The Tribune company profits went into a dive recently, as the LA Times reported yesterday. They don't seem to know how to pull out of that dive either. In the meanwhile, the LA Times continues to present interesting material in the most boring way possible. The first section is generally full of depressing overseas material up front, then depressing national material, and finally a little bit of local news buried near the back. They have deigned to present one or two local scandals on the front page of late, but the sort of local coverage that we see in regionals like the Long Beach Press Telegram is largely absent. No wonder they have trouble keeping the subscribers interested. Meanwhile, an editorial staff full of Chicago transplants can't seem to understand why Angelenos would be interested in something other than what they themselves are interested in.

Yes. I personally demand it.

We'll outsource reporting to the BBC. We're outsourcing everything else, so why not? Once the BBC starts producing a paper, there will be a significant expansion opportunity. A neutral paper, actually committed to the truth, that doesn't stint on good reporting?

What a concept!

Sure there is a demand for good investigating reporting. It's right up there with the demand for universal health care, and the demand for getting out of Iraq. Don't hold your breath.

What happened to the surge of citizen journalism that the internets were going to enable that we used to hear about? No, I don't mean "opinion journalism" -- that's what blogs are. I'm referring to a bunch of people with cheap video cameras and laptops who actually report on events. Really, I don't think it is a question of resources as much as it is a question of gumption. We already have "everyman his own historian" -- why not "everyman his own journalist?" Democracy is just too much work, I guess.

I think there is another factor you didn't list. the dumbing down and trivialization of the American conscience. While plenty of people seem to be attending a wide variety of schools, the actual level of education seems to have fallen off a cliff. There are professional, advanced degree types of successful people out there that engage in discussion and topics that are light years below the house painter and gas station owner I remember from my childhood. the general level of discourse has become so shallow that I really don't know if the masses would notice the death knell of daily print journalism you describe. After all, Entertainment Tonight and Judge Judy are on in 17 minutes!

I went to U of A when they tried to eliminate the journalism department. It's strange. I wonder what the motivation is to target journalism?

Wow- it's really happeneing, all that stuff that Lincoln and Eisenhower and all those guys worried about, with the consolidation of power in the hands of a few.

I have thought about this quite a bit. Ultimately the loss of any or all of the big five will not make much difference. They will be replaced by agencies that exist totally on line. Probably using the same reporters. Right now the main issue is advertising revenue. I don't know what rates the Washington Monthly charges but I suspect they are less than they should be.

I would suggest you look at TPM and Huffington Post, especially TPM, as the emerging model for the "newspaper" of the future. Josh recently redesigned his site. It looks better, but it is obvious that the real reason for the redesign was to find additional advertising space.

A newspaper basically has 5 major departments: the news division, advertising, circulation, printing/mechanical, and front office. The internet eliminates circulation and printing/mechanical. That saves all the costs associated with everything from the print shop to the press room and on to the distribution system. Loss of all the people associated with those departments should reduce the front office overhead as well.

Theoretically an internet operation generating reasonable ad revenue will have more money for news operations than any traditional newspaper ever had even back in the good old days.

The problem right now is that the leaders in the news business have a newsprint or television bias. The people running Washington Monthly probably have ink running through their veins. Those folks will struggle to adjust. Ultimately they will, or they will retire.

I wonder what all these kids are planning to do with their j-school training?

Dominionist religious fanatics from w/in Arizona planning to takeover the newspapers by storm?

Ha, ha, I'm so cynical- who knows? I'm being more realistic than cynical, you know.

But, first blush, I would tend to think more that it's just a bunch of liberal kids out there want to do something good for the world and can't figure out what to do with their lives, not so much that there are good prospects for them out there- they're on a crusade/phase. It's hard for them to see at their age that they could do plenty just by becoming a doctor or a lawyer, or taking that loan that uncle always promised to open up the little store (musical equipment, gardening, who knows) they always wanted, and staying engaged in the world around them- every profession needs that influence. It just seems boring when you're 22; kids aren't thinking of the reward of a job well done, of the satisfaction of mastering a collection of specialized knowledge.

Perhaps the greatest casualty of a daily print media meltdown will be investigative reporting that reveals and documents major misdoings (read scandals).

TV offers little but soundbites. Even network TV doesn't have the investigative resources that any large newspaper does. Electronic media can put endless quantities of information on line, but also lacks resources for original work -- too much information in too many places.

The professional skills and resources necessary to research and document, and publish without government, corporate, or special-interest influence, is found only in what remains of the free press. And the only part of this medium that can present large quantities of documentation in a form that's reasonably digestible is the newspaper.

When they're gone, who'll be tracking down and exposing the bad guys? Government? Not. The trend is for it to be tracking us down and overlooking the bad guys.

Bleak outlook.

As it happens, I used to know someone who taught briefly at ASU's j-school in the late '90s. She said she quit because all her students wanted to be Oprah.

I share Kevin's concern. Classified ad revenue is disappearing as Craigslist, etc. replace newspapers. Young people tend not to read newspapers. Newpapers looks like a dying industry. I see no replacement for serious news-gathering.

The internet eliminates circulation and printing/mechanical.

Not entirely. It reduces the cost significantly, but you still have to pay your sysadmins and you still have to pay for bandwidth. I buy your larger point though.

I wonder what all these kids are planning to do with their j-school training?

I pondered a journalism double-major about 10 years ago. I took a few intro courses and got some advising.

The sense I got, even back then, is that most of these kids have every intention of working as "talent" journalists, not actual journalist. My advisor and teacher had open disdain for "talent," but that didn't seem to dissuade most of them.

The folks you actually see on CNN/FOX/MSNBC are more actors than journalist, any more, and the aspiring journalists I met wanted those jobs.

Not grunt work reporting.

I'd argue that providing expanded news coverage is where leaner and meaner papers could survive. Where they have failed, and continue to fail, is as boring lifestyle and media guides, soaking up resources to please advertisers who then bail when circulation drops (because the coverage is dull.)

Most of the money was in classified ads anyway, and Craigslist pretty much took that lunch and ate it.

Also, I'd submit that thoughtful readers are pretty tired of the editorial support the big five have given the war and the administration for the last four years. Who wants to support cr*p like that?

Jesus Freaking Christ! I have two degrees from ASU and live in in Phoenix. I had never heard about this until now. Absolutely insane. I had a minor in business; so does it cost extra to even take elective classes in the business college without being a business major, like I did? I am among those who think that, along with food and water, education is one of the most important things in life. If you want an across the board solution to all of our ills such as crime, poverty and standard of living, racism, healthcare, and a host of others, sound education is as close as you will come; and there is no close second. This trend toward basically a la carte education is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.

A possible solution is contained in the statement of the problem:

Magazines do some good work but come out only weekly or monthly.

Who will save us, then? Seven weekly magazines = one daily newspaper. So do 30 monthlies. There's the answer.

I wonder what all these kids are planning to do with their j-school training?

Get a position at a major blog. A journalism degree must be a significant plus. I don't know of any other degree program that would better prepare someone. (Although I admit ignorance, having never applied for a position, paying or non-paying, at a major blog.)

I wonder what all these kids are planning to do with their j-school training?

Journalism majors become Public Relations people (and TV anchors while they are young if they are pretty enough.)

Then they become politicians, like the unlamented retired Jesse Helms or that idiot who used to represent Orange County in Congress.

See? Clear career track to the big bucks and big fame. Only the "C" students went to work for newspapers anyway.

The NYT going to $1.25 an issue doesn't seem to me like a step in the right direction in terms of reducing circulation dropoff. I was just in London and it was like here - a few people on the Tube reading tabloids, most reading freebies like Metro, London Today (?) and Lite. One person spotted reading the Guardian, zero for the Times. Last night on PBS - a report on a Miami paper uncovering a huge (and really obvious) housing department scandal. (By the way, is public housing, even if dressed up like everyone else's condo or whatever, really an idea whose time has passed, or what? Sorry, off topic) Sooo....who is gonna do that kind of reporting when the newspaper folds? It does seem pretty obvious to me that serious newspapers need to change fast if they expect to survive in some form.

>I guess the journalism profession can't be suffering too badly if there are so many aspiring reporters that ASU needs to beat them off with a stick. I wonder what all these kids are planning to do with their j-school training?

Go into public relations? That is what most people with journalism degrees do.

The real questions is is the blogs stealing from newspapers? Bloggers don't have resources to go into the communities to reports news but the papers do. Should bloggers be asked to pay if they link to news produced by papers?

Can the blogs exist w/o newspapers or AP or newswire like Reuters?

I think newspapers need to reduce some sections that people don't often read. Usually we read sports, front pages stuff, tech biz, food, TV or advertising sections. Other sections probably can go and be replaced something else.

Can a newspaper become an online entiry and survive?

One possible solution would be to create an American equivalent of the BBC. I don't like the idea of a government agency being our primary news source. I find the BBC quite biased. Still, I must admit that they gather lots and lots of news.

Journalism schools teach all sorts of skills. For several years, writing and reporting enrollments have been on the decline, but advertising and P.R. majors have been increasing rapidly.

News is the product. Newsprint is merely the delivery technology. The newspaper might die, but the news business will continue as long as people want news.

Orson asked about citizen journalism. Real journalism is hard work, but Josh Marshall's shop does quite a bit. Occasionally over at WTWC you will find original reporting. We have some real reporters writing there. We don't produce nearly as much original reporting as I would like, but more than you would imagine. The problem is money. We are just a baby startup. Writing opinions based on stories lifted from one of the major news sources is cheap and easy. That is why everybody does it.

Writing an original story is time consuming and expensive. There are lots of cheap information tools available. The most important part of reporting, however, is simply developing relationships with sources.

We also need either a physical or virtual newsroom where stories can be shared and vetted before publication. We are all over the country and our current software isn't really up to the task. That is something Marshall has and it works well.

Should we really be crying about five large corporations who have also helped enable the events leading to the 2000 "election", the invasion of Iraq, the call for "bipartisanship" and various other malodorous crap?
Waah, waah. Take a look at Josh Marshall's site for a glimpse of the future. That YouTube/CNN debate sounds like it worked as well. If we aren't reading newspapers or books, it's part of a trend. Don't worry, we're adapting to different things-not too many of us know how to drive a buggy or tap out Morse Code either. We still talk to our friends on our phones and write to them on our texting devices. As long as we have the equivalent of wire services and net neutrality, I think we'll be OK.
These declining circulation dailies/weaklies seem to do a lot to promote wierdos like Bobo, Jokeline and Krauthammer anyway. What's to mourn?

The real questions is is the blogs stealing from newspapers? Bloggers don't have resources to go into the communities to reports news but the papers do. Should bloggers be asked to pay if they link to news produced by papers?

That's nuts- that's like saying people can't talk about what they read in the news. People click through the links on blogs to read the whole newspaper story, and then they see the whole newspaper website and its banner ads.

J-school's a complete waste of time. If you already know how to write, study good newspapers to see how it's done. All you need is an AP stylebook.

Get a job stringing for your local paper, and work your way up from there.

And go to school, but know that you're better off with a degree in history, law or economics. A j-school diploma's not worth the paper it's printed on.

....I find the BBC quite biased....ex-laxat 4:53 PM

corpus juris: News is the product. Newsprint is merely the delivery technology. The newspaper might die, but the news business will continue as long as people want news.

Exactly. That demand still exists, and predictions about the demise of investigative reporting and analysis are, IMHO way overblown.

While the dailies seem to be lagging, many weeklies and monthlies seem to have figured out that online delivery is becoming as or more important than paper delivery; e.g., The Atlantic, Harpers, The Economist, TNR, etc. There is excellent investigative reporting and analysis in those publications. (Still notably absent in my list for providing pure electronic delivery is TWM. hint hint.)

Those publications are providing much more than an electronic version of their paper editions. They are posting articles at greater frequency, not slaved to the paper edition. They are providing online content that is unavailable in the paper edition. They are providing online access to their archives. And of course supplementing their main content with blogs written by their contributing editors.

All of which are reasons why I much prefer their online editions. If the savings from electronic delivery is used to enhance the online experience at the expense of paper editions, or their is a surcharge for paper editions, so be it.

What remains to be seen is whether the online model can generate sufficient revenue--at least based on the past and still current business models--as much of their revenue still comes from print-based advertising, and most (all?) have so far refrained from advertising in their for-pay online editions.

Truth be told....there is little demand among people under fifty for printed newpapers....most everybody I know reads newpapers, but they do so online.

The dailies which transition to a web-only model the fastest will survive, those that continue to focus on print will die a slow death. It's just too expensive, and there's just too little demand, for printed newspapers anymore.

Mike, although I am a member of PBS and NPR, I would like to shut them down because I believe they violate Freedom of Speech. These two organizations are essentially government agencies. When they decide what to include in their broadcasts, they automatically are deciding what to exclude. When a government agency has the power to exclude something from being broadcast, I see that as a First Amendmentt violation.

I also think it's unfair to force people to pay for what they don't use. People like me pay membership dues to these organizations because we watch and listen to their shows. Why should people who don't listen or watch be forced to subsidize us? Members of these broadcast organizations aren't poor. I think we should pay our own way.

Also, it's unfair to force people to support points of view they disapprove of. IMHO NPR has an ugly bias against Israel. How would you feel if your tax dollars supported Rush Limbaugh?

Kevin: "After all, if there's a demand for this kind of reporting, someone will provide it. And there is a demand for it. Right?"

Alas, my online friends, I fear at this late juncture that all I can truly demand of our local, Gannett-owned Honolulu Advertiser is that its work product might provide my pet cockatiels with something substantive and absorbant to soil upon, and that it will continue to do so whenever the occasion moves me to clean and reline their cages.

ex-liberal: "Also, it's unfair to force people to support points of view they disapprove of."

My, how enlightened and noble of you.

I'll bet all that pseudo-simpatico crap will be quickly forgotten by the time you next berate those 65% of Aericans who would support the cut-off of congressional appropriation for the Iraq War.

ex-liberal: "How would you feel if your tax dollars supported Rush Limbaugh?"

But our tax dollars already do, you ignorant putz.

Not that such facts matter to the likes of vicariously-driven losers like you, but it is simply a matter of public record to note that the U.S. Armed Forces Radio network:

(a) Broadcasts Mr. Limbaugh's show and other conservative-oriented shows to the captive audience that is our troops currently deployed overseas; and

(b) Until just recently, did so while simultaneously and pointedly excluding from its on-air line-up all other radio talk shows that might have expressed contrary political views.

Back in his younger years, Pat Buchanan spent alot of time bemoaning the liberal MSM and predicted we would eventually return to the party press of the 1800's. I agree with the commenter above that said TPM is probably the model of future journalism - activists without the cant and hypocracy of being "objective." As long as we have Pajamas Media, Townhall and Real Clear Politics to balance them, I think the future will be an improvement over dead tree media.

Can the pottymouth from Hawaii go wash his mouth out with soap? Pls.

The reason why they are dying is because they all have pretty much become rightwing propaganda rags. Why should I spend my hard-earned money on propaganda. I canceled my long time subscription to The Washington Post in July of 2004. It isn't even a shadow of what it used to be. It should change its name to Pravda on the Potomac. It's only good for lining the birdcage these days.

ASU probably implemented the surcharge to help pay for moving the journalism college from the main campus to downtown Phoenix.

The young journalism students today will return to their hometowns and start local Internet newspapers.

It's a return to the early-day man with a shirttail full of type when thinking folks like William Allen White ruled the roost.

Democracy will thrive as it once did.

[For those of you who may wonder what it's like, start by reading the the great American novel. It's Edna Ferber's Cimarron, of course. And read White's autobiography.]

I'm referring to a bunch of people with cheap video cameras and laptops who actually report on events.

Check out Current TV. About 80% of the material is barely above the level of YouTube, but in between the reports on surfboard makers and skate punks, one sees young journalists covering stories in places where the major networks fear to tread. In the past few weeks I've seen reports from Kashmir, the "Tribal" region of Pakistan, the Malay/Thai border where war goes on virtually unnoticed, and the town in China where people are disassembling old electronics and outsiders are definitely not encouraged. Good stuff, and if they're aiming at the big time well good for them.

Depending on exactly how ASU's journalism dept is structured, many of them may be going into marketing or PR.

I once read (maybe it was here) that daily newspapers started during the second world war because people wanted up to date information about it. Then of course the papers figured that, WOW, what a great was to make money and found "good" reasons and "vital" stories to fill all those pages, which continued to increase in number.

The way I look at it, there's been a HUGE amount of forests cut just so people can be informed about what are essentially trivialities. I mean the important stuff is usually on the first two pages, the rest is mostly unimportant news and advertising - which has exploded since the 40s. I'm happy to see them go. Next the plethora of useless magazines. Don't get me wrong, we need the news, and can get it on a daily basis from newspapers and especially the internet but we just don't need every paper every day to weigh as much as a telephone book.

The first daily newspaper was The Daily Courant in London, 1702. The first daily newspaper in the U.S. was the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser which began publication on September 21, 1784. Most of the large cities gained dailies in the decade that followed.

FAUX-Lib must gearing up for the day by watching Pravda and Friends, while waiting for Hume, O'Reilly and Hannity of Pravda's Fair and Balanced Squads to enlighten him.

And, would someone explain why they believe McClatchy is so wonderful. When they took over the Lexington, KY local paper, they returned the grant money which had allowed investigative reporting on Mitch McConnell's money machine. Perhaps they wanted the local to concentrate on the thoros and basketball.

I read a lot of papers, link thru abyz and drudge and madsen to read international papers. The biggest difference I see in our papers and theirs is theirs seem to report what is actually going on. I get the feeling the editors of our papers see themselves as censors. Perhaps they are afraid of rocking the boat. I read papers because I want information, all the information, and the domestic newsprint industry seems determined not to give it to me. That's why i cancelled my subscriptions to the AJC and the NYT. TV is even worse. Except for C-Span (and even C-Span 2 has been removed by Comcast in Atlanta).

"I get the feeling the editors of our papers see themselves as censors." Posted by: robert lewis on July 29, 2007 at 12:23 PM

As such, they have willing given up their First Amendment right of freedom of the press. So very sad.

Nature abhors a vacuum. As long as we have a free market there is nothing to worry about.

In addition to your list, kudos are due Knight Ridder which, unlike the others you name, was skeptical about war propagnada from the start, and has continued to report Iraq as objectively as any service out there.

ex-lax at 6:45 PM:
...they violate Freedom of Speech....
That is exceptionally stupid even for you. Speaking violates freedom of speech. I suppose that War is Peace and Ignorance is Knowledge as well. It's far more likely that your real objection is the supposed objectivity of those sources, objectivity that is sometimes lacking when their programs to show a strong rightist slant. In fact, some of their commentators are on Fox and another Cokie Roberts is notorious for being a Republican shill.

Of course, you have no problem giving public airwaves cheaply to big media who consistently tout a corporatist agenda. Nor do you have any problem with all your talk radio, which is subsidized by the public through government granted use of frequencies for far too little payment.

At their best PBS and NPR, present a variety of opinions and programming that commercial sources don't bother offering. There is no other way to receive niche programming and commercial free children's programming. I strongly doubt your assertion of 'membership,' because I realize that unprincipled neo-con shills such as yourself will make any claim.

I also think it's unfair to force people to pay for what they don't use...
The concept of 'unfair to pay' is one of the more hackneyed Libertarian talking points.
Yes indeed: lets have an income tax check off. Too much military waste, not my tax money; too much spent on rural areas, urban areas, not my tax money; too much spent on subsidizing churches, education, housing, highways, Karl Rove's agenda, etc etc not my tax dollars.

...it's unfair to force people to support points of view they disapprove of... NPR has an ugly bias against Israel...
There is no discernable bias against Israel anywhere in the American media or politics. The slant is all pro-Israel. AIPAC is pervasive. I presume that to some, showing the justice of the Palestinian cause is unacceptable. Of course, it is a shame that people are subjected to opposing points of view, and an examination of facts....heavens to murgatroid, their beliefs might be challenged. Gasp!

How would you feel if your tax dollars supported Rush Limbaugh
Of course they do. The company broadcasting him pays far too little for the privilege. The air waves should not be leased for a fee, but for a percentage of the gross income they generate.