BBC NEWS | USA Today owner’s profits slump — Tick-tock, tick-tock.
Gannett, the US’ largest newspaper publisher, saw profits fall 60% during the January to March quarter. The owner of USA Today and Detroit Free Press said a fall in advertising revenue of more than a third was to blame for the drop.Net profit came in at $77.7m (£52.1m), down from $191.8m from year a earlier.
Separately, Abitibibowater, North America’s largest newsprint producer, has filed for bankruptcy after failing to restructure its massive debts. The company said that day-to-day operations would continue as normal during the restructuring process. The decision to file for bankruptcy “ensures business continuity for Abitibibowater and was made only after all other viable options to recapitalise our long-term debt were exhausted,” said the company’s president David Paterson.
Like other US newspapers, Gannett is suffering from a declining circulation as readers increasingly get their news for free online. The group reported a fall in advertising revenue of 34%. Classified adverts were hit particularly hard.
Found by Mike Cosmi.
Its amazing how the newspaper industry deluded itself and lived in the past for so long
Newspapers became flyers with articles – only to sell ads and coupons – all at union wages with no end in sight
Well not at least till now
Ask not for whom the bell tolls
It tolls for thee
I AM BLOGGER,
HEAR ME ROAR!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/blogger.html?q=blogger.html
>Why average Joes support the party of the plutocrats, has
You mean the Democrats?
>when no one is questioning the government latest infringement
Not much better when you only get a check on Republican government.
>True Believers want uncomfortable facts filtered out of their news. If they read something that does not fit well with their beliefs, they call it “bias.”
This is why lefties hate FoxNews so much.
Should we really be bemoaning the loss of all newspapers. Especially not so old ones, like USA Today, that always seemed a bit fluffier that the more serious ones, like the NY Times or Chicago Tribune. Who really needs a national newspaper that mostly covers sports, the weather, and whatever else won’t get it sued.
Fewer papers printed would also mean fewer forest torn down to print them. Frankly, I think the days of the Daily, are over. And the weekly editions might not be far behind. But not just yet. I think these newspapers lost most of their readership, not just because the internet makes following an article much easier (and it does). But because many of these failing papers, got gobbled up by huge corporations, that managed their news coverage. And people have sensed this, even if not outright knowing it. They know what appears on blogs and such, aren’t always being controlled by some boardroom of millionaires, with vested interests in subverting the facts.
Take the startup of the Iraq war. All but one paper fell in lock step with the Bush Administration’s assessment of why we should invade Iraq. Just one paper questioned the evidence. Why? Most like because their owners were financially tied to Halliburton, and big oil. Who stood to profit from the war. I’m sure that major media magnate Rupert Murdoch, has made a bundle off the war, so far.
So most of these papers wouldn’t dare question it. Nor most of the Tv and radio networks either, for the same reason. And in fact they helped sell it to the public, even with no evidence of the WMDs that were its main justification (ff we don’t stop them now, they will be dropping these things on our cities). All of which proved to be a load of pro-war propaganda.
But what the corporations that snapped up and controls all these newspapers, did foresee. Was that in becoming all one big propaganda machine, while a possible alternative was lying in wait. That they’d lie themselves right out of business. Just as soon as their readers started realizing that their brand of journalism was a joke. And that readers were more likely to get the facts from sources that were more of the underground style of press. And if not, no harm done cause it was “free”. Just pick another website, until it starts to become compromised by corporate taint.
# 11 Greg Allen said, in part:
“I’m still waiting for someone to SPECIFICALLY point out the great, horrible, deserving-of-death bias in today’s New York Times. Bias, so much MORE OUTRAGEOUS than Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.”
Why, it’s obvious! They haven’t turned over the keys to the editorial page to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh! And they hardly ever publish op-ed columns by Cal Thomas and Thomas Sowell (no more than two to four times a week!)! How much more biased could you possibly get???
– - – - -
# 15 Special Ed said, in part:
“You recall when USAIR landed in the Hudson? Twitter circulated that news faster than any outlet.”
So? Some of us have other things to do than read Twitter all day. I like to read the newspaper in the morning and this blog in the evening. In between, I like do do stuff.
– - – - -
On the other hand, I remember when our local paper was family-owned (now it’s another Gannett property), and I remember when the daily edition weighed more than half a pound. [I just weighed today's (April 16th's) paper -- 200 grams or 7 ounces, including all advertising inserts.] When Gordon Brown and then Brian Cowen (Prime Ministers of the U.K. and of Ireland) visited, I saw _nothing_ about it in the local paper (and I looked).
At least there is still some local content, though sometimes I think they only have two or three people covering it. They do good stories on local efforts to decrease air pollution, the apparently unstoppable expansion of urban sprawl, and they have a guy who does a fair-to-middling job of covering the state house. For that, and the one daily crossword (there used to be two) and the comics, we continue to subscribe, but I don’t know for how much longer.
No, the bias is in things like publishing hit pieces on Republican politicians, like the bogus McCain is having an affair story.
Even now the media goes after the perceived Republican frontrunners, Jindal, Palin, and Sanford. Why give money to a newspaper that engages in political advocacy against one party?
# 3 MikeN said, “This isn’t journalism.”
Which is why subscriptions have been falling for FAR longer than the internet has been around.
>They haven’t turned over the keys to the editorial page to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh!
It’s true. I expect them to be as much anti-Obama as they were anti-Bush. Is that unreasonable?
# 9 BillM said, on April 16th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
The NY Times refused to print an OpEd piece from John McCain after printing a piece by His Holiness Obama. They can’t disappear fast enough and take the Boston Globe with them.
Add the LATimes to that…when they conspired against the Public’s Right to know and kept from us the video of Obama attending a mock beheading of Americans (and probably, applauding it), I swore them off.
The Daisy Chain chorus for comrade Obama can handle a few dropouts without much loss of volume.
http://debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/10/exclusive_dance.html
I bet soon that board game Zombies will make more money than USA today. On USA today’s side, they have a great iPhone app
#23 Not much better when you only get a check on Republican government.
You might want to read that book by Bush’s former press secretary in which even he said that the press was easy on Bush. And he should know, he was dealing with them on a daily basis.
The press succumbed to that “if you don’t agree with the President on everything you’re a terrorist lover” just like lots of people did.
Alfred, you really should put some thought into it before you believe anything Debbie Schlussel writes. This isn’t the only time she’s written something like this, going undercover in a mosque and all the Muslims were Jew bashing, and public person X was there cheering them on.
Phydeau, of course the media were Bush sycophants, repeating everything he said without question. Consider me corrected.
>even he said that the press was easy on Bush.
So then the demise of this press loses what?
I’m bemused by the glee with which many of you view the demise of newspapers. Without the Detroit Free Press and its relentless FOIA pursuits, Detroit would still have famous felon Kwame Kilpatrick as mayor. In fact, without the Free Press who would know he was a felon?
# 34 pfkad said, “In fact, without the Free Press who would know he was a felon?”
While I like that paper, Detroit is like D.C. The citizens (the majority anyway) would reelect him in a heartbeat. The people in Detroit can’t read anyway.
Detroit: “The literacy rate for adults in the city is less than 50 percent, and high school dropout rates are among the nation’s highest.”
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/22/broken-detroit-haunted-by-poverty-scandal/print/
# 32 MikeN said, on April 17th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Alfred, you really should put some thought into it before you believe anything Debbie Schlussel writes. This isn’t the only time she’s written something like this, going undercover in a mosque and all the Muslims were Jew bashing, and public person X was there cheering them on.
Your premise then, its impossible more than one public figure be involved with Islamic extremeists?…therefore her report is wrong?
That’s irrational, or absurd, take your pick.
# 31 Phydeau said, on April 17th, 2009 at 6:51 am
#23 Not much better when you only get a check on Republican government.
You might want to read that book by Bush’s former press secretary in which even he said that the press was easy on Bush. And he should know, he was dealing with them on a daily basis.
Scot wrote for money…I recall how the press treated Bush…it was never easy on him save a week or two after 9/11.
What an accurate term for a descriptive name for a website “Newspaper Death Watch”
The trend may have started with the advent of TV or even radio new casts
It has been accelerated by the internet and blogs
Now anyone can publish
True – accuracy is an issue and one must judge for yourself and with your own common sense
But then again has not a lot of the media been mindless pablum directed for selling advertising dollars
Soon to replace the newspapers as an information source local search may become a growing trend and fill in important niche
>its impossible more than one public figure be involved with Islamic extremeists?
No that is true. But how likely is it that these public figures are at large gatherings of hate speech which these people generally try to avoid, AND hardscrabble reporter Debbie Schlussel just happened to be there, AND she forgot her tape recorder?
Her first undercover might be plausible as the speaker was Louis Farrakhan, though her description of what he said seems to change regularly. Then she happened to show up and see a mock beheading performance with John Dingell there?
# 39 MikeN said, “But how likely is it that these public figures are at large gatherings of hate speech ”
Like O’Mama at his church?