitable for the biggest of papers to do so.
The JS is not a world-class paper by any stretch. But for what it is--the dominant paper in a second-tier city--it is outstanding.
You guys are making me feel like I am 83 instead of 38.
I enjoy sitting at the kitchen table in the morning with my bowl of cereal and newspaper (okay mainly the sports page). I have been doing it since I was old enough to read the paper. Granted the rest of the day I am checking out news and sports websites, but I hate starting my day without the paper.
Quote from: MUEng92 on March 18, 2009, 12:20:14 PM
You guys are making me feel like I am 83 instead of 38.
I enjoy sitting at the kitchen table in the morning with my bowl of cereal and newspaper (okay mainly the sports page). I have been doing it since I was old enough to read the paper. Granted the rest of the day I am checking out news and sports websites, but I hate starting my day without the paper.
http://www.jsonline.com
I just saved you a bunch of money on your subscription. Why pay for free content?
Quote from: Skatastrophy on March 18, 2009, 12:24:02 PM
http://www.jsonline.com
I just saved you a bunch of money on your subscription. Why pay for free content?
b/c a hard copy can convery significance a lot better than online can. Everyone was all up in arms about trhe stupid dance fever picture but no online readers got excited on how MU absolutely dominated the Sunday sports. That was a great section to dig out of the paper and read. You had to have the hard copy to truly appreciate how much emphasis was on MU & the 3 Amigos. There is nothing like reading a sports page after a huge W.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on March 18, 2009, 12:24:02 PM
http://www.jsonline.com
I just saved you a bunch of money on your subscription. Why pay for free content?
It won't be free content for long.
Eventually - hopefully sooner rather than later - the industry is going to wise up and realize that it can't continue to operate, and certainly not at a respectable level, by giving away their content. Right now, too many continue to cling to mistaken notion that online advertising one of these days can fund the operation. When they realize that it cannot - and join the many that already see it - they'll get together and form an iTunes-style mechanism by which people will have to purchase content the way they purchase songs. Remember, 6-7 years ago nobody wanted to pay for music when they could get it free on Napster. Now most music consumers don't think twice about paying 99 cents for song. If the industry is smart, they'll create a similar mindset in which people won't think twice about paying 5 cents for a story, a quarter for the whole sports section, 50 cents for the whole paper, etc. And, like the RIAA, they'll go after people who would give away others' content for free.
My guess is the AP leads the way on this and starts requiring its members/clients to charge for its content. That would force not only the newspapers, but also online-only distributors like Yahoo!, into the fold.
Obviously charging for content will drive some away, but it's better to have 100,000 paying customers than 500,000 freeloaders.
Warning: This turned into a bit of a rant :-X
Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on March 18, 2009, 12:55:25 PM
b/c a hard copy can convery significance a lot better than online can. Everyone was all up in arms about trhe stupid dance fever picture but no online readers got excited on how MU absolutely dominated the Sunday sports.
Nobody reads the physical paper anymore. It doesn't matter what's on the front page. By the time you get your physical paper it's already antiquated content. I want my content free and I want it now.
Quote from: PakuniIt won't be free content for long.
Your contention that consumers will pay for content is relatively old-fashioned (old fashioned in Internet years is 6-months or older :p) There's a reason that media outlets that try to charge users, or even get users to register (for free) before they can view the content, are failing.
Users have come to expect (contemporarily) that their content be free and without hassle. Online media outlets will have to find a way to monetize that content on their own. Ad-driven monetization is the most prevalent way to get some return on your proprietary content distribution right now, and I'd expect that they learn to perfect targeted advertisements in the future.
Quote from: PakuniAnd, like the RIAA, they'll go after people who would give away others' content for free.
And like the RIAA they'll fail miserably in court and end up losing money on the whole deal. I'd make an argument about the RIAA, but it would be an impassioned rant that would only serve to derail this thread (even more so that we already have). The short story is that the RIAA is being laughed out of courtrooms because it's nearly impossible for our legal system to keep up with technology (it doesn't help that in the cases they have won, an infinitesimal amount of the winnings have made their way to the actual artists).
Quote from: PakuniMy guess is the AP leads the way on this and starts requiring its members/clients to charge for its content.
The AP already charges for their content. (http://license.icopyright.net/user/serviceGroup.act?gid=3&inprocess=t&tag=3.5721%3Ficx_id%3DD970J9V04&urs=WEBPAGE&urt=http%3A%2F%2Fhosted.ap.org%2Fdynamic%2Fstories%2FO%2FOBAMA_AIG%3FSITE%3DDEWIL%26SECTION%3DHOME%26TEMPLATE%3DDEFAULT%26CTIME%3D2009-03-18-13-53-06) They've already figured out how to monetize it with adds, so they're already getting theirs on the front end. It's up to the news agencies to monetize the number of views that content gets. They may start charging per page-view instead of per-word, but there would me no reason for them to tell any content distributor how to deliver AP content as long as they're getting paid on the front end.
The internet is not free now. You pay a provider, whether cable, phone, mobile, etc. The fact of the matter is that the providers and how they are distributing their content are what is changing. The paper form is dying, the digitial form is growing. Media fusion, interactivity and personalization are the future. Ad revenue is for the content provider. E-bay is the new classifieds (why doesn't the JS develop their product?). Traditional media forms need to adapt and reform their business model which many won't trying to hold onto something the consumer doesn't want. The answer to survival for many in the print business may be on the cost side: shared talent, no printing presses, reduced paper costs, labor, point of difference, interactivity. Content and engagement is the new currency, not home delivery.
When digital TV arrives and the new technology morphs, we will be chatting on MUScoop via a stream off that fell off someone's uncles truck, the ads sent to me will be based upon my frequent shopper card history, and I can order my six pack via Amazon while viewing the Miller commercial. Peapod will deliver my digital shopping list I sent in via mobile and my RFD pantry. I can start dinner via my mobile on the way home. My IPASS may trigger a customized video billboard down the road.
I just might not be able to read my newspaper in the bathroom.
Blah, blah, blah, I want free content, won't pay for it, want it now.
That's all fine and dandy, but the newspaper infrastructure is simply not going to be there much longer. Besides the top 3-5 online newspaper sites .. none of them come remotely close to making money. Banner ads, google Adsense .. don't come close to print & commercial advertisement revenue. It's not about "too bad they never found a way to monetize" .. it's that it really can't be done in within the current internet news system (as a whole) .. and, more importantly, there just are fewer and fewer people who value local news.
If the paper dies, people will just get their Packer fix via TV news. All the other stuff, the local/state government coverage, the investigations .. there just aren't enough people who will pay. All that reporting is getting fewer and fewer anyhow. Sports is about the only thing that keeps the MJS afloat.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on March 18, 2009, 01:18:40 PM
Warning: This turned into a bit of a rant :-X
Nobody reads the physical paper anymore. It doesn't matter what's on the front page. By the time you get your physical paper it's already antiquated content. I want my content free and I want it now.
Nobody is a tad bit of an exaggeration. While subscriptions generally have plummeted from the all-time highs of a few decades ago (and will continue to do so), the top 10 newspapers alone have more than 12.3 million subscribers. So, one every 25 people subscribes just to those 10 newspapers. Add the next 10 largest newspapers, and you're talking about 18.1 million subscribers. that's just 20 out of the hundreds of newspapers out there. And, in terms of readership, that doesn't account of homes where more than one person reads the paper, or people who leave their paper in the office breakroom where it is read by 15 others, etc.
The industry is in decline, and perhaps sliding toward death, but people still are reading newspapers in large numbers, just not alrge enough to support a lot of the bloated news operations out there.
QuoteYour contention that consumers will pay for content is relatively old-fashioned (old fashioned in Internet years is 6-months or older :p) There's a reason that media outlets that try to charge users, or even get users to register (for free) before they can view the content, are failing.
Yes, there is a reason that media outlets that have tried to charge have not succeeded in it. Generally speaking, nobody is going to pay to read the Chicago Tribune's account of the latest state scandal, when they can get the Sun-Times' story for free. Nobody is going to pay to get Todd Rosiak's story on the MU game, when they can go to ESPN.com and read the AP's version for free. If, however, you have to pay for the content whereever you go, consumers either will get used to it, or not get the content.
That's my whole point. The entire industry will have to - and I think eventually they will - play along if they are to survive.
QuoteOnline media outlets will have to find a way to monetize that content on their own. Ad-driven monetization is the most prevalent way to get some return on your proprietary content distribution right now, and I'd expect that they learn to perfect targeted advertisements in the future.
They've tried and tried and tried and most smart people in the industry have concluded that the model simply will not work, or at least not well enough to support operations at anything close to the level where it exists today. Hence the growing chorus in the industry to go back to charging for content.
Regarding the AP, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. What I'm suggesting is that the AP, as part of their agreements with its media clients, require that in order to distribute its content, clients charge readers for access to it. So if, for example, the Chicago Tribune wants to publish an AP story, the Tribune
must charge its readers for that story. Follow?
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 18, 2009, 01:37:21 PM
and, more importantly, there just are fewer and fewer people who value local news.
Actually, you'd be surprised to find that the opposite is true. Most newspapers today realize that local news is the only way to survive, which is why outlets like the Chicago Tribune and others are abandoning, or making deep cuts, in their out-of-state and foreign news operations. Their readers simply don't care, and the ones that do will go read an AP story linked on Yahoo! instead.
Any Trib editor will tell you that a story about a routine shooting on the South Side generates twice as much, if not more, web traffic than a massive piece on the dangers of lead in children's toys that took six weeks to compile and eats up 70 column inches in the print edition.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2009, 01:53:08 PM
They've tried and tried and tried and most smart people in the industry have concluded that the model simply will not work, or at least not well enough to support operations at anything close to the level where it exists today. Hence the growing chorus in the industry to go back to charging for content.
Everyone has "tried and tried" for the past couple years. Even the most popular 'web 2.0' on the Internet; Facebook, Twitter , Digg, Reddit etc. are having problems monetizing the huge amount of traffic that comes pouring through their servers.
With the number of content providers that are facing these problems today, I really hope (and hope is a good word for my contention, because there's no way for me to know at this point) that there is a more inventive solution that comes out of this than a per-piece-of-content charge. If they try that they'll get all of their content ripped off just like the music, movie, television and game industries.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on March 18, 2009, 02:16:00 PM
Everyone has "tried and tried" for the past couple years. Even the most popular 'web 2.0' on the Internet; Facebook, Twitter , Digg, Reddit etc. are having problems monetizing the huge amount of traffic that comes pouring through their servers.
With the number of content providers that are facing these problems today, I really hope (and hope is a good word for my contention, because there's no way for me to know at this point) that there is a more inventive solution that comes out of this than a per-piece-of-content charge. If they try that they'll get all of their content ripped off just like the music, movie, television and game industries.
There's no doubt that some will pirate content, whether it be movies, music or news.
Though, frankly, I don't see the kind of person who wants to read the latest on their kid's school district or about the shooting that happened in their community as the pirating type.
Even so, the industry is going to have to bet that a) most consumers will not steal and b) enough consumers will find the content of value that they would pay a small fee, and that small fee would be enough to keep the operation afloat.
Apple made a similar bet when it launched iTunes and estimates are that it won the bet to the tune of about $190 million a year in profits.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2009, 02:29:32 PM
There's no doubt that some will pirate content, whether it be movies, music or news.
Though, frankly, I don't see the kind of person who wants to read the latest on their kid's school district or about the shooting that happened in their community as the pirating type.
Even so, the industry is going to have to bet that a) most consumers will not steal and b) enough consumers will find the content of value that they would pay a small fee, and that small fee would be enough to keep the operation afloat.
Apple made a similar bet when it launched iTunes and estimates are that it won the bet to the tune of about $190 million a year in profits.
But apple has a 1-stop shop delivery system for devices that are designed specifically to work with their service. Additionally, purchasing music is completely different from written news. News is completely disposable. Customers purchase music that they've heard before because they want to hear it over and over again.
Why would I spend any amount of money on an article when I could go to any streaming video service and get their news for free plus a few commercials thrown in?
Between streaming audio from radio stations, live video feeds from tv stations and services like the NBC backed http://www.hulu.com print media will die a quick death if they try charging for their content. Every other media provider has figured out how to support their content with advertisements at no (direct) cost to consumers. If print media can't follow suit, then they'll cease to exist.
Online newspapers .. should think about doing what ESPN360 does. License their content to ISPs.
"You want the MJS? Well, Comcast is the only one who has it. Have RR? Call your cable company to demand ..."
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 18, 2009, 03:04:00 PM
Online newspapers .. should think about doing what ESPN360 does. License their content to ISPs.
"You want the MJS? Well, Comcast is the only one who has it. Have RR? Call your cable company to demand ..."
That could easily become a 2 way street though (insert other sayings such as slippery slope or something about falafel instead):
"RR provides broadband to X-number of customers in the SE Wisconsin area. Pay us $X or else your site traffic to those customers will be throttled to 3kbps."
I don't have an answer, but these types of solutions could take a toll on how open and free (not like beer) the internet is. Start to put restrictions on content in the nouveau wild-west based on ISP/region and suddenly there will be upper class and lower class internet access.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on March 18, 2009, 03:14:51 PM
That could easily become a 2 way street though (insert other sayings such as slippery slope or something about falafel instead):
"RR provides broadband to X-number of customers in the SE Wisconsin area. Pay us $X or else your site traffic to those customers will be throttled to 3kbps."
I don't have an answer, but these types of solutions could take a toll on how open and free (not like beer) the internet is. Start to put restrictions on content in the nouveau wild-west based on ISP/region and suddenly there will be upper class and lower class internet access.
So what happens in a few months when all free tv goes digital? Most mainstream media forms will/can be provided via this form--radio, tv, cable, net, magazines, billboards, mobile, phone, newspaper, VOD., gaming, music, pr/WOM. Prime Time TV delivery is becoming more and more video. ISP's are the kings. This will all be delivered in one form: internet. What's left to be determined are content and currency. "Free" TV will not be "free" at some point. Consumers will be using this form to purchase, get targeted with ads, etc. The price will be paid in a different way than a monthly fee to your cable or dish or mobile provider. The "wild west" is returning to a normal business model. Dinosaurs need to adapt to the new world, not hold to the old one.
Hah. You're smoking something if you ever think OTA TV someday won't be free. Jesus Christ, look how many millions (Billion?) we spent on getting grandma a coupon so she could convert her TV, then, after a 2-3 year campaign of telling people .. had to give them even more time because 6 million of them would go dark if not for the grace of the US Congress.
Maybe 100 years from now, it might be different. Maybe.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 18, 2009, 04:18:18 PM
Hah. You're smoking something if you ever think OTA TV someday won't be free. Jesus Christ, look how many millions (Billion?) we spent on getting grandma a coupon so she could convert her TV, then, after a 2-3 year campaign of telling people .. had to give them even more time because 6 million of them would go dark if not for the grace of the US Congress.
Maybe 100 years from now, it might be different. Maybe.
Note my emphasis on "free"...TV will be "free"...what grandma can do now when digital won't be. That will be the currency bill. The government has just potentially enabled two way e-commerce with those coupons. Why else do you think they subsidized it? To start to change the digital infrastructure. The rest of the world is so far ahead of us digitally because the developing countries had nothing to blow up --they started from scratch. BTW, grandma is one of the fastest growing internet usage segments.
Quote from: MU Avenue on March 18, 2009, 10:50:57 AM
Your comment, Phi Iota Gamma 84, tells me that you care little or not at all about local or state news and only read the newspaper for the sports page.
Otherwise, what you have written makes no sense and is another empty attack on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which remains a fine newspaper that covers its readership areas well. Substantiate your criticisms with facts.
If you do not care about local or state news and events, admit it and stop blaming the local daily newspaper for your apathy toward or disinterest in topics or events that do not involve teams in uniforms, a ball and a lot of sweat.
I have trouble believing you delve deeply into The Wall Street Journal each day or that you have a sincere appreciation for the outstanding writing found in that newspaper, which remains quite good even under its new ownership.
Read something in every section except Personal Journal of the WSJ every day. Main problem with the MJS is the complete one-sided presentation. It reminds me of my union days and reading the weekly union paper. Article last week on Repairers couldn't help but snipe at Walker, the editorial page is clueless and asbysmal.
Back to the original statemet/question... I have a relative who works for a major newspaper in one of the largest cities in the country. When in town he always comments on how much the JS sucks. His reasoning, competition drives good reporting. In his city, three papers are constantly trying to break stories, get the latest scoop. The quality is driven by local competition. The JS has zero competition. What is one to do if the quality is crappy for local news? You can either keep subscribing or cancel the subscription. There is no other option.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on March 18, 2009, 02:48:03 PM
Why would I spend any amount of money on an article when I could go to any streaming video service and get their news for free plus a few commercials thrown in?
For the same reasons people turn to a newspaper - either in print or digitally - today:
No streaming video service will, or likely can, provide the kind of in-depth reporting, community news, and highly localized content that newspapers provide.
You may personally have no interest in that. You're not alone.
But the fact is there is substantial market for local news product. The Daily Herald in the Chicago suburbs is a pretty good example. Despite the circulation slump of the two Chicago dailies, the Daily Herald actually saw it's circulation grow slightly in the first half of this decade, and only slide slightly in the past few years (whereas some big city dailies has suffered 10-15 percent circulation drops). That paper and it's content isn't for everyone, but they've carved out a niche for themselves that no one else in the marketplace is providing.
Can they get away with charging for it? Don't know. But they won't survive giving it away forever.
Quote from: shaquilvaine on March 18, 2009, 04:55:00 PM
Back to the original statemet/question... I have a relative who works for a major newspaper in one of the largest cities in the country. When in town he always comments on how much the JS sucks. His reasoning, competition drives good reporting. In his city, three papers are constantly trying to break stories, get the latest scoop. The quality is driven by local competition. The JS has zero competition. What is one to do if the quality is crappy for local news? You can either keep subscribing or cancel the subscription. There is no other option.
In my experience, I have almost never met a smart, savvy newspaperman or woman who trashes other newspapers.
I find it hard to believe and, if true, really lame that your relative, who you say "works for a major newspaper in one of the largest cities in the country," always comments on how the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "sucks."
The best newsmen and women I know would never do such a thing. Only amateurs and wannabes take swipes at other papers. Pros do not dabble in such nonsense.
This relative of yours says the Journal Sentinel "sucks" because, and only because, it is the only major daily newspaper in Milwaukee? By that measure, most daily newspapers "suck," right?
I do not know why you and your relative think the Journal Sentinel provides "crappy" coverage of local news. I read the newspaper and think it does a consistently solid job covering the Milwaukee area and the state.
Provide some examples of this "crappy" coverage. Or maybe your relative could impart some of his wisdom.
I am not buying your "I have a relative" tale for a New York minute.
why would I lie? he actually interviewed at the JS and turned down the offer because he did not like the paper. He and his family love the midwest and he was looking for a job that might not involve so many hours late at night like a lot of newspaper employees have. He starts work at noon and gets home late giving him little chance to see his kids. thus the reason for interviewing elsewhere. He is an editor for the tribune. He previously worked for the New York times and also an Irish newspaper for a few years. If you want his personal info send me a private message. He is definitely not an amateur or wannabe. He just tells it how it is. sorry if it hurt your feelings and affected your agenda with this thread. Fact of the matter is the JS may not be all you think it is cracked up to be. By chance are you an employee there?
Quote from: MU Avenue on March 18, 2009, 09:06:39 PM
In my experience, I have almost never met a smart, savvy newspaperman or woman who trashes other newspapers.
I find it hard to believe and, if true, really lame that your relative, who you say "works for a major newspaper in one of the largest cities in the country," always comments on how the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "sucks."
The best newsmen and women I know would never do such a thing. Only amateurs and wannabes take swipes at other papers. Pros do not dabble in such nonsense.
This relative of yours says the Journal Sentinel "sucks" because, and only because, it is the only major daily newspaper in Milwaukee? By that measure, most daily newspapers "suck," right?
I do not know why you and your relative think the Journal Sentinel provides "crappy" coverage of local news. I read the newspaper and think it does a consistently solid job covering the Milwaukee area and the state.
Provide some examples of this "crappy" coverage. Or maybe your relative could impart some of his wisdom.
I am not buying your "I have a relative" tale for a New York minute.
I don't have a dog in this race.
Simply wanted to address your original question. I read the print version of the JS whenever I am in Milwaukee, which is about 6 times a year. I read web content on an almost daily basis. I don't confine my reading to the sports page.
The print version of the paper is skimpy. It consists of a ton of wire content. I know that is the way the whole industry is going, but it's the mark of a less interesting paper. I particularly noticed the lackluster front section on the first Sunday of March. It consisted of a ton of ads-- large portions of key real estate covered in color ads about sofa sales and the like. No in depth coverage of the economic crisis, or, for example, what Wisconsin or Milwaukee stands to gain (or lose) from the stimulus package.
I also noticed a recent article about a guy who helped a woman load a deer into the back of her truck because her boyfriend was unwilling to leave a bar to help her with it. I wasn't sure if it was a caricature of Wisconsin life or a real article. Perhaps it was in the human interest section and somehow got mislabeled on the website-- I didn't see the print version that day-- but it screamed "puff" journalism to me.
The MJS isn't alone. The Chicago Tribune has become woeful in the last 2 years. As Pakuni mentioned, local news has become the cornerstone of all but a very few papers. But it leads to coverage that focuses on sensational traffic accidents, fires, and shootings. It's Hard Copy newspaper writing.
I mean no ill will and I hope that the many talented people who write and produce papers find a way to continue to make a living. I know that the websites and blogs rely on the mainstream media for much of their content.
Just wanted to respond to your original question. I'm afraid I agree with the general sentiment that the JS isn't a very good paper.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2009, 02:00:27 PM
Actually, you'd be surprised to find that the opposite is true. Most newspapers today realize that local news is the only way to survive, which is why outlets like the Chicago Tribune and others are abandoning, or making deep cuts, in their out-of-state and foreign news operations. Their readers simply don't care, and the ones that do will go read an AP story linked on Yahoo! instead.
This is exactly right. Producing original national and foreign news content comes with a huge cost. Way back in the day all newspapers outside a very select few like the New York Times, Washington Post, and others got all of their national and foreign news via wire services.
Seems like after the 1960s and 1970s every newspaper wanted to become the New York Times and Washington Post, which is really silly and inefficient when you think about it.
The newspaper made their bed and are dealing with the consequences. When they made the decision to give away their content for free, they signaled their death knell.
I still pay for two newspapers and will continue to do so as long as they are published . . . However, despite their bellyaching, the newspaper industry has no one to blame but themselves.
I thought this column was topical.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/opinion/19kristof.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/opinion/19kristof.html)
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2009, 05:18:45 PM
For the same reasons people turn to a newspaper - either in print or digitally - today:
No streaming video service will, or likely can, provide the kind of in-depth reporting, community news, and highly localized content that newspapers provide.
The fact is that local television stations have been streaming their news for some time now and haven't been having a problem monetizing that with advertisements shown before clips. If there's the choice between free streaming video or a paid text article from a newspaper (which in the JS' case is horribly biased to the left) I, personally, don't see anyone bothering to pay for the content.
As an aside, but keeping on the topic of community news, when the Journal-Sentinel acquired all of the local papers (like the Tosa News Times, for example) they did a great job at ruining them. Additionally, I'd purchase the paper again if they'd bring back the Green Sheet. :P