Quote of the Day: Warren Buffett on Newspapers

Okay, show of hands: how many of you compulsive commenters actually expect the blogosphere of unpaid and untrained pseudo-journalists (like the earnest and loyal writers who crank out free content for sole profit of BRO's owner) to equal the essential public service of professionally trained investigative journalists with union protection against politically motivated harassment or dismissal?

Let's see: the Buffalo News publishes an expose of public pension abuse by double-dippers. BRO publishes an expose of bike-o-phobia at a Buffalo high school. Classic case of asymetrical warfare.

You can whine about the Buffalo News all you want but just imagine the happy dance in City Hall when it is gone and the worst they have to worry about is a bike rack expose.

Lorem - Did you read the post? Where is the whining about the Buffalo News? From it's owner - Mr. Buffett - who seems to state that he has little to no interest being in the newspaper business?

I do love the clowns who need to stand up a straw man in order to have something weak enough to knock down. If you can only generate impossible-to-disagree-with arguments which are met with a unanimous chorus of 'no **** moron,' don't bother typing your thoughts.

No one in their right mind would suggest any other media outlet in WNY - from the TV stations to the radio stations to the alternative print publications to blogs like BR - is an adequate replacement for the heavily staffed Buffalo News.

But see, the reality is, old-line media companies are dying on the vine so someone somewhere better come up with a feasible replacement. Maybe you and your union buddies should work on that instead of knocking down arguments that never existed.

Lorem,

It's not a question of getting rid of journalists, it's a question of being leaner. The bloggers will be the professionally trained journalists.. HTere's absolutely no reason that there needs to be 900 sources of the same AP/reuters article and we don't need 500 people following obama around either, all repoprting the same thing... If newspapers have to shrink 75%, then so be it. I doubt even 1/4 of them are making a unique contribution.

ANd if we have the newspapers to thank for government honesty then we should all cheer their demise, they've done a terrible, terrible job

Cardiff, whining about the Buffalo News is laced throughout BRO comments and elsewhere in the Buffalo blogosphere. All I can say to those who indulge in it is be careful what you wish for.

Consider the Cincinnati experience. They lost their daily paper and the result was increased incumbency protection in local elections. Like we need more of that in Buffalo. Here's the study.

http://wws-roxen.princeton.edu/wwseconpapers/papers/dp236.pdf

Buffet said the same thing 20 years ago

The clock probably is ticking, and that's not a good thing. Working in higher education over the past 15 years I've watched 18-25 year olds' reading habits decline to the point of skimming, and that's what studies have shown that internet reading often amounts to: skim reading with little sustained concentration on substantive argument. That might have happened with newspapers too to some extent, but the rise of cultural and intellectual illiteracy among college age people is not coincidental with the rise of internet information. They're related. Even among students with strong appetites for different angles and perspectives on issues. I see this surface attention and lack of complex thinking. The newspaper at least did not quite segregate people into camps of self or herd-assured thinking (the norm on sites like BRO, and I am party to this). There was a solitary dialogue with journalism in newspaper reading that I don't see replicated in the crowded comment boards and sarcastic din (witness the "whining" charge above) of blogs and sites like BRO.

I wish I saw evidence of the real good that more internet-based news access has. I don't. It has a place, but every year brings more celebretizing of politicians (very bad for a society) and issues, more idiotic top ten lists, and pushing of trends. What the computer brings is speed and immediacy, and they are useful....but what our anti-intellectual, impatient culture needs is to slow down...better thinking and better answers might come.

The great thing about Newspapers (print) is the broad swath they cast. On line has it's place but for me is a bit myopic. When one opens a print edition they browse and find articles which they might have missed as on line offers such pin point, on subject offerings. Both, to me, can co-exist, if done right. The problem is, very few are doing it right, as they fight internally for relevance within their very own news room.

Secondly and probably most importantly, to the survival of Newspapers is on-line pricing for advertising. They need to set a pricing structure and stick to it. Have the courage to walk away when the money does not reflect the value.

Together, on line and print, they should be driving themselves more and more into community building and maintaining that community via events, causes, social impact, etc. They need to prove themselves indispensable to the community at large.

I dont know, just my take...

Oh
on subject

http://www.slate.com/id/2217014/

Technology will also help liberate newspapers. EricOak has mentioned the inconvenience of actually reading newspapers on computers, etc. I would agree to an extent. I do a lot of my newspaper reading on my Blackberry and it's convenient in the sense that I can read articles from many sources, including BRO, and do it anywhere; but, it doesn't have the same pleasure of an actual newspaper. It's a trade-off. However, devices will improve to make the experience more satisfying. Amazon's Kindle has been an improvement and a few technology companies are experimenting with flexible screens that one could carry and use like actual newspapers. Once the right product hits the market, it will be a tipping point in the way we digest news.

NY Times today Paul... Read it in print edition...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/technology/companies/04reader.html?ref=business

Front page above the fold center... Lost on line

There is a strike going on against most newspapers that is not being openly discussed and it is hurting their bottom lines.

Small business advertisers tend to be more conservative than the population as a whole. I know that a significant number of these advertisers have become very resentful of many newspapers because the newspapers have replaced their former master with a new master. Their old master was journalistic integrity. They tried hard not to confuse news reporting with editorializing. As newspapers replaced journalistic integrity with political advocacy, the newspapers have disenfranchised their most important audience - their business advertisers. I know many other business owners that would rather give their advertising dollars to Google because they are not activists.

The newspapers that get back on track will have a much greater chance of surviving in the new market.

Paul,
I think he is quoting Mary Shapiro of the Securities Exchange Commission on the lack of journalistic accountability and transparency. He also mentions a "strike" against the newspaper business by small and medium sized businesses who feel "taken for a ride" and abused financially by the advertising costs in many papers. Both issues were widely reported in a number of articles yesterday.

Craig's list killed the classified ad. (sing to "video killed the radio star"). That was every newspaper's bread and butter. Today as I picked up the NYTimes I couldn't help noticing how much smaller and thinner it has become :(

I don't think the blogs can hope to uncover dirt like professional news staffs. On line doesn't pay a living wage. Trained, qualified reporters can't live on nothing.

"Because the internet gives so many people a direct line to others, the opportunities to learn about what really goes on are exponentially higher than through the filter of the ewspapers."

The problem with this is that most bloggers get their material from traditional media sources. They take a story written by an old-fashioned newspaper and expand on it. But very few independent bloggers are doing their own investigative journalism. Most of the stuff we talk about isn't just filtered through the traditional media -- it's created by it.

There will always be a market for news and people will pay for it in some form. Certain sites are hiring journalists and this trend will continue if traditional media outlets cannot compete. News coverage will not disappear. It will be covered differently. It's inevitable.

I like blogs -- in fact, I think everyone should check out my soon-to-be-award-winning blog Will There Ever Be a Rainbow? Just click to see my profile and you'll find the link.

Ahem. Still, I'm less optimistic than Paul about the future of journalism (or whatever we want to call it). It's true that bloggers and other nontraditional media are rushing to fill the gap left by newspapers. But I can't imagine that any of them will be as powerful as a major daily newspaper, or that they'll get similar access to decision makers, or that they'll have similar resources to break stories. Whatever complaints we may have about the Buffalo News -- and there are plenty, I'm sure -- it's the most important news-gathering source in the region. Nothing else is even close, and no collection of hobbyists or small-scale professional outfit could take its place.

In reply to someone's comment that the local newspaper functions well in WNY in "dead tree" form because WNY is made up mostly of older people and the "poor" who are not on the Internet:
.
Yes, WNY has many older people. Older people are living and functioning longer, so, presuming the now young will be the later old, listen up.
.
And, yes, WNY, especially the city and some suburbs, have the "poor". (By typing a particular "poor" in quotes, I don't mean people, regardless of their income, who go to jobs every day; I mean people who, encouraged by government, don't have to.)
.
The transient "poor" don't read newspapers, not even for free. The transient "poor" and their REIs don't even use the paper to cover heat-escapment windows to save taxpayers from having to pay unendingly stratispherical REITT OKed heating and electricity bills!
.
There was a time when poor families used newspapers between blankets to keep warm. Although poor working families might still use a newspaper for warmth, a different sort of government-issue "poor" are seriously energy wastingly warm.
.
The working poor usually can't afford a "dead tree" newspaper OR the Internet.
'
Older people will and are buying newspapers until they *are inspired elsewise, while the government-encouraged "poor" aren't interested in either what is of true importance in the paper, on TV or on the Internet as long as their creature comforts are met.
.
(So then, I seriously wonder how the local newspaper DOES still survive offline?!
.
Meanwhile, and at this very moment, older WNY citizens are coming more and more and faster and faster on the Internet. *Most especially as they are actually shown what they are missing. *I will explain one way that is happening in WNY in a moment.
.
A part of the reason for older/wiser folks needing to be online: It is obvious that ONLY the most powerful newspaper will remain in print at a postal deliver and production expense well above what the local cost is now--and only for as long as the biggies continue to survive in print.
.
Surviving newspapers won't appeal to older WNY residents who enjoy relaxing with a paper newspaper while touching lightly on the national and internation but keeping abreast of the most immediately news--the local news--and all of which are also on TV anyway. (There is also the future of TV news being discussed elsewhere...)
.
Besides being wealthy in what for most others is an uncomprehendible way, Mr. Buffett is also a philanthropist. Philans are interested in the welfare of humans. Mr. Buffett might not be the sort of employer who cuts-and-runs in the night. His employees might not arrive for work to find a nasty sign on the door.
.
Then again, employers are not inclined to suggest that the employees cut-and-run before their employers do!!!
.
I do think, though, that it isn't nice of Mr. Buffett to be photographed looking concerned while munching a creamsicle--and in the last BR (when it was BRO) Mr. Buffett was sitting comfy in a corner all smiles and unworried at the same time that the local newspaper was (and still is) in trouble!
.
(I e-dictionaried "Buffett"--up came Warren Edward Buffett 1930-. How important is that!)
.
But back to what is happening to encourage older people to get on the Internet.
.
*First of all, a lot of people, who only read printed newapaper or watch TV newscasts, have to be shown how much further news goes on the Internet.
.
*It's one thing to read a "dead tree" newspaper that dead ends on any article. It is another matter and an amazing experience, especially the first time it happens, to see that same topic in print offline then read how far it can keep going in online comments--it is way better than being unheardable or edited offline or talking back to the person on TV!!!
.
*Getting the older and very large crowd to "see" what is going on is what oldsters and the olden are doing to motivate older people to get online--where they will soon be the cutting-edge crowd:
.
*This is working: When older people, (who are concerned about losing the comfort zone of their local newspapers and read something of interest in the "dead tree" issue) then visit at the homes of other older people who ARE on the Internet, and any topic (such as this one about Mr. Buffett), enters into discussion, and those visitors are then enticed to sit in front of a monitor and have a first time look-see at spots like this BR;;; so they can actually SEE what happens next to a "dead tree" topic/post, it is sooo weird to witness the reaction of olderNwiser eyes newly opened!
.
*Then those older people go home and ask their kids AND grandkids (and even little great-grand kids) to please, please get them online too!!! (Especially with the comfort zone of a nice-sized netbook). And then one oldster tells other oldsters and on and on and,,,
.
well, keep watching for older peoples' comments here (if any olden care to comment here instead of just reading,) then carry info over to their own **older/wiser local news Web Logs!
.
***So far, BR is the best local example, but only for now. Why? (Youngesters won't be able to guess the wheres and whyfores.)
.
.
*Older--wiser--a comin' online
**Older--wiser--online
***Why
"poor" who need to be weened away from wanting to be government-issued.
.
.
My work here is done.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, that just killed off a few hundred of my brain cells. This post is as good as dead now.

Colin's right.
I also think we're rushing to pronounce dead the newspaper format when really no one knows--neither Bill Gates or Richard Florida--what the hell will happen in ten years, let alone fifty. I suspect there may even be a backlash against electronic news and blogging (the constant din and whine!), and that newspapers may enjoy a rebirth. Blogs might cater to individual whims, prejudices, and sensibilities, and electronic news will be useful to find out "what just happened," but the newspaper at its best is about as nimble a product as one can imagine for conveying reflection on important issues (which is much more important than knowing what has happened), for offering a stable reading of the culture's values, and for giving us pause to stop reacting and just listen.