Save The Times?

[DFW HOYA]

So said its executive editor, noting that some of its readers have offered to donate money to keep the left-leaning paper afloat. "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause," he said.

Funny line about CNN as well in the link.

www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0409/Keller_Times_will_be_left_standing_after_the_deluge_.html

[theexorcist]

I could make a long, cogent argument about how news is a valuable product, and how certain organizations have figured out how to make money off of it, and "newspapers" have to evolve significantly, but all I just want to do now is point you to the first comment on the article:

"I suppose that's a good analogy. Nobody really gives a crap about Darfur either.".

[Boz]

I think Nelson said it best:

"Ha-Ha! Your medium is dying!"

;D

[Bando]

There's an idea that I think has some merit that papers like the Times should convert to non-profits and accept philanthropic donations. The Times is the paper of record in this country (they have reporting from the Civil War!), and it would be a shame to lose it.

That said, the Times, the WSJ, the WaPo, and USA Today are in a much better position than every single other newspaper in America. I don't think they should be complaining quite yet, and perhaps they should be focusing on starting the NYT Seattle edition or something.

[jgalt]

Apr 3, 2009 10:39:23 GMT -5 Bando said:

it would be a shame to lose it.

Why?

everyone says this about newspapers, but no one says why? just being around a long time doesnt make you valuable. And its not like what they do i totally unique to the industry.

[TC]

Apr 3, 2009 10:59:51 GMT -5 jgalt said:

Why?

everyone says this about newspapers, but no one says why? just being around a long time doesnt make you valuable. And its not like what they do i totally unique to the industry.

Maybe because he enjoys reading it (albeit in online form)? I do.

[DFW HOYA]

Apr 3, 2009 10:39:23 GMT -5 Bando said:

That said, the Times, the WSJ, the WaPo, and USA Today are in a much better position than every single other newspaper in America.

Should there be concern that the four papers you listed are headquartered in just two cities? There's a lot of folks out there who aren't sitting on the Upper West Side or in Georgetown that need news coverage, too.

[TC]

Apr 3, 2009 11:59:43 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Should there be concern that the four papers you listed are headquartered in just two cities? There's a lot of folks out there who aren't sitting on the Upper West Side or in Georgetown that need news coverage, too.

Maybe if those folks consider it a high minded cause, they'll save their papers too.

[theexorcist]

News is something that people are willing to pay for. One of the places that consistently makes money on the internet is "news" regarding recruiting. So there's a way to make money on news and information.

The NYT does not deserve to live based on its name alone. No business does. If it turns out an awful product, it deserves to die. No one says that travel agents should be subsidized because they've been helpful for so many years.

News has to accept that it will have to evolve. That's not a bad thing.

[Bando]

Apr 3, 2009 11:59:43 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Apr 3, 2009 10:39:23 GMT -5 Bando said:

That said, the Times, the WSJ, the WaPo, and USA Today are in a much better position than every single other newspaper in America.

Should there be concern that the four papers you listed are headquartered in just two cities? There's a lot of folks out there who aren't sitting on the Upper West Side or in Georgetown that need news coverage, too.

I mean, yes, but they're the only 4 papers that have the resources to possibly survive. National and international reporting, movie reviews, sports, and the like are pretty much all the same throughout the country. If people in Seattle could get the NYT pretty much as it is in Manhattan, except the Metro section would be about Seattle written by Seattle reporters, I think people would buy that.

[TC]

Apr 3, 2009 12:58:30 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

The NYT does not deserve to live based on its name alone. No business does. If it turns out an awful product, it deserves to die. No one says that travel agents should be subsidized because they've been helpful for so many years.

Maybe I missed something, but I interpreted the Darfur comment as "saving the New York Times was a moral cause for the people offering to donate money" rather than "The New York Times is a public good and deserves public money". If people see a good in the NYT and want to use their funds to save the New York Times as a commercial entity, more power to them.

The Darfur comparison itself is crazy Godwin's Law territory, but I thought it was harmless pretension.

[AustinHoya03]

Apr 3, 2009 13:19:54 GMT -5 Bando said:

If people in Seattle could get the NYT pretty much as it is in Manhattan, except the Metro section would be about Seattle written by Seattle reporters, I think people would buy that.

In fact, this is what most newspapers are, to a lesser degree. This is true even at DFW's folksy local newstand -- every major Texas newspaper regularly runs stories written by NYT and WaPo staffers on Page 1.

I'm sure this is also true in Omaha, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and anywhere else people actually use the word "folks." (FWIW, "Just Folks" was the name of the semi-forced-assimilation organization in Philip Roth's novel The Plot Against America.)

ON EDIT: On a less snarky and sarcastic note, NPR cut programs and laid off staff at the end of last year, so 'saving' newspapers through donations might not work out as well as the NYT hopes.

IMO, the strength of the NYT is its Sunday edition. The Book Review, Magazine, and Travel sections have been favorites for years. If the newspaper abandons its "Last Man Standing" strategy, I think going online only Monday-Saturday and printing the Sunday Edition would be a viable business plan. Of course, I'm one of these people under 30 who reads the local rag Monday-Friday, and probably one of the few people in my age group that agrees with Nicholas Kristof that when newspaper content is clickable, the overall value of newspapers declines. So, my opinion may very well be worthless.