The obvious question involving the failing Newspaper

[StorminNorman]

Why don't all Newspapers remove their websites?

 

[BatMatt]

I'm actually doing a paper on whether or not newspapers will survive as part as my internship with ABC. The problem with your proposal is that our culture has become so engaged with the internet and blogging, and tweeting, that taking it away could only worsen things. I don't see newspapers going away, but some adjustments will have to be made. Perhaps you can't read an article online unless you are also a subscriber to the subsequent paper.

 

[StorminNorman]

You only FEED the culture by having newspaper websites.

Newspapers are almost certainly going to die out at some point, but putting all their content online ensures it. Why by a paper if you can get the same exact info online for free? And why pay for an online subscription when you can get the same news on a different website...for free?

The attraction of Newspapers is the paper itself. Its the bathroom reading, its the coffee reading, its the substance. That is their strength. They should build on that advantage.

 

[BatMatt]

Your final point is why I think that newspapers will stay around for sometime. A website will never duplicate the feel of reading your newspaper and eating breakfast on your porch on a Sunday morning. Unfortunately, this is more valued by the older generation. If the younger generation does not, as it seems to be so far..., then there's definite trouble.

 

[Addendum]

I've never read a newspaper in the bathroom. Books, yes.

 

[StorminNorman]

Your final point is why I think that newspapers will stay around for sometime. A website will never duplicate the feel of reading your newspaper and eating breakfast on your porch on a Sunday morning. Unfortunately, this is more valued by the older generation. If the younger generation does not, as it seems to be so far..., then there's definite trouble.

I love reading the Orlando Sentinel. I love having it in my hands. I do not buy the Orlando Sentinel because as much as I like that feeling, I like free better. If the Sentinel took down their site, I would buy it more.

 

[StorminNorman]

I've never read a newspaper in the bathroom. Books, yes.

You have no idea what you are missing.

 

[Addendum]

You have no idea what you are missing.

I know what I'm missing by not reading the newspaper: reading yesterday's news.

But wait! I can find that out on the day it happens with the internet!

 

[SuBe]

The scary thing is only Printed Press is protected in the Constitution. After that, it's ALL Government Control. Lose the Printed Press, lose a little bit of your freedom. Every other medium is licensed and regulated.

 

[Marx]

If newspapers closed down their sites, there would probably be a huge increase in traffic on sites like CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, Huffington Post, and other things like that. I'm afraid it has come to a point where information can be accessed in so many places now, that it might not matter if newspapers closed down their sites. I think newspapers are just trying to remain somewhat relevent in the age of the internet.

 

[Shifty]

If newspapers closed down their sites, there would probably be a huge increase in traffic on sites like CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, Huffington Post, and other things like that. I'm afraid it has come to a point where information can be accessed in so many places now, that it might not matter if newspapers closed down their sites. I think newspapers are just trying to remain somewhat relevent in the age of the internet.

And people could get their local news from radio and television websites.

What killed newspapers was the internet classifieds. Why spend money in the paper when you can use craigslist or another website for free. So take that revenue away, have a terrible business model be it for print or online, online competition from international, national and local news outlets (TV and radio) and advertisers spending less it's the end of the American newspaper industry.

 

[bell110]

Newspapers still generate income through their websites. It would be silly if they closed their sites. People will just move on to another site. It would be like a record company sticking with the 8-track.

The scary thing is only Printed Press is protected in the Constitution. After that, it's ALL Government Control. Lose the Printed Press, lose a little bit of your freedom. Every other medium is licensed and regulated.

Where did you get this information?

 

[SuBe]

Where did you get this information?

US Constitution, and Constitutional Law.

Television and Radio is subject to FCC rulings, "When" the Fairness Doctrine passes, it will affect what they can say politically. They already can't say certain things, and when they interview a politician, they have limitations by what they can ask, how long they can be on air, and how long until another politician is on the air. It is legal and 100% possible that Government can shut down a Televised news outlet if it doesn't like what it is saying simply by pulling its licensed.

The US Constitution in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The only 2 forms of communication in 1789, when the Constitution was written was your Voice and the Written Word. News papers today still don't get licenses to operate. When Radio was introduced to the masses, Politicians figured it would be who of them to control that form of communication, then started calling it "Public Airwaves". They control to some degree what is said or played on radio for "Public safety".

Public Airwaves is a farce. How does Government or the public claim air? How does it claim invisible frequencies? If Radio existed in 1789, it would be protected by the Constitution. It is no different speaking. It is a transfer of the vibrations of wavelengths that allow you to hear them. Just like if someone is talking to you, the only difference is it collected in a box and then you can hear it.

If Government TRULY believed in the public airways, they would use that same argument for Newspapers because they travel on Public Road, and when those trucks drive on those road, it actually wears something down. Public Airwaves DONT get worn down.

Look into the Internet Neutrality movement. If there is a Movement for it, there is a Government Push AGAINST it.

 

[Addendum]

So the only way to interpret the constitution is with a mindset forever rooted in the 18th century?

 

[SuBe]

So the only way to interpret the constitution is with a mindset forever rooted in the 18th century?

According to Former Chief Justice Marshall, yes.

 

[Addendum]

But he's dead so he's not in a position to complain. Plus, there are several schools of thought regarding the Constitution and interpreting it.

Kinda like the various religions and the many different interpretations regarding the books they consider "sacred"

 

[Timstuff]

The great thing about the internet is that it doesn't turn your fingertips black.

 

[SuBe]

But he's dead so he's not in a position to complain. Plus, there are several schools of thought regarding the Constitution and interpreting it.

Kinda like the various religions and the many different interpretations regarding the books they consider "sacred"

Nope, the Constitution was "written in stone". If you imagine the Constitution to be a contract, that is still good, wouldn't that contract still be valid today?

If you have a 30 year Mortgage, on year 29 is it void just because time has passed? No, the definitions of the language may have changed, but the intent of the contract is not void. The Constitution is a Contract with the American People and those that are appointed to protect those ideals. Just because the times of changed, doesn't make that contract less valid.

 

[Addendum]

Actually, the Constitution was written on parchment (calfskin, goatskin or sheepskin). Plus, Article 5 allows for it to be altered, since they knew that things would change in the succeeding generations and that something that was fine when they were alive might not hold true many years later.

Besides, the entire notion of the press (i.e. journalism) includes not only newspapers, but magazines, radio, television, and the internet. So holding the press to what existed in 1789 is simply being ****ing ignorant of the advancements made in gathering information and delivering it to an audience, an audience that has grown alongside those advancements.

If mankind somehow survives for another 200,000 years, it would likewise be ignorant of them to hold journalism to what existed in the 21st century

 

[bell110]

Addendum is right. It's not that "only" printed press is protected by the Constitution, it's that certain elected officials want to circumvent the Constitution to further their agenda. It's the difference between someone believing in the letter of the Constitution and the spirit of the Constitution. It shouldn't come as a surprise anymore that a lot of elected officials only believe in the Constitution when it's convenient for them.

 

[Malice]

Addendum is right. It's not that "only" printed press is protected by the Constitution, it's that certain elected officials want to circumvent the Constitution to further their agenda. It's the difference between someone believing in the letter of the Constitution and the spirit of the Constitution. It shouldn't come as a surprise anymore that a lot of elected officials only believe in the Constitution when it's convenient for them.

Its unfortunate....

 

[SuBe]

Actually, the Constitution was written on parchment (calfskin, goatskin or sheepskin). Plus, Article 5 allows for it to be altered, since they knew that things would change in the succeeding generations and that something that was fine when they were alive might not hold true many years later.

Besides, the entire notion of the press (i.e. journalism) includes not only newspapers, but magazines, radio, television, and the internet. So holding the press to what existed in 1789 is simply being ****ing ignorant of the advancements made in gathering information and delivering it to an audience, an audience that has grown alongside those advancements.

If mankind somehow survives for another 200,000 years, it would likewise be ignorant of them to hold journalism to what existed in the 21st century

Addy, that's why I used parenthesizes when I said written in stone. I agree with you logic, don't get me wrong. I believe that Freedom of the Press extends to all mediums, from Radio, TV, Print, and soapbox. But, Congress did not see it that way when they created the FCC with the Communications Act of 1934 or even earlier with the Radio Act of 1912. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Act_of_1912)

I agree with you that these Rights extend to these other mediums, but our Government does not agree.

 

[Motown Marvel]

newspapers should just have a membership/subscription charge to view the content on their website. if all newspapers do it, people will go for it. im pretty sure the common person would prefer paying a little subscription rather than get their news via amateur blog.

 

[SuBe]

newspapers should just have a membership/subscription charge to view the content on their website. if all newspapers do it, people will go for it. im pretty sure the common person would prefer paying a little subscription rather than get their news via amateur blog.

People would get their news from Network News Websites for Free.

Maybe, just maybe, newpapers need to change the tone of their content in Editorial Pages. Maybe they are driving away business. I know I won't read Newspapers because of the Liberal Slant in most Editorial Pages.

 

[moraldeficiency]

If newspapers closed down their sites, there would probably be a huge increase in traffic on sites like CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, Huffington Post, and other things like that. I'm afraid it has come to a point where information can be accessed in so many places now, that it might not matter if newspapers closed down their sites. I think newspapers are just trying to remain somewhat relevent in the age of the internet.

This is dead on. It's far to late to jam that genie back into the bottle. If newspapers tried to get rid of their sites they would become almost completely irrevalent. Most stories you can just pluck of AP sites anyway and they're far more up to date.

Frankly I'm glad their dying like the little *****es they are. Rather than the news being controlled by a relatively small group of people (and it really was) it's now open and uncontrolled. Sure people can lie and such, but with so many people around it's much harder to get away with a blantant false hood on here then with the printed word (now I know you can say all these sites with crap on them, but they get called on their every ****up).

I also think the amount of waste we save and the lack of slashing down millions of trees every year for something a person will spend maybe an hour on if they're bored is probably a good thing.