MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: MUEng92 on December 02, 2018, 08:49:15 AM
-
I have been a subscriber since the 90's. Started out as an everyday subscription then pulled back to Sunday's only when I realized the weekday paper was so thin it took me longer to walk to the mailbox to get it than it did to read it.
One year ago the subscription was $8.67/mo. I received a letter yesterday that my rate is going up to $21/mo which is about the 3rd-4th increase in a year. I plan to call this week to confirm I'm understanding it correctly, but wow. Assuming I did, I guess I will only be reading 3 Ben Steele articles a month which sucks.
-
Dude, join da 90's and go digital four a fraction of da price. Just won't get the coupon section, if yor inta dat, hey?
-
You won't even need a digital subscription if you just use Chrome's incognito windows.
-
I have been a subscriber since the 90's. Started out as an everyday subscription then pulled back to Sunday's only when I realized the weekday paper was so thin it took me longer to walk to the mailbox to get it than it did to read it.
One year ago the subscription was $8.67/mo. I received a letter yesterday that my rate is going up to $21/mo which is about the 3rd-4th increase in a year. I plan to call this week to confirm I'm understanding it correctly, but wow. Assuming I did, I guess I will only be reading 3 Ben Steele articles a month which sucks.
Journalism costs money and newspapers no longer have classifieds (and far fewer display ads) around to foot the bill, so the cost gets passed on to the consumer.
I get that no one wants to pay more for something they've always received for free or dirt cheap (and newspapers get some of the blame here for giving away their product for so long), but that's the economic reality.
-
You won't even need a digital subscription if you just use Chrome's incognito windows.
And here's to killing to local journalism ....
-
I have been a subscriber since the 90's. Started out as an everyday subscription then pulled back to Sunday's only when I realized the weekday paper was so thin it took me longer to walk to the mailbox to get it than it did to read it.
One year ago the subscription was $8.67/mo. I received a letter yesterday that my rate is going up to $21/mo which is about the 3rd-4th increase in a year. I plan to call this week to confirm I'm understanding it correctly, but wow. Assuming I did, I guess I will only be reading 3 Ben Steele articles a month which sucks.
I promise that when you call to cancel, they will immediately offer you a lower price.
-
And here's to killing to local journalism ....
Don't put it out there for free then. Regardless, there is plenty of good content out there that is free. So why should I pay if I don't have to?
-
And here's to killing to local journalism ....
It's almost like they are stuck in old ways while trying to compete on the digital space and are being burned for it. Shocking.
-
Don't put it out there for free then. Regardless, there is plenty of good content out there that is free. So why should I pay if I don't have to?
1. If you find free content that suits your needs/wishes, by all means consume it. No one is suggesting otherwise.
2. You're using a workaround like going incognito to avoid paying for the content, they're not putting it out there for free. They're asking you to pay for their work and you're gleefully stealing it.
-
I am not stealing anything It is out there for free. They are placing cookies on *my* computer to keep track of my browsing. I have every right to not allow them to do that.
-
I am not stealing anything It is out there for free. They are placing cookies on *my* computer to keep track of my browsing. I have every right to not allow them to do that.
Oh, come on. You just wrote that you go incognito to avoid paying for a subscription.
-
And here's to killing to local journalism ....
We allow illegal streaming sites here, does that kill television?
-
Oh, come on. You just wrote that you go incognito to avoid paying for a subscription.
Right. Because I don't have to. That isn't stealing.
-
Some sites are starting to eliminate icognito work around
https://digiday.com/media/incognito-no-boston-globes-tightened-paywall-pays-dividends/
-
Some sites are starting to eliminate icognito work around
https://digiday.com/media/incognito-no-boston-globes-tightened-paywall-pays-dividends/
And that makes sense to me. If I can't get good content without paying, I am perfectly willing to pay. I just have no need to do so right now.
-
One year ago the subscription was $8.67/mo. I received a letter yesterday that my rate is going up to $21/mo which is about the 3rd-4th increase in a year. I plan to call this week to confirm I'm understanding it correctly, but wow. Assuming I did, I guess I will only be reading 3 Ben Steele articles a month which sucks.
So .. that $8.67 and $21 are for Sunday's only for you?
I've subbed 7 days a week, well, since MU offered it delivered to McCormick 31 years ago. (Whoa.) It's $220 a year, it's delicately placed on my front stoop at 5am each day encased in a bag.
About 6 months ago, I started reading it on a tablet, though, so half the days the physical paper is going straight to the recycling pile, which pains me but I hate the earth.
-
Right. Because I don't have to. That isn't stealing.
Rationalize much
Oh Yeah 25,000 post worth
-
I think the Athletic is the ideal model, but there is obviously game theory here - if anyone doesn't do it and still offers good content, this falls flat.
There's an unfortunate ethical dilemma that comes rising prices that come from lower readership, which is the hit for any chance at an informed electorate at the state and local level. To say nothing of the misinformation that Sinclair Broadcast Group is peddling.
-
if they had anything newsworthy to justify the price of their subscription, $8-9-10...21 it would be worth it, eyn'a? they obviously found their tipping point with you eng. for me? even free ain't worth it...just saying. i haven't received the journal-sentinal nor the waukesha freeman for a long long time. even when it was "cheap"
-
Wear due ya get yo obits knews, hey?
-
Wear due ya get yo obits knews, hey?
-
And here's to killing to local journalism ....
Or local journalism could figure out a way to generate revenue in both content and a delivery model.
I can get MJS articles for free via incognito but dont even bother because there is hardly anything worth reading that I can't get off Twitter and or TV news
-
As I have said before (and I said just a little while ago in a thread on the Al), I consider it something of a charitable contribution to pay full price for a subscription to my local daily newspaper.
The Charlotte Observer does some very good work. But there also are some days when the paper has about 16 pages and there's next to nothing in it. I still value their role in our community, and I support the free press in general. I also send an annual check to the free weekly that everybody in my town receives.
Of course, the Scooper who talks gibberish most of the time seemed to think I was making some kind of controversial statement because I said I like to support the free press.
Anyway, to the OP, I guess I'd suggest that if you think it's worthwhile to support the Journal Sentinel, even if mostly for Ben Steele's stuff or Packers news or whatever, then do it and, like me, consider it "charity."
If you don't think it's worthwhile, stop ... and don't feel guilty about it. Or go with the online subscription.
Hey, each of us has to prioritize how to use his or her available $$$ -- whether it's for necessities or wants or charities or what-not.
-
I am not stealing anything It is out there for free. They are placing cookies on *my* computer to keep track of my browsing. I have every right to not allow them to do that.
Back in the late 80s and early 90s, there was a certain model of newspaper boxes made for the Chicago Tribune that had a defect such that if you jerked the handle just quickly enough, the mechanism would fail and unlatch without you having to put the 50 or 75 cents in the machine... voila, free newspapers. And you didn’t have to be a strong person to pull it off, you just had to be quick... even a 10 year old could do it if they knew how to do it.
So by your logic, that wasn’t stealing since it was “out there for free.” By your logic, also neither would taking every paper in the box, even if you put the 75c in.
Newsflash... you’re stealing. And what’s worse, you’re lying to yourself to justify it.
-
Or local journalism could figure out a way to generate revenue in both content and a delivery model.
I can get MJS articles for free via incognito but dont even bother because there is hardly anything worth reading that I can't get off Twitter and or TV news
But supposedly journalism will deliver quality content, vetted content. Unfortunately the journalism profession has been gutted, too, and what we have today is a far cry what I grew up with it. Too much opinion disguised as news, but apparently that is what people want now. A take, not just the facts.
As a result, people do take twitter information and other as "news", when it may not be at all.
-
Back in the late 80s and early 90s, there was a certain model of newspaper boxes made for the Chicago Tribune that had a defect such that if you jerked the handle just quickly enough, the mechanism would fail and unlatch without you having to put the 50 or 75 cents in the machine... voila, free newspapers. And you didn’t have to be a strong person to pull it off, you just had to be quick... even a 10 year old could do it if they knew how to do it.
So by your logic, that wasn’t stealing since it was “out there for free.” By your logic, also neither would taking every paper in the box, even if you put the 75c in.
Newsflash... you’re stealing. And what’s worse, you’re lying to yourself to justify it.
People rationalize stealing digital products rather than tangible, physical products all the time. Back to the days of Napster, or sharing passwords for HBO, streaming MU games here, incognito newspaper access. They justify it every day. Digital apparently means it isn't theft and no employees are harmed. :o
-
But supposedly journalism will deliver quality content, vetted content. Unfortunately the journalism profession has been gutted, too, and what we have today is a far cry what I grew up with it. Too much opinion disguised as news, but apparently that is what people want now. A take, not just the facts.
There are articles that are fact-filled, and editorials/opinions/analyses that are opinions.
Sometimes opinions do bleed over into what are supposed to be articles, and I wish that were not the case, but it doesn't happen nearly as often as you contend.
Thank goodness for the free press, now more than ever.
-
But supposedly journalism will deliver quality content, vetted content. Unfortunately the journalism profession has been gutted, too, and what we have today is a far cry what I grew up with it. Too much opinion disguised as news, but apparently that is what people want now. A take, not just the facts.
As a result, people do take twitter information and other as "news", when it may not be at all.
It has absolutely zero to do with "what people want now". It's because the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987. Before then, news outlets had to share both sides of the story. Now they are free to be as biased as they want. I understand the Freedom of Speech side of it, but in the public interest, it led to a terrible turn for our country. That, along with the Gulf War showing that 24-hour news could be profitable, completely changed the face of how news is broadcast in our country.
-
Back in the late 80s and early 90s, there was a certain model of newspaper boxes made for the Chicago Tribune that had a defect such that if you jerked the handle just quickly enough, the mechanism would fail and unlatch without you having to put the 50 or 75 cents in the machine... voila, free newspapers. And you didn’t have to be a strong person to pull it off, you just had to be quick... even a 10 year old could do it if they knew how to do it.
So by your logic, that wasn’t stealing since it was “out there for free.” By your logic, also neither would taking every paper in the box, even if you put the 75c in.
Newsflash... you’re stealing. And what’s worse, you’re lying to yourself to justify it.
finally, the curtain has been removed. this is how the dude frames all of his "arguments" twisted logic or instead of throwing the "R" card atcha, he calls you a "victim".
-
Newsflash... you’re stealing. And what’s worse, you’re lying to yourself to justify it.
The comparison to old newspaper machines and ones ability to take multiples despite paying once is an apt one. If you know you have to use a workaround or browser tricks to acquire content that the producer is asking you to pay for, it's stealing. You can rationalize to yourself however you like, but it's no different than any honor system purchase.
-
Back in the late 80s and early 90s, there was a certain model of newspaper boxes made for the Chicago Tribune that had a defect such that if you jerked the handle just quickly enough, the mechanism would fail and unlatch without you having to put the 50 or 75 cents in the machine... voila, free newspapers. And you didn’t have to be a strong person to pull it off, you just had to be quick... even a 10 year old could do it if they knew how to do it.
So by your logic, that wasn’t stealing since it was “out there for free.” By your logic, also neither would taking every paper in the box, even if you put the 75c in.
Newsflash... you’re stealing. And what’s worse, you’re lying to yourself to justify it.
Bad analogy and nope.
I have a right not to have cookies placed on my computer.
-
The comparison to old newspaper machines and ones ability to take multiples despite paying once is an apt one. If you know you have to use a workaround or browser tricks to acquire content that the producer is asking you to pay for, it's stealing. You can rationalize to yourself however you like, but it's no different than any honor system purchase.
Nice try brew but nope.
An apt comparison would be my using someone else's password to get behind a paywall. Or posting full articles here that are behind a paywall. (Which has been done here.)
-
But supposedly journalism will deliver quality content, vetted content. Unfortunately the journalism profession has been gutted, too, and what we have today is a far cry what I grew up with it. Too much opinion disguised as news, but apparently that is what people want now. A take, not just the facts.
As a result, people do take twitter information and other as "news", when it may not be at all.
This is recency bias, opinion in journalism has been around for centuries....hell, yellow journalism is a term for this that's been around for 120 years and was basically the #FakeNews of its day.
The problem with news is not necessarily the purveyors of news, but the consumers of news these days. Technology has enabled (for good and for bad) consumers to consume news that aligns with their world view instead of aligning their world view with the news. Don't get me wrong, having lots of ways to consume news is a great thing and so is having lots of different news "perspectives" but that puts the burden on the consumer to separate fact from opinion which becomes difficult and something our society just isn't prepared to handle.
-
The comparison to old newspaper machines and ones ability to take multiples despite paying once is an apt one. If you know you have to use a workaround or browser tricks to acquire content that the producer is asking you to pay for, it's stealing. You can rationalize to yourself however you like, but it's no different than any honor system purchase.
Disagree.....just like with IP, if you can't take reasonable steps to protect your content (it's not protectable) then the user is under no obligation to pay for it. There are all sorts of ways that content can be protected (look at The Athletic, the incognito browser move doesn't work) but the journal chooses not to use them because they want to place cookies on the browser so they can profit off of the digital footprint. They could lock down the paywall, but they choose not to and since the barrier to free content is low (and IMHO the content value is low as well) you get people doing it.
They make choices, they have to live with the consequence of those choices within their business model.
-
This is recency bias, opinion in journalism has been around for centuries....hell, yellow journalism is a term for this that's been around for 120 years and was basically the #FakeNews of its day.
The problem with news is not necessarily the purveyors of news, but the consumers of news these days. Technology has enabled (for good and for bad) consumers to consume news that aligns with their world view instead of aligning their world view with the news. Don't get me wrong, having lots of ways to consume news is a great thing and so is having lots of different news "perspectives" but that puts the burden on the consumer to separate fact from opinion which becomes difficult and something our society just isn't prepared to handle.
Bingo!
As usual, mu03, you have nailed it.
-
Bad analogy and nope.
I have a right not to have cookies placed on my computer.
But you've already admitted that you go incognito to avoid paying, not cookies.
Almost every website uses cookies (including this one!). Are you always in incognito mode?
-
But you've already admitted that you go incognito to avoid paying, not cookies.
Almost every website uses cookies (including this one!). Are you always in incognito mode?
No because there are sometimes when I want to use cookies. It's too my advantage to do so. But it's my choice.
-
Nice try brew but nope.
An apt comparison would be my using someone else's password to get behind a paywall. Or posting full articles here that are behind a paywall. (Which has been done here.)
Nope. You are admitting to going out of your way to not pay for something the company is asking you to pay for. It's as simple as that.
-
Nope. You are admitting to going out of your way to not pay for something the company is asking you to pay for. It's as simple as that.
Right. Asking me, not requiring me, to pay for something. That's not stealing.
Maybe I should ask Scoopers to send me $5 every time you read one of my posts? And if you don't, I get to accuse you of stealing. Sound good?
-
Right. Asking me, not requiring me, to pay for something. That's not stealing.
Maybe I should ask Scoopers to send me $5 every time you read one of my posts? And if you don't, I get to accuse you of stealing. Sound good?
Depends.
Do you own Scoop or does Scoop pay you for your content? Is your content hidden behind a Scoop paywell? Do we take extra steps to evade that paywell to access your content?
If the answer to these questions is 'yes,' then we'd be stealing your content.
-
Right. Asking me, not requiring me, to pay for something. That's not stealing.
Maybe I should ask Scoopers to send me $5 every time you read one of my posts? And if you don't, I get to accuse you of stealing. Sound good?
You've officially become the Bailbondsman of South Wayne
-
Depends.
Do you own Scoop or does Scoop pay you for your content? Is your content hidden behind a Scoop paywell? Do we take extra steps to evade that paywell to access your content?
If the answer to these questions is 'yes,' then we'd be stealing your content.
But MJS isn't hiding anything behind a paywall. I can access it at anytime. They are literally placing it for free on the internet.
-
Right. Asking me, not requiring me, to pay for something. That's not stealing.
Maybe I should ask Scoopers to send me $5 every time you read one of my posts? And if you don't, I get to accuse you of stealing. Sound good?
You can tie yourself into a pretzel any way you see fit. I just don't think you have any rationale or justification here that isn't just you rationalizing or justifying to make yourself feel good about stealing content. I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but all you are doing is trying to avoid accepting responsibility for your actions. If you are going out of your way to take content that you know the content producer expects payment for, that's stealing.
-
You can tie yourself into a pretzel any way you see fit. I just don't think you have any rationale or justification here that isn't just you rationalizing or justifying to make yourself feel good about stealing content. I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but all you are doing is trying to avoid accepting responsibility for your actions. If you are going out of your way to take content that you know the content producer expects payment for, that's stealing.
1. They are putting content out there for free.
2. I am using a simple and legal technique to access it.
3. I am perfectly comfortable ethically and morally with using #2 to access #1.
4. Your dipsh*t logic and "psychology" really don't impact #3.
Got it?
-
sounds like somebody needs a snickers...or an arby's :-X
-
Legally, it's not really stealing.
Ethically, it's stealing.
-
I am pretty excited. Today I learned that if something is easy to steal, it's not really stealing.
As far as the value of the local journalism, most often than not in cases like JSonline, the quality has suffered as the cost cutting tried to offset the revenue drying up. This, which I'll call the Sears (or Blockbuster) strategy, will only buy you time. There are models for online content to be both high quality and profitable. The Athletic is a perfect example. They can't cost cut their way to success, they need to re-think their entire organizational structure.
-
Move on, people. Nothing to see here.
-
Right. Asking me, not requiring me, to pay for something. That's not stealing.
Maybe I should ask Scoopers to send me $5 every time you read one of my posts? And if you don't, I get to accuse you of stealing. Sound good?
Quantity not quality, aina?
-
I am pretty excited. Today I learned that if something is easy to steal, it's not really stealing.
As far as the value of the local journalism, most often than not in cases like JSonline, the quality has suffered as the cost cutting tried to offset the revenue drying up. This, which I'll call the Sears (or Blockbuster) strategy, will only buy you time. There are models for online content to be both high quality and profitable. The Athletic is a perfect example. They can't cost cut their way to success, they need to re-think their entire organizational structure.
The Athletic isn't profitable. It's riding high on a big wave of investment capital that is betting that it might one day be profitable, but they're not there yet. Probably not close.
The few outlets that are profitable, i.e. the "failing" New York Times and Washington Posts of the world, have done so largely by improving content, not slashing it to save money, and making readers hit a paywall quickly (and hoping that, unlike some people, those readers will actually respect the value of their work.
-
Yes, I didn't mean to say the Athletic is an example of the profitable model (at least not yet), but an example of how to rethink the organizational structure of journalism and how journalism will function in the future.
-
I am pretty excited. Today I learned that if something is easy to steal, it's not really stealing.
Of course it is.
But that's not what I'm doing.
The Athletic isn't profitable. It's riding high on a big wave of investment capital that is betting that it might one day be profitable, but they're not there yet. Probably not close.
The few outlets that are profitable, i.e. the "failing" New York Times and Washington Posts of the world, have done so largely by improving content, not slashing it to save money, and making readers hit a paywall quickly (and hoping that, unlike some people, those readers will actually respect the value of their work.
I clearly respect the value of their work. Too bad their employer doesn't.
-
1. They are putting content out there for free.
2. I am using a simple and legal technique to access it.
3. I am perfectly comfortable ethically and morally with using #2 to access #1.
4. Your dipsh*t logic and "psychology" really don't impact #3.
Got it?
Yes, I've got it. You are fine rationalizing to yourself stealing content from people who are seeking payment for said content.
If you didn't know what you are doing is stealing, you wouldn't be bragging about how you've figured out workarounds to get paid content for free.
-
Yes, I've got it. You are fine rationalizing to yourself stealing content from people who are seeking payment for said content.
If you didn't know what you are doing is stealing, you wouldn't be bragging about how you've figured out workarounds to get paid content for free.
Cut the Pontiff some slack. Everyone knows his chit dont stink.
-
If you didn't know what you are doing is stealing, you wouldn't be bragging about how you've figured out workarounds to get paid content for free.
Are you really this dimwitted? I'm not "bragging" about anything. I simply said: "You won't even need a digital subscription if you just use Chrome's incognito windows."
That caused the hand-wringers to claim that I am "stealing." You know. Something that has been placed on the internet for free. ::)
-
I clearly respect the value of their work. Too bad their employer doesn't.
Journalism is one of those rare products where people feel justified in refusing to pay for it, and even get mad when it's not free.
-
Journalism is one of those rare products where people feel justified in refusing to pay for it, and even get mad when it's not free.
Maybe they should produce better content then.
-
That caused the hand-wringers to claim that I am "stealing." You know. Something that has been placed on the internet for free. ::)
It's no longer free for you when you hit the paywall.
By your logic, because I can get a few free samples of cheese and popcorn next time I visit Costco, I ought to be able to walk out of the store with a shopping cart full without paying. Because, you know, they put out some of it for free.
-
Maybe they should produce better content then.
Ha!
Says the guy a) claims to value the content and b) consumes it so often he uses up all his free clicks and has to go to private browsing to keep reading.
Chicos-level goalpost shifting here.
Really, just admit you're cheap and don't want to pay. At least that would be honest.
-
Maybe they should produce better content then.
I think we found Heisenberg's latest profile.
-
It's no longer free for you when you hit the paywall.
By your logic, because I can get a few free samples of cheese and popcorn next time I visit Costco, I ought to be able to walk out of the store with a shopping cart full without paying. Because, you know, they put out some of it for free.
Another really poor analogy.
-
Another really poor analogy.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/ktf.gif)
-
Journalism is one of those rare products where people feel justified in refusing to pay for it, and even get mad when it's not free.
Gotta agree with Sultan on this issue.
Interesting that many here support the MJS infringing on your privacy by placing cookies on your PC even after making you pay for their product.
Refusing to give them access to your PC to send you ads gets you their website for free. That is the way THEY set up their subscription model. Sultan is not stealing a thing - JSO is offering it to him for free.
They could change it any time.
-
Are you really this dimwitted?
Are you really this desperate to continue rationalizing your own behavior?
It's paid content. You are taking actions to avoid paying for said content that you know is intended to be paid for.
You can dismiss all the perfectly accurate analogies you like, you can move the goalposts wherever you want, but all you're doing is mimicking the behavior of people like Heisy & Chicos that you've criticized in the past. If you don't like being called on your crap, maybe don't air it in public.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
Gotta agree with Sultan on this issue.
Interesting that many here support the MJS infringing on your privacy by placing cookies on your PC even after making you pay for their product.
Refusing to give them access to your PC to send you ads gets you their website for free. That is the way THEY set up their subscription model. Sultan is not stealing a thing - JSO is offering it to him for free.
They could change it any time.
MJS is doing nothing different than every other website out there (again, including this one). It's nothing more than a red herring to rationalize his unwillingness to pony up.
And no, cookies do not give the MJS access to your computer. Where did you come up with that?
-
Are you really this desperate to continue rationalizing your own behavior?
It's paid content. You are taking actions to avoid paying for said content that you know is intended to be paid for.
You can dismiss all the perfectly accurate analogies you like, you can move the goalposts wherever you want, but all you're doing is mimicking the behavior of people like Heisy & Chicos that you've criticized in the past. If you don't like being called on your crap, maybe don't air it in public.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you think you are "calling me on my crap," that's rich. You haven't changed my mind on the matter. You will never change my mind on the matter.
I am bemused by the "debate" more than anything. A cat has to play with a mouse every so often. It's enjoyable.
(And the content isn't "paid." It is on the web for free. I don't know why you are having trouble understanding this very basic concept.)
-
I am bemused by the "debate" more than anything. A cat has to play with a mouse every so often. It's enjoyable.
Yes, you've been getting batted around for hours. Glad you enjoy it.
At this rate, with all your twisting and turning to rationalize this, you'll look like a pretzel by morning.
-
Yes, you've been getting batted around for hours. Glad you enjoy it.
I guess if I respected your opinion about me it might mean something. Otherwise...meh.
-
MJS is doing nothing different than every other website out there (again, including this one). It's nothing more than a red herring to rationalize his unwillingness to pony up.
And no, cookies do not give the MJS access to your computer. Where did you come up with that?
I meant access to send ads to your PC - I should have stated it more clearly.
-
Move on, people. Nothing to see here.
Only 21 more posts (22 including this one) on the subject since people were urged to "move on."
Like most 7-year-olds, we don't listen real well.
-
If you think you are "calling me on my crap," that's rich. You haven't changed my mind on the matter. You will never change my mind on the matter.
I am bemused by the "debate" more than anything. A cat has to play with a mouse every so often. It's enjoyable.
(And the content isn't "paid." It is on the web for free. I don't know why you are having trouble understanding this very basic concept.)
Now even I’ve got to admit, this is Chico esque. Yous guyses have a little “thing” goin on the side? 🙈
-
Tbh, I think both things can be true. MJS should protect its IP with better paywall technology. And it's still doing a great disservice to the men and women who add so much support to our local community and call out dirty politics that pair gerrymandering with corrupt intent to further disenchfranchise voters like this https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/30/lawmakers-consider-changes-early-voting-transportation-funding-2020-presidential-primary/2162684002/
(https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/30/lawmakers-consider-changes-early-voting-transportation-funding-2020-presidential-primary/2162684002/)
#IAmTheLock
-
Only 21 more posts (22 including this one) on the subject since people were urged to "move on."
Like most 7-year-olds, we don't listen real well.
Nice! The dude that gets the most lockdowns per capital, fresh off a “time out” and he’s telling us we don’t what? Your teal button must be outta ink, EyN’eR?
-
Tbh, I think both things can be true. MJS should protect its IP with better paywall technology. And it's still doing a great disservice to the men and women who add so much support to our local community and call out dirty politics that pair gerrymandering with corrupt intent to further disenchfranchise voters like this https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/30/lawmakers-consider-changes-early-voting-transportation-funding-2020-presidential-primary/2162684002/
(https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/30/lawmakers-consider-changes-early-voting-transportation-funding-2020-presidential-primary/2162684002/)
#IAmTheLock
Oh, I see what you did there. Clever!
-
Nice! The dude that gets the most lockdowns per capital, fresh off a “time out” and he’s telling us we don’t what? Your teal button must be outta ink, EyN’eR?
I included myself.
I have never once used teal.
There is no such thing as "per capital."
Lighten up, Francis.
-
I have been a subscriber since the 90's. Started out as an everyday subscription then pulled back to Sunday's only when I realized the weekday paper was so thin it took me longer to walk to the mailbox to get it than it did to read it.
One year ago the subscription was $8.67/mo. I received a letter yesterday that my rate is going up to $21/mo which is about the 3rd-4th increase in a year. I plan to call this week to confirm I'm understanding it correctly, but wow. Assuming I did, I guess I will only be reading 3 Ben Steele articles a month which sucks.
My parents were daily subscribers since 1960 until this last May when the smaller paper/limited income was the last straw and they canceled. They were at Costco last week and a vendor tried to get them to subscribe, his 1st offer was $160/year plus 2 - $20 Costco gift cards, he eventually raised that to 4 gift cards ($80). when asked if he would take a check, he declined, credit or debit cards only. Just so you get renewed at full price in a year or what?
-
My parents were daily subscribers since 1960 until this last May when the smaller paper/limited income was the last straw and they canceled. They were at Costco last week and a vendor tried to get them to subscribe, his 1st offer was $160/year plus 2 - $20 Costco gift cards, he eventually raised that to 4 gift cards ($80). when asked if he would take a check, he declined, credit or debit cards only. Just so you get renewed at full price in a year or what?
Exactly.
-
My parents were daily subscribers since 1960 until this last May when the smaller paper/limited income was the last straw and they canceled. They were at Costco last week and a vendor tried to get them to subscribe, his 1st offer was $160/year plus 2 - $20 Costco gift cards, he eventually raised that to 4 gift cards ($80). when asked if he would take a check, he declined, credit or debit cards only. Just so you get renewed at full price in a year or what?
Or the MJS doesn't want independent contractors, which those vendors are, taking checks or cash from customers.
-
ND sucks.
-
So some of the in-depth reporting I'm being asked to pay more for includes a story about what a satirical newspaper is reporting on? This "journalist" reports to an "editor" who said, I think people who pay for our newspaper need to know what the free fake newspaper is writing about.
This has to be either an Onion article within an Onion article or a Twilight Zone episode.
-
the thing is, they have to raise their prices because no one wants to buy ad time in something that everyone and their uncles are reporting on the same way with the same stories. nothing new. i don't even want to steal it like some here. remember, approx. 50% of this country doesn't agree with most of the garbage these rags are reporting or how they are reporting it
-
the thing is, they have to raise their prices because no one wants to buy ad time in something that everyone and their uncles are reporting on the same way with the same stories. nothing new. i don't even want to steal it like some here. remember, approx. 50% of this country doesn't agree with most of the garbage these rags are reporting or how they are reporting it
The vast majority of what newspapers report isn't political and isn't reported in a political manner. You just never get past that do you>
-
The vast majority of what newspapers report isn't political and isn't reported in a political manner. You just never get past that do you>
wait a minute pigeon-hawk-haven't you said, frequently, that EVERYTHING is political? even the pontiff can forget his occasional stances on things eyn'a? what size flip-flops ya wear anyhow?
oh, i get past it alright, i don't even bother try stealing the chit either. i just leave it alone. i'm one the reasons their ad revenue is down buddy
-
wait a minute pigeon-hawk-haven't you said, frequently, that EVERYTHING is political? even the pontiff can forget his occasional stances on things eyn'a? what size flip-flops ya wear anyhow?
oh, i get past it alright, i don't even bother try stealing the chit either. i just leave it alone. i'm one the reasons their ad revenue is down buddy
<sigh>
Yeah you don’t get what I said with “everything’s political.” Context matters.
And if you think that ad revenue is down because of a political bent, that shows an ignorance of history. Newspapers used to be *much* more political than they are now. The problem now is lack of content and technology is usurping their readership.
Educate thyself rocket.
-
Can someone explain .. how do small newspapers survive? I mean, if the MJS is struggling with 1m population base .. how does, for example, the Beloit Daily News survive?
Google/Wikipedia tells me the BDN has 40 staff writers .. circulation of 14,000, 6 days a week, delivery to homes. How in hell does that survive?
I found a list with 26 (wow) daily newspapers in Wisconsin. How does Marshfield have a daily? Portage? Shawano? Wisconsin Rapids? Baraboo? Ashland?
-
Can someone explain .. how do small newspapers survive? I mean, if the MJS is struggling with 1m population base .. how does, for example, the Beloit Daily News survive?
Google/Wikipedia tells me the BDN has 40 staff writers .. circulation of 14,000, 6 days a week, delivery to homes. How in hell does that survive?
I found a list with 26 (wow) daily newspapers in Wisconsin. How does Marshfield have a daily? Portage? Shawano? Wisconsin Rapids? Baraboo? Ashland?
I think if I lived in a small town, I would actually be more likely to subscribe to the paper, because their news isn't covered as well by other sources.
Plus, the people in the news are more likely to be folks you know personally. And when your kids make the honor roll or participate in high school sports, it's pretty hard to put a web page in your scrap book. ;D
-
Can someone explain .. how do small newspapers survive? I mean, if the MJS is struggling with 1m population base .. how does, for example, the Beloit Daily News survive?
Google/Wikipedia tells me the BDN has 40 staff writers .. circulation of 14,000, 6 days a week, delivery to homes. How in hell does that survive?
I found a list with 26 (wow) daily newspapers in Wisconsin. How does Marshfield have a daily? Portage? Shawano? Wisconsin Rapids? Baraboo? Ashland?
Because they do very local news. Where else can the citizens of Beloit find out about their local stuff? Like high school sports. (Parents like to read about their kids.)
That being said their readership is aging and many of these papers won’t be around in a generation or so.
-
The MJS does "local" news too. Has a weekly section with a suburb focus (sadly very small now) .. doesn't the same thing apply? Don't Milwaukee people want to read about their kids' sports too?
Indeed, we used to have the Herald in my suburb of 14000 people, then the NOW, then the Patch. All died off. Maybe small town people have a higher urge to be "connected" versus city folk who have multiple sources and .. don't care so much about what is happening in their village (???).
-
The MJS does "local" news too. Has a weekly section with a suburb focus (sadly very small now) .. doesn't the same thing apply? Don't Milwaukee people want to read about their kids' sports too?
Indeed, we used to have the Herald in my suburb of 14000 people, then the NOW, then the Patch. All died off. Maybe small town people have a higher urge to be "connected" versus city folk who have multiple sources and .. don't care so much about what is happening in their village (???).
We have a very small weekly paper in our town that is more of a mom-and-pop operation. Local kids (mostly middle-schoolers) deliver it, and once a month, they come around and collect (I think it's $2). Everyone hands the kid at least a fiver. I would subscribe to that paper even if I didn't read it to support the paper carriers.
-
Maybe I’m wrong here, but my intuitive guess is that people in smaller towns trend older and less educated. And perhaps their relative lack of technology adoption is helping those local papers?
-
Can someone explain .. how do small newspapers survive? I mean, if the MJS is struggling with 1m population base .. how does, for example, the Beloit Daily News survive?
Google/Wikipedia tells me the BDN has 40 staff writers .. circulation of 14,000, 6 days a week, delivery to homes. How in hell does that survive?
I found a list with 26 (wow) daily newspapers in Wisconsin. How does Marshfield have a daily? Portage? Shawano? Wisconsin Rapids? Baraboo? Ashland?
All of the dailies in Sauk & Columbia counties - Portage, Baraboo, Wisconsin Dells, Reedsburg, Sauk Prairie, Columbus and Beaver Dam - are all owned by the same group... in other words, most of the overhead for the paper is being shared, and if each paper only has a staff of 5 and circulation of 1,500, collectively, any one of those papers can report a staff of 35 and circulation of 10,000.
Perhaps Beloit is probably in a similar situation, at least with respect to ownership (i.e. is there a daily in Janesville and/or Rockford that might own Beloit)?
-
We have a very small weekly paper in our town that is more of a mom-and-pop operation. Local kids (mostly middle-schoolers) deliver it, and once a month, they come around and collect (I think it's $2). Everyone hands the kid at least a fiver. I would subscribe to that paper even if I didn't read it to support the paper carriers.
In Sultan's world, he would take a fiver from the kid who doesn't properly secure the money, because it's not Sultan's fault the kid didn't set up the proper security protocols. ;D
-
In Sultan's world, he would take a fiver from the kid who doesn't properly secure the money, because it's not Sultan's fault the kid didn't set up the proper security protocols. ;D
Now I know who stole my wallet at the BC several years back. I guess it was just "there."
-
HA!!
-
Regarding small newspapers ...
- A lot of them aren't surviving, but those that are do so mostly because they're good at what they do (i.e. covering local news) and have built somewhat of a legacy customer base in the communities they cover.
- Benny's correct that many benefit from shared resources. This isn't necessarily anything new, as chain ownership has always been a thing in small town newspapers, but consolidation and taking advantage of economies of scale definitely has increased. FWIW, this isn't just happening in small towns. In Chicago, for example, Chicago Tribune delivery drivers also deliver the Daily Herald. And the Daily Herald prints the Northwest Herald, Kane County Chronicle and other Shaw newspapers. And the Daily Herald shares content with the Chicago Sun-Times, and vice-versa.
- small town papers also benefit a bit from being one of the few options for local advertisers. A car dealership in suburban Chicago has far more ways to spend its advertising dollars than one in Dixon or Taylorville or Effingham.
- Lastly, and this goes for all newspaper sizes, newspapers aren't failing/struggling because "nobody reads newspapers" or "newspaper readers are all old and dying" (and certainly not nonsense like rocket suggests).
Newspaper readership has always skewed older and that's likely to never change. And many, if not most, newspapers have more readers than ever before. The problem is, a dwindling number of those readers actually pay for the content ... they're cancling their print subscriptions and reading online either until they hit the paywall or using Sultan mode. Back in the day, it didn't really matter whether the consumer paid, because newspapers were making the vast majority of their revenues from display and classified advertising. But now classified is dead, and display advertising dollars are fragmented across far more media options. And that's what creates an unsustainable situation for many publications. I wish I knew what the solution.
-
Regarding small newspapers ...
- A lot of them aren't surviving, but those that are do so mostly because they're good at what they do (i.e. covering local news) and have built somewhat of a legacy customer base in the communities they cover.
- Benny's correct that many benefit from shared resources. This isn't necessarily anything new, as chain ownership has always been a thing in small town newspapers, but consolidation and taking advantage of economies of scale definitely has increased. FWIW, this isn't just happening in small towns. In Chicago, for example, Chicago Tribune delivery drivers also deliver the Daily Herald. And the Daily Herald prints the Northwest Herald, Kane County Chronicle and other Shaw newspapers. And the Daily Herald shares content with the Chicago Sun-Times, and vice-versa.
- small town papers also benefit a bit from being one of the few options for local advertisers. A car dealership in suburban Chicago has far more ways to spend its advertising dollars than one in Dixon or Taylorville or Effingham.
- Lastly, and this goes for all newspaper sizes, newspapers aren't failing/struggling because "nobody reads newspapers" or "newspaper readers are all old and dying" (and certainly not nonsense like rocket suggests).
Newspaper readership has always skewed older and that's likely to never change. And many, if not most, newspapers have more readers than ever before. The problem is, a dwindling number of those readers actually pay for the content ... they're cancling their print subscriptions and reading online either until they hit the paywall or using Sultan mode. Back in the day, it didn't really matter whether the consumer paid, because newspapers were making the vast majority of their revenues from display and classified advertising. But now classified is dead, and display advertising dollars are fragmented across far more media options. And that's what creates an unsustainable situation for many publications. I wish I knew what the solution.
Thank you for this.
-
We have a very small weekly paper in our town that is more of a mom-and-pop operation. Local kids (mostly middle-schoolers) deliver it, and once a month, they come around and collect (I think it's $2). Everyone hands the kid at least a fiver. I would subscribe to that paper even if I didn't read it to support the paper carriers.
As a youngster, I used to deliver that Carol Stream Examiner, which I'm assuming is what you speak of. I used to go door to door asking for (literally) $1 at the time, and was always hopeful for an extra buck to be thrown my way.
-
As a youngster, I used to deliver that Carol Stream Examiner, which I'm assuming is what you speak of. I used to go door to door asking for (literally) $1 at the time, and was always hopeful for an extra buck to be thrown my way.
Seriously? That is the paper I am talking about. I didn't know you were a Carol Stream guy!
-
Regarding small newspapers ...
- A lot of them aren't surviving, but those that are do so mostly because they're good at what they do (i.e. covering local news) and have built somewhat of a legacy customer base in the communities they cover.
- Benny's correct that many benefit from shared resources. This isn't necessarily anything new, as chain ownership has always been a thing in small town newspapers, but consolidation and taking advantage of economies of scale definitely has increased. FWIW, this isn't just happening in small towns. In Chicago, for example, Chicago Tribune delivery drivers also deliver the Daily Herald. And the Daily Herald prints the Northwest Herald, Kane County Chronicle and other Shaw newspapers. And the Daily Herald shares content with the Chicago Sun-Times, and vice-versa.
- small town papers also benefit a bit from being one of the few options for local advertisers. A car dealership in suburban Chicago has far more ways to spend its advertising dollars than one in Dixon or Taylorville or Effingham.
- Lastly, and this goes for all newspaper sizes, newspapers aren't failing/struggling because "nobody reads newspapers" or "newspaper readers are all old and dying" (and certainly not nonsense like rocket suggests).
Newspaper readership has always skewed older and that's likely to never change. And many, if not most, newspapers have more readers than ever before. The problem is, a dwindling number of those readers actually pay for the content ... they're cancling their print subscriptions and reading online either until they hit the paywall or using Sultan mode. Back in the day, it didn't really matter whether the consumer paid, because newspapers were making the vast majority of their revenues from display and classified advertising. But now classified is dead, and display advertising dollars are fragmented across far more media options. And that's what creates an unsustainable situation for many publications. I wish I knew what the solution.
Outstanding presentation, Pakuni, especially your "Lastly" section.
In the olden days, newspapers didn't even need to charge readers; anything they got from subscribers or from folks who bought it on the corner was a bonus. They made their money -- big, big money -- through advertising, especially classifieds.
I said "olden days," but it really wasn't all that long ago that a newspaper (especially the Sunday paper) was filled with pages and pages and pages of ads, especially classified. When my wife and I were looking for a condo in 2004, the Tribune still had several sections of the Sunday paper dedicated to house-selling ads. Not several pages, but several SECTIONS. That was less than 15 years ago. But by the time we sold that condo only 3 years later, the Tribune had just one such section. And by the time we moved out of Chicago only 3 years after that, the Trib was down to only a few such pages.
Craigslist changed the way newspapers could make money ("changed" being a synonym for "killed"), and other services followed. Realtors no longer need to buy big ads in newspapers when they can advertise them better and to a larger audience on their own sites and on sites like Trulia and realtor.com. Landlords don't need to advertise in newspapers because they have Craigslist, etc.
Same thing with car ads. The Saturday paper used to have 2-3 sections filled only with ads from dealers. Now ... zippo (or close to it).
I support my newspaper because I think it is important and vital to our democratic republic. But I don't blame others for opting against overpaying for a declining product. Each of us must prioritize how we spend our disposable income.
Anyhoo, nicely done Pakuni.
-
As a youngster, I used to deliver that Carol Stream Examiner, which I'm assuming is what you speak of. I used to go door to door asking for (literally) $1 at the time, and was always hopeful for an extra buck to be thrown my way.
That is so cool. We've loved and appreciated our paperboys/girls through the years. Always great kids just trying to earn some spending money. We also get Oberweis delivered and have had our same delivery driver for decades. When our kids were young, they would go out to greet Mr. Julius and see if he had any extra chocolate milk on the truck and more often than not he was able to oblige.
-
Thank you for this.
Thanks.
I should have added, when discussing readers who go digital and then stop at the paywall or go incognito (sorry, cheap shot, I know), that when they hit the paywall and don't want to pay, they'll seek out another source for the same info. Can't read the Tribune story because of a paywall? Go to the Sun-Times. Go to ESPN if it's sports story. Go to a message board or Facebook. Go to Patch (which should burn in heck, by the way).
There are so many content providers out there now, it's not hard to find what you're looking for for free.
-
Welp .. I hope the big city papers can figure out how to emulate the little papers and survive.
Curious .. I remember when I started at MU, my memory is fuzzy, but they had very cheap deals for dorm students to subscribe to the MJS and Chicago Trib. Do they still do that? I imagine they quit physical paper delivery, but maybe entice the students for e-delivery, get them used to paying for content?
-
Thanks.
I should have added, when discussing readers who go digital and then stop at the paywall or go incognito (sorry, cheap shot, I know), that when they hit the paywall and don't want to pay, they'll seek out another source for the same info. Can't read the Tribune story because of a paywall? Go to the Sun-Times. Go to ESPN if it's sports story. Go to a message board or Facebook. Go to Patch (which should burn in heck, by the way).
There are so many content providers out there now, it's not hard to find what you're looking for for free.
Yep, and this also helps explain why it's difficult to make a living in the business.
Despite a seemingly insatiable appetite for "content," people in general do not want to pay for that content. (And I can't really throw stones, because I seek out free sites myself most of the time.) And there are only so many advertising dollars to go around. It's why Yahoo, AOL and numerous other sites with grand plans to create great sports sites had to abandon those plans. And as good as The Athletic is, they are up against it bigly, so we'll see.
I knew we were in trouble when my editors started using the word "content" instead of words like "quality," "depth," "accuracy," "research," "informed opinion," etc.
Anybody can provide "content," and for most sites on the interwebs, "anybody" does. Even us anybodys on Scoop. (Present company included.)
-
Thanks.
I should have added, when discussing readers who go digital and then stop at the paywall or go incognito (sorry, cheap shot, I know), that when they hit the paywall and don't want to pay, they'll seek out another source for the same info. Can't read the Tribune story because of a paywall? Go to the Sun-Times. Go to ESPN if it's sports story. Go to a message board or Facebook. Go to Patch (which should burn in heck, by the way).
There are so many content providers out there now, it's not hard to find what you're looking for for free.
Right. It’s unfortunately seeen as a commodity.
-
Seriously? That is the paper I am talking about. I didn't know you were a Carol Stream guy!
Yeah, depending on how long you've lived there, I used to also deliver the Daily Journal (not to be confused with the Daily Herald). The Daily Journal would have 12 year olds like me go door to door to collect subscription fees. The paper billed us 12 year old carriers, and in turn we had to go out and collect the fee from the subscribers, or we were out money. I tell people my first job was as a debt collector.
My parents still live in Carol Stream, off of Fair Oaks/Lies. If you ever go to the Jewel on Army Trail/County Farm, and a mentally/physically challenged bagger named Vicki helps you out, you'll make her day if you fill out a customer survey saying she did a good job (I'll hear about it at Christmas dinner too).
-
That is so cool. We've loved and appreciated our paperboys/girls through the years. Always great kids just trying to earn some spending money. We also get Oberweis delivered and have had our same delivery driver for decades. When our kids were young, they would go out to greet Mr. Julius and see if he had any extra chocolate milk on the truck and more often than not he was able to oblige.
That's funny, we had Oberweis delivery growing up too. I swear they had the best pizza, my parents probably ordered it once a month or so, and I remember it being great. I've gone to the Oberweis stores and can't find it there. I still always picture that Oberweis cooler outside my parents front porch.
-
Right. It’s unfortunately seeen as a commodity.
It is a commodity by and large. The amount of actual insight/value in print versus social media, and local TV news is limited. I mean a lot of the local communities now have their own facebook pages to inform citizens of events or let people know about news, same with schools, etc. The amount of information that you can only get from a newspaper is really narrow in my book. You combine that with the choice newspapers have made to monetize on banner ads at the expense of a robust paywall means that the value proposition just isn't there.
-
Yeah, depending on how long you've lived there, I used to also deliver the Daily Journal (not to be confused with the Daily Herald). The Daily Journal would have 12 year olds like me go door to door to collect subscription fees. The paper billed us 12 year old carriers, and in turn we had to go out and collect the fee from the subscribers, or we were out money. I tell people my first job was as a debt collector.
My parents still live in Carol Stream, off of Fair Oaks/Lies. If you ever go to the Jewel on Army Trail/County Farm, and a mentally/physically challenged bagger named Vicki helps you out, you'll make her day if you fill out a customer survey saying she did a good job (I'll hear about it at Christmas dinner too).
I am pretty sure I know who Vicki is, although we have started shopping at Caputo's since it opened.
-
It is a commodity by and large. The amount of actual insight/value in print versus social media, and local TV news is limited. I mean a lot of the local communities now have their own facebook pages to inform citizens of events or let people know about news, same with schools, etc. The amount of information that you can only get from a newspaper is really narrow in my book. You combine that with the choice newspapers have made to monetize on banner ads at the expense of a robust paywall means that the value proposition just isn't there.
This is true. But the question you have to ask yourself is if you, as a citizen and consumer, want the news about your governments' activities to comes only from the government? I guess when it comes to garbage pick up days and when the town will be flushing hydrants, that's fine. But when it comes to your school district's proposed tax hike or the city's plans to give a developer $25 million in tax incentives or the county's effort to build a new jail? If you're happy knowing what they want you to know (and only what they want you to know), then by all means ignore your local newspaper/media. If you want a closer look at what's really happening, why and how it might affect you - and from a largely objective source whose only bias is a good story - maybe support your local outlet. Perhaps if more people supported (and paid attention to) local journalism, Wisconsin wouldn't be staring down a multiyear, multimillion dollar boondoggle called Foxconn.
Before you or someone else says it ...
Yes, your local news outlet also is going to tell you only what they want you to know. But again, the only bias there is a good story. I've worked alongside local journalists for decades, and the vast, vast majority of them only care about getting a good story and getting it right (and preferably getting it before the competition). Many of them are downright idealistic about the importance of their work and see it as a service to the greater good. When it comes to things like local government, schools, crime, etc., there's no liberal/conservative bias and there's no clickbait.
-
Maybe I’m wrong here, but my intuitive guess is that people in smaller towns trend older and less educated. And perhaps their relative lack of technology adoption is helping those local papers?
South Wayne, WI. Population 489 (2010 census).
Explains so much.
-
How duz da Marquette Tribune survive, hey?
-
South Wayne, WI. Population 489 (2010 census).
Explains so much.
Watt duz der Vatican look like, hey?
-
That's funny, we had Oberweis delivery growing up too. I swear they had the best pizza, my parents probably ordered it once a month or so, and I remember it being great. I've gone to the Oberweis stores and can't find it there. I still always picture that Oberweis cooler outside my parents front porch.
I could go outside and take a pic if you like. And next time you're coming to visit your folks, PM chick or me and stop by for a beer. I'm sure you could walk. And I definitely know Vicki.
-
This is true. But the question you have to ask yourself is if you, as a citizen and consumer, want the news about your governments' activities to comes only from the government? I guess when it comes to garbage pick up days and when the town will be flushing hydrants, that's fine. But when it comes to your school district's proposed tax hike or the city's plans to give a developer $25 million in tax incentives or the county's effort to build a new jail? If you're happy knowing what they want you to know (and only what they want you to know), then by all means ignore your local newspaper/media. If you want a closer look at what's really happening, why and how it might affect you - and from a largely objective source whose only bias is a good story - maybe support your local outlet. Perhaps if more people supported (and paid attention to) local journalism, Wisconsin wouldn't be staring down a multiyear, multimillion dollar boondoggle called Foxconn.
Before you or someone else says it ...
Yes, your local news outlet also is going to tell you only what they want you to know. But again, the only bias there is a good story. I've worked alongside local journalists for decades, and the vast, vast majority of them only care about getting a good story and getting it right (and preferably getting it before the competition). Many of them are downright idealistic about the importance of their work and see it as a service to the greater good. When it comes to things like local government, schools, crime, etc., there's no liberal/conservative bias and there's no clickbait.
Don't disagree one bit, but what is the frequency with which I need to get that information in the "newspaper" format. How often is there a local scandal if you will, that I need information on and how frequently do I need need that info in that format?
Let me give an example, take the Milwaukee County pension scandal. Millions of words spilled on that, but if I had read the initial breaking article and then read an all encompassing summary article 3 weeks later and filled the in between with social media and local TV what have I missed? What I'm driving at is your value add use case is true but I can still get that value add merely within the 10 article a month free limitation the paper itself provides.
Put another way, what are the things I can only get from a newspaper and need at a frequency that exceeds what they are giving away free. It'll be different for different people no doubt, but until newspapers figure out what their media delivers in value and at quantity that someone can't get anywhere else for free or as part of a subscription they are already paying for other reasons(cable subscription, etc) they are a commodity and there current revenue model doesn't align with that.
-
I am pretty sure I know who Vicki is, although we have started shopping at Caputo's since it opened.
Melrose Park, right? Is that one a full blown grocery? The one I've seen in Lake Forest is basically a glorified cheese and coffee shop with a modest deli & sandwich counter... I'm sure it has enough offerings to sustain someone straight of the boat from Sicily, but it's a long ways from being a straight-up substitute for Jewel for your average God-fearing American (or hairless atheist from Carolina).
-
South Wayne, WI. Population 489 (2010 census).
Explains so much.
I am old.
-
I would gladly subscribe to the local paper for the burb we live in. I did for years until the only method of delivery was to take a JS subscription because they took over the delivery of my local once a week paper. No more city hall meeting notes etc.
-
<sigh>
Yeah you don’t get what I said with “everything’s political.” Context matters.
And if you think that ad revenue is down because of a political bent, that shows an ignorance of history. Newspapers used to be *much* more political than they are now. The problem now is lack of content and technology is usurping their readership.
Educate thyself rocket.
listen sully-you've proven yourself to be a little too slippery for me to pin down given your conversation on "free" content.
but anywhoo, the market is flooded with much of the same and people ain't buying all of it. companies buy ads where they think their investment is money well spent. otherwise it becomes a donation. companies only have so much budgeted for marketing. competition for that money is, well, where one would find the most bang for their buck. when ad revenue goes down, guess what? newspapers have trouble paying the bills, right?
how does a newspaper survive? come up with something different. set themselves apart from all of the papers going under push subscriber-ship up and bingo, companies will buy ad space. pretty simple. if it happens to be political, so be it. but produce something people want. everything does not have to be political
-
Don't disagree one bit, but what is the frequency with which I need to get that information in the "newspaper" format. How often is there a local scandal if you will, that I need information on and how frequently do I need need that info in that format?
Let me give an example, take the Milwaukee County pension scandal. Millions of words spilled on that, but if I had read the initial breaking article and then read an all encompassing summary article 3 weeks later and filled the in between with social media and local TV what have I missed? What I'm driving at is your value add use case is true but I can still get that value add merely within the 10 article a month free limitation the paper itself provides.
Put another way, what are the things I can only get from a newspaper and need at a frequency that exceeds what they are giving away free. It'll be different for different people no doubt, but until newspapers figure out what their media delivers in value and at quantity that someone can't get anywhere else for free or as part of a subscription they are already paying for other reasons(cable subscription, etc) they are a commodity and there current revenue model doesn't align with that.
These are all fair questions, but I can't answer any of them because it really comes down to personal tastes and interests. Some people care a lot about local news. Some don't care at all. Some live and die with their hometown sports teams or alma mater. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people in Milwaukee who never watch the Bucks and plenty of Marquette grads who couldn't name the head basketball coach. I personally don't care at all about celebrity news, by People magazine has more than 3 million readers and TMZ gets a few million unique clicks a month.
You write things like " until newspapers figure out what their media delivers in value and at quantity," but the reality is the the readership numbers show that newspapers do deliver something of value and in quantity. The problem is, they and other content producers badly misunderstood the internet and trained consumers to expect content for free. They viewed the web as a marketing tool for their print product, not a competitor. And here we are. It may or may not ever recover from that, but again, newspapers' struggles aren't because people don't read them or don't want local news. It's because people have come to expect their content for free and are too easily able to find it for free.
-
Melrose Park, right? Is that one a full blown grocery? The one I've seen in Lake Forest is basically a glorified cheese and coffee shop with a modest deli & sandwich counter... I'm sure it has enough offerings to sustain someone straight of the boat from Sicily, but it's a long ways from being a straight-up substitute for Jewel for your average God-fearing American (or hairless atheist from Carolina).
There are several locations in the western burbs, and all are full grocery.
It's been interesting to see the "niche" supermarkets like Caputo's and Pete's and others run in to fill the void left by Dominik's demise. They all seem to be midway between a traditional Jewel-type market and a Whole Foods.
-
There are several locations in the western burbs, and all are full grocery.
It's been interesting to see the "niche" supermarkets like Caputo's and Pete's and others run in to fill the void left by Dominik's demise. They all seem to be midway between a traditional Jewel-type market and a Whole Foods.
We go to the huge Caputos that is connected to their corporate headquarters on Shmale and North. It opened a couple of years ago. It's got a bar in it. Ask for Billy. He makes great bloodies.
-
how does a newspaper survive? come up with something different.
Yep. This is why the Failing NYT isn't failing at all, and why the WaPo is in the midst of a huge comeback, and why the WSJ is a go-to publication for anybody looking for serious news.
It's also why many small, local papers are still doing OK. They offer what the big boys never have and never will.
-
This is true. But the question you have to ask yourself is if you, as a citizen and consumer, want the news about your governments' activities to comes only from the government? I guess when it comes to garbage pick up days and when the town will be flushing hydrants, that's fine. But when it comes to your school district's proposed tax hike or the city's plans to give a developer $25 million in tax incentives or the county's effort to build a new jail? If you're happy knowing what they want you to know (and only what they want you to know), then by all means ignore your local newspaper/media. If you want a closer look at what's really happening, why and how it might affect you - and from a largely objective source whose only bias is a good story - maybe support your local outlet. Perhaps if more people supported (and paid attention to) local journalism, Wisconsin wouldn't be staring down a multiyear, multimillion dollar boondoggle called Foxconn.
Before you or someone else says it ...
Yes, your local news outlet also is going to tell you only what they want you to know. But again, the only bias there is a good story. I've worked alongside local journalists for decades, and the vast, vast majority of them only care about getting a good story and getting it right (and preferably getting it before the competition). Many of them are downright idealistic about the importance of their work and see it as a service to the greater good. When it comes to things like local government, schools, crime, etc., there's no liberal/conservative bias and there's no clickbait.
There are community-run Facebook pages out there that discuss things like local school board elections, tax hikes, etc.
-
There are articles that are fact-filled, and editorials/opinions/analyses that are opinions.
Sometimes opinions do bleed over into what are supposed to be articles, and I wish that were not the case, but it doesn't happen nearly as often as you contend.
Thank goodness for the free press, now more than ever.
It happens more than it used to, which is what I articulated. If I want opinion based content, there are those available to read and labeled as such.
-
It happens more than it used to, which is what I articulated. If I want opinion based content, there are those available to read and labeled as such.
It does not happen nearly as much as you suggest. Most major newspapers do a great job of separating "pure news" from opinion IMHO.
TV "news" shows? That's a whole 'nother story.
-
This is recency bias, opinion in journalism has been around for centuries....hell, yellow journalism is a term for this that's been around for 120 years and was basically the #FakeNews of its day.
The problem with news is not necessarily the purveyors of news, but the consumers of news these days. Technology has enabled (for good and for bad) consumers to consume news that aligns with their world view instead of aligning their world view with the news. Don't get me wrong, having lots of ways to consume news is a great thing and so is having lots of different news "perspectives" but that puts the burden on the consumer to separate fact from opinion which becomes difficult and something our society just isn't prepared to handle.
I do not disagree with what you said, except for the recency bias. I made these same claims 15 years ago, 10 years ago. It has been around for a centuries, but it was not this bad especially on the television side until 24 news came about. It is unwatchable now and serious journalists are hard to find. It has not helped the civil discourse, that is for sure. There is definitely more of it now, but this isn't a new thing, but definitely at a higher level of incidents.
-
It does not happen nearly as much as you suggest. Most major newspapers do a great job of separating "pure news" from opinion IMHO.
TV "news" shows? That's a whole 'nother story.
I said it happens more than it used. You keep saying it doesn't happen as much as I suggest? What quantity have I suggested? How are you deciding my interpretation of more than it used to?
-
There are community-run Facebook pages out there that discuss things like local school board elections, tax hikes, etc.
Yep, and they're typically a cesspool of misinformation and speculation, combined with aggregation from legitimate news sources. They are not creating content or reporting news.
-
I said it happens more than it used.
Is this your opinion, or do you have some quantifiable evidence to back up your claim?
-
I do not disagree with what you said, except for the recency bias. I made these same claims 15 years ago, 10 years ago. It has been around for a centuries, but it was not this bad especially on the television side until 24 news came about. It is unwatchable now and serious journalists are hard to find. It has not helped the civil discourse, that is for sure. There is definitely more of it now, but this isn't a new thing, but definitely at a higher level of incidents.
Read a newspaper
-
Yep, and they're typically a cesspool of misinformation and speculation, combined with aggregation from legitimate news sources. They are not creating content or reporting news.
NOT TO MENTION THAT THEY"RE ALL RUSSIAN BOTS!!!!
-
Read a newspaper
I still do, every single day.
-
Is this your opinion, or do you have some quantifiable evidence to back up your claim?
My opinion, also shared by some of the faculty of the Columbia Journalism Review, which is up there with the best of the best. The insertion of opinion into areas of journalism that were historically free of opinion. It is how news is done today, and in my opinion that is terrible for this country.
A Pew Research study about a year ago illustrated how many Americans cannot tell the difference between opinion and fact, especially in news content in which news agencies are mixing the two together. That does a disservice to the public, in my opinion.
-
My opinion, also shared by some of the faculty of the Columbia Journalism Review, which is up there with the best of the best. The insertion of opinion into areas of journalism that were historically free of opinion. It is how news is done today, and in my opinion that is terrible for this country.
A Pew Research study about a year ago illustrated how many Americans cannot tell the difference between opinion and fact, especially in news content in which news agencies are mixing the two together. That does a disservice to the public, in my opinion.
OK. You're allowed an opinion.
My opinion is different than yours, and I'm allowed it as well.
Kumbaya, and all that.
-
OK. You're allowed an opinion.
My opinion is different than yours, and I'm allowed it as well.
Kumbaya, and all that.
Perfect. Let us not state our opinions as fact, then. Same as someone saying you cannot be a Cardinals football fan and a Cubs baseball fan, as if this is physical law.
-
Perfect. Let us not state our opinions as fact, then. Same as someone saying you cannot be a Cardinals football fan and a Cubs baseball fan, as if this is physical law.
I'm not going to get involved in your numerous ongoing spats with others.
And I just noticed you said earlier, "especially on the television side," which is of course true (in both of our opinions).
I would just caution you not to conflate TV "news" with what our great national newspapers publish. Thank goodness for the NYT, WaPo and WSJ. As a nation, we'd be effed without them right now.
-
Thank goodness for the NYT, WaPo and WSJ. As a nation, we'd be effed without them right now.
^^^ ban dis guy
just like the newspaper did
-
^^^ ban dis guy
just like the newspaper did
He didn't make a political statement. In fact he named papers whose opinion pages range both "sides" of the political spectrum.
-
^^^ ban dis guy
just like the newspaper did
EA approves of this message.
-
How 'bout Katie George, hey?
-
^^^ ban dis guy
just like the newspaper did
As usual, your (lack of) character is revealed. Not to mention your lack of judgment.
-
He didn't make a political statement. In fact he named papers whose opinion pages range both "sides" of the political spectrum.
i'd hate to guess what both "sides' ya referring to? dumb and dumber? eyn'a?
-
Really, people?