The Internet has made the traditional media obsolete. I think the next thing to take the hit will be the network news channels. It may have already started. The network news seems to have tried to brand themselves into certain market niches. Really, they all seem to be going more for entertainment value with the news itself being a secondary product. But for the newspapers, I can’t see them go away fast enough. They are a waste of resources and they only seemingly exist now for their editorial power in endorsing political viewpoints. They are all decidedly liberal for the most part, uninteresting and completely predictable in content. I hope we don’t wind up having to bail them out just to keep their editorial departments going for politics sake. As far as monetizing the papers online. It won’t work unless they have some engaging content. Ever read a paper lately? Engaging they are not.

Be careful what you wish for! Who will investigate the local politicans, hold the threat of exposure to local corruption or keep us up with significant changes in city management or the various departments of the city, including county and often state policies which have a marked local effect, keep track of school policies and problems as they develop or change, publish church news, support local theater groups, and on and on. Who will spotlight the good things local citizens do, outstanding accomplishments for which people deserve credit and praise, especially the achievements of the young who need to be encouraged, or even admonish the public occasionally when the city needs help in curbing some widespread abuse, or even warn us of some sudden danger to our health or safety?
Those who are concerned with the plight of newspapers and the perils or full consequences should of their failures should began to demand that the local papers abandon their party loyalties, go light on partisanship, and dedicate themselves more to the common good. It’s quite human for us to praise papers who slant the news our way, but by insisting on such is one reason for the death of local news. After all, freedom of the press and of speech means that every group’s views be respected.
CLOSING DOWN THE LOCAL PAPERS PUTS US IN THE DARK, and who really wants to be there.

Please take the partial or suggested solutions I offer here as those of one man, of one citizen, not of anyone experienced in either the writing or business end of journalism. I would surmise the kind of reform that newspapers need most of all begins in the ultra-liberal journalism schools, that future journalists be taught the perils to their futures caused by the present biased reporting–it’s a very sad American joke that 90+ percent of journalists vote Democratic. Newspapers have always felt a duty to support candidates of their choice, but they should not base their choice on strict partisanship, recognizing that they are selling papers and offering advice to people of many different political persuasions. Another suggestion is that they should seek out public opinion much as this and other blogs seek out comments; i.e., they should add on-going forums less formal than letters to the editor. (Hit the Internet competition head-on!) People wanting to contribute to printed forums should be able to obtain passwords and thus bypass the time-consuming verification of authorship now found necessary for letters to the editor, so that they should be able to email a paper and have their opinions published the next day–people’s limited-word comments on editorials, the various sections and columns, news articles, movie reviews, etc. Real interaction of this sort should benefit circulation It would require the merging of the rules for letters to the editor with those rules practiced by Internet forums. There are many reasons ordinary though often legitimately concerned citizens shy away from letters to the editon, additionally many people suffer from real or imagined fears that if they offend some citizen group or someone in city government that they will be retaliated against. In this kind of printed forum, they can use the same sort made-up names they use for Internet forums; further, many people would like for their remarks or opinions to be published locally, which is not the case on the Internet. Again, the short, less formal answers to blogs do not call for the same effort as a formal letter to the editor. Finally, once again, these comments and suggestions should fall into the area of “brain-storming,” no journalism expertise claimed here!

AGAIN, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!Such a new addition to or use of the newspapers would be a good project for journalism schools.

It is a big myth promoted by the liberal media that the Internet is the reason for the decline of the print newspaper.

The fact of the matter is, the decline of newspaper circulation began long before the Internet existed, both in absolute numbers and especially as a percentage of the population. What really has turned Americans away from newspapers is the same thing that turned them away from television (the average age of TV news shows is very high also): their hard swerve to the left over the past 50 years or so. No one believes them anymore, and they don’t represent the opinions of mainstream Americans. Why should I pay to receive a newspaper that attacks and ridicules my politics/religion incessantly?

The Wall Street Journal is the classic example of a newspaper that (generally) represents the beliefs and views of its readers, and is therefore successful.

And young people WILL read newspapers. Go to any college campus, and you will see that the print edition of student newspapers are very popular. Virtually every student reads them.

It isn’t just liberal bias that’s killing newspapers. The entire business model is broken. Look at the San Francisco Chronicle — ultra-liberal monopoly paper in an ultra-liberal market, and it gushes red ink to the tune of $1M a week. If its parent company follows through on its occasional threat to pull the plug, SF will have the dubious distinction of being a no-newspaper town. Then there’s the center-right Washington Times, which would have folded years ago if not for its subsidies from the Moonies.

Media partisanship, in and of itself, doesn’t bother me. Most newspapers in the 19th century were fiercely partisan. The difference was, they were honest & up front about it. IMHO it’s the in-your-face hypocrisy of today’s MSM — claiming not to be partisan when they so obviously are — that has alienated the people.