Results 1 to 15 of 15
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By Evilbaz
  • 2 Post By retepg

Thread: Downfall of print media

  1. #1
    Senior Member marc26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    10,629

    Downfall of print media

    i thought this was pretty staggering, although we knew it. but the figures are mind blowing

    the New York Times bought the Boston Globe in 1993 for 1.1bil, they are now looking to sell it for as little as 80mil!

    that is incredible

  2. #2
    Senior Member billpay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,036
    Yes, and it's too bad, I used to love reading the newspapers. Now everything is hours if not a full day, behind the internet.
    To say nothing of the biased reporting.How long will 'they' continue to waste paper and ink?

  3. #3
    Senior Member marc26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    10,629
    Quote Originally Posted by billpay View Post
    Yes, and it's too bad, I used to love reading the newspapers. Now everything is hours if not a full day, behind the internet.
    To say nothing of the biased reporting.How long will 'they' continue to waste paper and ink?
    i honestly think i don't know too many people who love physical newspapers more than myself
    we were brought up in my house on newspapers
    there were so many of us, my mom bought 2 each of each newspaper

    even as late as last year i was still paying 12usd for Sunday NYT

    but unless it is unusually slow in work or i am waiting at an office, I barely pick up a paper nowadays

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    682
    Quote Originally Posted by billpay View Post
    Yes, and it's too bad, I used to love reading the newspapers. Now everything is hours if not a full day, behind the internet.
    To say nothing of the biased reporting.How long will 'they' continue to waste paper and ink?
    Yep print media is slowly dying.

    It's not the delay that bothers most people. I certainly read the news once, maybe twice a day when work slows down. I think fewer people are reading print media because of the biased reporting not to mention recent scandals like The News of the World hacking scandal. This is not just being reflected in physical papers, newscorp is losing online readers too.

    The likes of murdoch have become too comfortable as "kingmakers" and too complacent about printing obvious lies, embellishments and fabrications. People have picked up that opinions are presented as facts in newspapers and unlike the pre-internet days, they have other sources now.

  5. #5
    Senior Member slampay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,639
    I'm with you there Paul. Never could I go through a day without reading at least 2 papers. I was made fun of!55

    Just seems so archaic now.

    The ad revenue has dropped like nothing I've ever seen.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    237
    My brother was retrenched two years ago after almost 30 years working for the biggest printing group here in Cape Town..
    The two local papers had seen their circulation drop to such an extent that they closed their printing works and outsourced what remained of their printed media...

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,059
    Just think about the comparison of reading a broadsheet on the train to work compared to your phone 555!
    Another skill lost - newspaper folding in crowded places.
    soupdragon likes this.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    237
    ^^^ Plus you can't wrap fish and chips in a smart phone 55555
    kaptainrob and PGC like this.

  9. #9
    Senior Member marc26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    10,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Evilbaz View Post
    Just think about the comparison of reading a broadsheet on the train to work compared to your phone 555!
    Another skill lost - newspaper folding in crowded places.
    i went from refusing to read NYT on my laptop
    to then reading NYT on my laptop
    to then getting a smart phone with 4.7" screen and now adjusting to reading on that

    unreal

    i am not doing google glasses, i put my foot down 555

  10. #10
    Senior Member Waharoa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,159
    Quote Originally Posted by retepg View Post
    ^^^ Plus you can't wrap fish and chips in a smart phone 55555
    probably will be able to in a few years time... those wafer-thin flexible phones will be given away free with fish & chips maybe... 555

  11. #11
    Senior Member faultytowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,496
    Quote Originally Posted by mjwx View Post
    Yep print media is slowly dying.

    It's not the delay that bothers most people. I certainly read the news once, maybe twice a day when work slows down. I think fewer people are reading print media because of the biased reporting not to mention recent scandals like The News of the World hacking scandal. This is not just being reflected in physical papers, newscorp is losing online readers too.

    The likes of murdoch have become too comfortable as "kingmakers" and too complacent about printing obvious lies, embellishments and fabrications. People have picked up that opinions are presented as facts in newspapers and unlike the pre-internet days, they have other sources now.
    I buy one newspaper a week , The Sunday Times , and spend a leisurely morning reading through the various sections. During the week I pick up one of the London free newspapers , Metro or Evening Standard to read on my journey to work..

    The problem with print media is that once something is reported it is difficult to re-edit the story to remove inaccuracies/lies , with electronic media stories are continually updated to either remove or emphasise parts to the story that are pro/anti the stance the owners want to put forward.

    I have read something on an on-line news site and when I return 1 hour later I find the reported story to have a completely different slant to the original , the facts haven't changed just that selective editing has taken place and what may have been an unbiased report has developed into a one-sided editorial.

    A recent example was a statement by a UN official about proof that the rebels(can't call them terrorists !) had used chemical weapons in Syria. The original article quoted the official as saying that they had been shown absolutely no evidence that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons (accompanying video of interview was available) , less than 30 minutes later the original quote was removed and replaced with a comment that the UN official had said (in her video interview) that Syrian government forces were also using chemical weapons (more emphasis on this than what the rebels had done !).

    The accompanying video link was also removed therefore those reading the later report could not see/hear what was factually true.

  12. #12
    Senior Member nelsonone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,862
    hmmm...so news print media is more biased than TV???

    I like reading op-ed pieces in newspapers and the better magazines....but I understand they are the view of the writer....the way TV presents its opinions is as if it were fact

  13. #13
    Senior Member faultytowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,496
    Quote Originally Posted by nelsonone View Post
    hmmm...so news print media is more biased than TV???

    I like reading op-ed pieces in newspapers and the better magazines....but I understand they are the view of the writer....the way TV presents its opinions is as if it were fact
    The difference is that news print media is hard copy therefore difficult to remove any biased articles , when TV reports are broadcast they can be re-edited (almost) immediately to reflect the bias of the editor/owner.

    Even that is changing due to the internet , the written version of news articles on websites like the BBC can be edited but quite often the original broadcast version will have been uploaded to YouTube etc and still be available.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    781
    If you took all the advertising out of a newspaper today it would shrink in size by about 70%
    Much easier to skip over on your tablet. Nowadays I can read a backlit display with ease, whereas printed pages are much harder.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    682
    Quote Originally Posted by nelsonone View Post
    hmmm...so news print media is more biased than TV???
    None really. It just comes down to market dominance.

    In Australia, Newscorp, PBL and Fairfax own 99% of the print media with Newscorp owning the lions share of that. With TV they don't have that market dominance. Even with 7,9 and 10 owned in part or in whole by the big players, you still have SBS and ABC and attempting to publish fabrications as Newscorp has done in the print media on TV will just drive the market into the arms of the players who aren't pulling such shenanigans.

    It's like what I said with Newscorp's online offerings losing readership, people don't want to read Murdoch's crap, so they go elsewhere. It doesn't matter if it's in print, TV or online. The only difference is that TV and online have a much larger range of choices. Print media doesn't so it's dying as a result.

    Really, we cant eliminate bias in the media but we can contain it to tolerable levels by having a mutlitude of sources to chose from preventing one from growing too powerful.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •