Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

by onetouchfutbol Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:57 am

I'm sure that some people here are aware of the problems of the Seattle PI. It will be changing formats next Tuesday:

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/403793_piclosure17.html

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knew about how The Oregonian is doing in this economy. I was a Communications Major at UP before changing up my career a few times and finding something that satisfied me. I remember talking with Rick Seifert about the future of newspapers, and back in 1996 having people like Ken Goe and Seifert talking about people using digital pads to get their news in the future (kind of like what's happening now with the I-phone phenomena). It's very interesting to me how people in their 30s or older grew up with paper newspapers...like myself, and the younger generation is more accustomed to instantaneous internet news.

How have things been going in this economy for The Oregonian? Some are predicting that the Seattle PI will be the first of many newspapers to go through these kinds of changes with this economy...

by mattywizz Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:10 pm

This is something I have seen coming (not that others haven't) for some time now. Growing up I used to read the paper at my parent's house, but since moving out I have never subscribed to a newspaper. To me it is an unnecessary expense.

I don't know that it is the economy as much as a changing of the times. And really is the economy that bad...or is it a story they just keep building up to sell newspapers?

by **PilotNut** Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:14 pm

mattywizz wrote:And really is the economy that bad...or is it a story they just keep building up to sell newspapers?

Wow, that's deep. Razz

I still dont understand why I cant subscribe to a .pdf version of a newspaper... it would look like the paper lay out, but online. confused

The Portland Tribune has also begun to eliminate the paper version... I am sure they all will go that way soon.

by PurplePrideTrumpet Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:19 pm

The O has been shrinking for the past few years. Recently it has become very noticable to me. They have combined the Metro and Business sections: the front half is Metro and the back page of the section is the first page of Business. And now they are going to cut the comics to one page.

Personally I pick up the Willamette Week and the Mercury (those are like the Seattle Weekly and the Stranger, respectively) the days those come out, but reading the O is not part of my routine anymore. I guess I started reading less and less of it when I got to UP.

PNut, I think you can read the stuff in the O on OregonLive. Of course, I think that site's layout sucks, so the things you want might be hard to find...

by **PilotNut** Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:02 pm

Oh i know you can read it online. but i want a pretty version in pdf that is just like the paper version. I would probably pay some $$$ for it.

It's no wonder the paper subscriptions are dropping; almost all info in the paper-version O is available online for free, usually many hours before the paper version comes out... not a great business model, if you ask me...

by **DaTruRochin** Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:08 pm

Yeah.... I usually read the next day's O articles by like 9 or 10 the night before... How much sense does that make??

by Geezaldinho Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:51 pm

I just don't see a viable business model for an online newspaper. How are they supposed to pay for staff?

by **DaTruRochin** Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:54 pm

Purplegeezer wrote:I just don't see a viable business model for an online newspaper. How are they supposed to pay for staff?

Lots and lots of advertising....

by Geezaldinho Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:00 pm

DaTruRochin wrote:
Purplegeezer wrote:I just don't see a viable business model for an online newspaper. How are they supposed to pay for staff?

Lots and lots of advertising....

There isn't ONE Internet newspaper that pays for itself through either advertising OR subscription.

It sounds like the way to make a small fortune in Internet news is to start with a large fortune.

by mattywizz Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:02 pm

Purplegeezer wrote:I just don't see a viable business model for an online newspaper. How are they supposed to pay for staff?

Why do you have to pay them?

by PurplePrideTrumpet Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:28 pm

mattywizz wrote:
Purplegeezer wrote:I just don't see a viable business model for an online newspaper. How are they supposed to pay for staff?

Why do you have to pay them?

Exactly. Bloggers write from their parents' basements. Works just fine.

by **DaTruRochin** Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:29 pm

PurplePrideTrumpet wrote:
Exactly. Bloggers write from their parents' basements. Works just fine.

And with all the sports journalists like Canzano, etc. probably have just about the same level of credibility...

by mattywizz Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:23 pm

DaTruRochin wrote:
PurplePrideTrumpet wrote:
Exactly. Bloggers write from their parents' basements. Works just fine.

And with all the sports journalists like Canzano, etc. probably have just about the same level of credibility...

Or more...

by wrv Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:34 pm

Okay, so the newspaper model doesn't work financially--perhaps we will be a no newspaper town soon enough--and the online model doesn't work financially, leaving a business model that is hard to predict. Will it be possible for a local print news organization (excluding television obviously) to compete with national news organizations and their web sites giving their info for free?

Call me naive and overly optimistic, but I have to believe when the dust settles there will be a local print presence, though perhaps a reduced one, in a city as large as Portland. Whether it will involve delivery to your doorstep in the morning or online subsrciption or something akin to Amazon's "kindle" is another question. I also wonder whether the local written news will be relegated to a local focus only, leaving national stories to the NY Times, CNN etc.

We know the current business models are not working because all of the venerable institutions are failing financially. Though the stories regarding profitability have suggested the these organizations remain profitable, just less so, given the number of bankruptcy filings I have to wonder.

This is no small matter when you consider how intregal the publication of news is to our democracy. Talking soccer and bball is great, but the lack of an effective press and its disclosure of important issues would be very troubling. I think Thomas Jefferson implied that a free press is vital to a free society and to democracy.

by Stonehouse Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:44 pm

OK... prepare yourselves for a random collection of thoughts on this.

1) Craigslist is probably the #1 killer of newspapers, not blogs/internet/whatever. Revenue from classified ads was pure gold for newspapers and they have never figured out a way to replace that stream of cash coming in.

2) Newspapers' biggest mistake was making their articles free online. I think they got scared of the immediacy of the internet and felt like since everything else in the early days of the internet was free, their articles would need to be too. But when you think about it... why in the world should they be giving their articles away for free? A major, major mistake. But once a few papers started doing it, every other paper started doing it too. And once you went down that road, there was no turning back.

3) Blogs don't generate content. Blogs link, copy/paste, and provide commentary, but rarely do they actually report a story. It will be TRAGIC if local newspapers crumble and our news resources start becoming all commentary and links to press releases. In my opinion, society needs an adversarial media to act as a watch dog, and I truly worry about what the future holds if the art of journalism is totally lost.

4) Having said that, I think there is potentially a future in local-focused news websites. MinnPost (http://www.minnpost.com/) is a good example of what I'm talking about. Non-profit, but it does hire real journalists. I think its an interesting model and one that might have a real future.

5) People still haven't really solved the problem of monetizing the internet. It doesn't feel like it, but we are still in the nascent phases of the web. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future we have a pay-per-click type system that charges people... oh I don't know... 1 cent per click or something like that? With a special log-in that directly withdraws money from people's accounts? I have no idea, but it seems to me like a site that generates real news content and pays its writers will necessarily need to look beyond just ads as a source of income. And we as consumers are going to have to get over this idea that everything on the internet should be free. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

by Geezaldinho Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:48 pm

wrv wrote: I think Thomas Jefferson implied that a free press is vital to a free society and to democracy.

he didn't just impy it. I think he was pretty clear in his views.

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57

by mattywizz Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:52 pm

Stonehouse wrote: 3) Blogs don't generate content. Blogs link, copy/paste, and provide commentary, but rarely do they actually report a story. It will be TRAGIC if local newspapers crumble and our news resources start becoming all commentary and links to press releases. In my opinion, society needs an adversarial media to act as a watch dog, and I truly worry about what the future holds if the art of journalism is totally lost.

I disagree on that Stonehouse. Oftentimes the media IS the problem. For example, this summer after the Hurricanes hit Texas and slowed the gas pipelines, the local media in Nashville got ahold of the story and blew it all out of proportion. Your "adversarial media" caused a panic by reporting that the city was going to run out of gasoline. So what happened, everyone and their mother immediately ran to a gas station, bought a gas can, filled up their car and that shiny new gas can. There were literally lines 1/4 mile long of people waiting to get gas. And you know what happened? The damn city ran out of gas! Score one for the journalists!

by Geezaldinho Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:55 pm

NPR's talk of the Nation did a piece on the issues just today.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101951256&ft=1&f=5
(click on the "listen" button)
It's well worth reading and listening to.

by mattywizz Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:57 pm

When I told my wife about the Seattle PI she told me about the Rocky Mountain News' announcement a few weeks ago. Although that is not as big of a paper, it does not look good for that industry.

by Geezaldinho Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:13 pm

Purplegeezer wrote:NPR's talk of the Nation did a piece on the issues just today.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101951256&ft=1&f=5
(click on the "listen now" button)
It's well worth reading and listening to.

by Stonehouse Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:30 pm

Oh Matty I agree with you on media hysteria. That's just idiocy at its finest.

What I meant by adversarial journalism is in-depth coverage of local politics, business development, etc. You know... instead of a blog posting a press release from the City of Portland about company coming to town, a well-researched article about the tax breaks that went into making that deal happen, etc. It doesn't even mean adversarial in terms of "anti or against"... it means more from outside the establishment.

But, of course, you're right... the Oregonian was guilty of ridiculous hype during their big Pulitzer push with the Faces of Meth and even their front page article from this Sunday, which is obviously an attempt to get the state to change policy which they can then credit to their own coverage which will in turn make their portfolio for a Pulitzer stronger... sigh... I feel so jaded.

by onetouchfutbol Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:39 pm

Those are some good points, Stonehouse. I completely agree with #1-3. I personally feel like having online news might be viable. I would be willing to pay for the Seattle PI; it might become necessary for newspapers to expand their services though. I'm actually surprised at the services that people will pay for online...

I'd call that an isolated incident above regarding the gasoline problem. I tend to believe that we need the media as a watchdog, and I'm not a fan of getting the news just from a few sources. But, then again I grew up reading a nice paper newspaper with a cup of coffee in the morning. It was always a creature comfort to me. Then, I grew to like NPR and other forms of news as I got older.

by PurplePrideTrumpet Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:45 pm

What Stonehouse just wrote sounds like what went on in Season 5 of The Wire. It's a little sad when you can see it happening in real life. But that, I think, was the point of the show's whole run.

by Guest Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:25 pm

For me, the media has brought this problem on themselves. They gave up the role of an adversarial press. Originally, the press was up front; papers supported various political points of view openly and competed for their ideals. There were multiple papers per town. Now they portray themselves as unbiased reporters, when they are anything but. And most multi-paper towns have long since gone by the wayside. I have given up reading most of the O, resulting in much lower blood pressure.

by onetouchfutbol Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:40 pm

Some interesting follow up articles today:

http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/403914_joel18.html

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/403799_pionline17.html

Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...

Re: Health of Oregonian in light of demise of the Seattle PI...