Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 9:25 AM
Wed Nov 25
49 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/27/09
It would be interesting to see some detailed demographics on all of that lost circulation. Just how many subscriptions have vanished due to otherwise-loyal readers moving to nursing homes, Boca Raton, or their local cemeteries? #printisdead
10/27/09
Cigarettes in the US are having a similar issue; not so much internationally. #printisdead
10/27/09
I'd be more interested to look at figures for circ vs. press run, because if that margin has tightened up, that could actually be a good thing for the business. But if a paper is still printing copies and delivering them to customers that are no longer paying (as I noted yesterday), then a lot of people are just kidding themselves.
For years, the business model had subscribers merely covering the cost of printing and delivering the paper; most of the overhead was borne by advertisers, and single-copy sales contributed little, if anything. That has to change if newspapers are going to survive, but I don't see how that will happen, with possible exceptions to be found in the largest nationals (WSJ, NYT) and the most intensely local papers (eg. the Newport experiment). #printisdead
10/27/09
I think where newspapers have failed is to reach out to the next generation of newspaper readers. They have had an arrogant attitude of always "being an institution" and never marketed to younger readers. So those younger readers never came on board and their older readers are dying off.
I don't know if that can be reversed at all, but I'd like to think that newspapers will still be around. It's going to suck to have to wade through my laptop for news every morning at the breakfast table. #printisdead
10/27/09
The arrogance also plays into their reluctance to adapt to the effects of new media. The 'news' parts are, by their very nature, going to be 'old news' by the time papers go to print. So why are they - I'm looking at you, Chicago Tribune - phasing out things like the Books section? That should be played up as unique content and used to gain more readers, since the news stories aren't necessarily going to do that anymore. #printisdead
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
Not everyone can afford a Klunky Kindle. Those who can can't always download morning news in the mornings.
There are grocery coupons online, but they're a pain in the ass. The Style section looks boring online, and it's meant to be read in your underwear in a dimly lit room on a Sunday morning, on a sofa with a cat and a big mug of coffee within easy reach. Try all that in a desk chair.
Papers are tactile and don't flash the news in your face without giving you a chance to think about it. (Oh, wait.)
Poor or older people can afford to inform themselves with the paper - it's free in any library. Where are they supposed to get their news? Fox? (Oh, wait.)
Newsday, for all of its suckitude, does have a good local events section. The Times does too.
Not sure how any of this can actually be replaced, and I'm guessing there will be some demand for some time. #printisdead
10/27/09
This is part of why they're failing. Nobody believes or relates to that voice anymore -- the one you used to hear on 1010 WINS over the sound of the teletype, the one you used to hear on TV news, the one you used to hear in your head when you turned the newsprint smelling pages on the subway #printisdead
10/27/09
10/27/09
Old media have lost the credibility that was the underpinning of that Voice of God diction; the times, they have changed. #printisdead
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
07/26/09
Despite her tabloid fame (and secret enjoyment of it), sex seems to be the last thing ever on Jackie's mind. If she drew close to Bobby, it was because the entire nation demanded family continuity with the Kennedys. She'd had a pretty tenuous and mercenary connection with the family to begin with. While I believe Jackie did grow fond of JFK after many bumps in the road, Jackie exulted in being First Lady.
I disbelieve rumors of an affair with RFK sheerly because he was such an unattractive wee bantam of a man. He wasn't Jackie's type at all. But after JFK's murder, I can see them drawing close- but as family. It must be the most underrated and underexplored trope of life and literature, the (non-sexual) bond that a man can have with his brother's wife. And heightened to the extent of the Kennedy dramas of those years- well yes, I can see a bond forming. They'd already been through a lot together, Bobby and Jackie were canny allies. They weren't fools. They probably talked and coordinated the aftermath of JFK's hundreds of infidelities.
I think they had a bond there, they were friends. Imagining a romance in a tabloid way, - well people will do that. But Bobby was such a boring grind, Jackie eager to flee to her new life- I don't think it's likely. They had deep and fond affection for each other, as inlaws can. And when Bobby was killed, Jackie fled to Onassis for protection. She realized what a dangerous family she was linked to. What a sick deja vù Bobby's murder must have been.
07/26/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
But I guess they make up for it with all the porn-star pictorials.
[blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com]
02/13/09
02/13/09
"Stuff you, Rahm. Stuff you, Gibbs. And stuff you again, Rahm."
Rahm: "Why do I get double-stuffed?"
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09