More on the Death of Journalism

Sure, I'm being hyberbolic with the titles of these blogposts, but for those living in a dreamworld in which all is well, here are some more headlines:

Mourning Old Media’s Decline
Stunning stuff here, including:

"Clearly, the sky is falling. The question now is how many people will be left to cover it."

and

"And two weeks ago, TV Guide, one of the famous brand names in magazines, was sold for one dollar, less than the price of a single copy."

and

"The answer is that paper is not just how news is delivered; it is how it is paid for.

More than 90 percent of the newspaper industry’s revenue still derives from the print product, a legacy technology that attracts fewer consumers and advertisers every single day. A single newspaper ad might cost many thousands of dollars while an online ad might only bring in $20 for each 1,000 customers who see it.

The difference between print dollars and digital dimes — or sometimes pennies — is being taken out of the newsrooms that supply both. And while it is indeed tough all over in this economy, consider the consequences.

New Jersey, a petri dish of corruption, will have to make do with 40 percent fewer reporters at The Star-Ledger, one of the few remaining cops on the beat. The Los Angeles Times, which toils under Hollywood’s nose, has one movie reviewer left on staff. And dozens of communities served by Gannett will have fewer reporters and editors overseeing the deeds and misdeeds of local government and businesses."

Here are some more links:

Time Inc. Plans About 600 Layoffs

Christian Science Paper to End Daily Print Edition
(Last sentence of the first graph: "The cost-cutting measure makes The Monitor the first national newspaper to largely give up on print.")

Gannett to Cut 10% of Workers as Its Profit Slips
This is equal to about 3,000 people.

Still think all is well in journalism? Still think that arts journalism is all healthy?

Sphere: Related Content