A Dying Business

Saying that "traditional journalism" is dying is something of an overstatement, but there seems to be a real shortage of news publishers that are making a strong case for their own survival.

And maybe it's time for us to help at least some of them usher themselves out.

But that's a really scary-sounding proposition. If we help kill off WaPo and NYTimes (eg), will there be others who'll step up to bolster the 4th Estate, or are we pounding nails into our own coffin lids?

I don't know. It feels like it, but I don't know.

What I do know is that the money will go somewhere. It used to go to the big players because they owned the market. But now, everybody who thinks they have good opinions or other content worth sharing - and every jagoff "nuisance streamer" - has a platform. And with relatively little effort or investment, they can all create a profit niche.

Plus, there are no ethical boundaries. No standards. No constraints at all. In fact, with literally millions of content creators chasing a share of billions of consumers, cutting through the clutter is becoming pretty much the only thing that matters. So you have to be extraordinarily accurate and meticulous (ie: what too many of us would consider boring), or you have to be more and more outrageous to keep the herd happy, and placated, and willing to sit through your ads.

So anyway, here's AP giving us a bit of a glance at what's happening to old school newspapering.

• And BTW, by not endorsing Harris, WaPo has left the field wide open for Trump to claim that the non-endorsement of Harris actually means they endorse him but they're afraid to say it out in the open.
• Don't expect to win with assholes like Trump by playing fair. You have to meet people where they are, and where these dickheads are is in gutter. See y'all down there.

Washington Post report: Subscriber loss after non-endorsement reaches a quarter million

(it's up around 300K as of 10-31-2024)

The Washington Post has lost at least 250,000 subscribers since announcing last Friday that it would not endorse a candidate for president — roughly 10 percent of its digital following, the newspaper reported Wednesday.

The Post would not officially confirm that figure, saying it was a private company, but it was reported in a story in the newspaper that cited documents and two unnamed sources who were familiar with the figures. Another non-endorsement last week has caused thousands of Los Angeles Times readers to cancel subscriptions, although not nearly at the Post’s level.

One journalism historian, Jon Marshall at Northwestern University, said he had a hard time recalling a comparable response, although a boycott of the Arkansas Gazette when it supported the integration of Little Rock schools in 1957 cost that newspaper more than $20 million in today’s dollars.

The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, said presidential endorsements create a perception of bias at the newspaper while having little real influence on how readers vote. His said his only regret was making the decision known when passions are heated so close to Election Day; the paper’s editorial staff had reportedly prepared an endorsement of Democrat Kamala Harris.

“A lot of people would have forgotten about the Harris endorsement slated to run in the newspaper,” the Post’s media critic, Erik Wemple, wrote. “Few will forget about the decision not to publish it.”

The Post’s executive editor, Matt Murray, told employees in a staff meeting that there were “several positive days” of new subscribers signing up, although he didn’t mention any numbers, the newspaper reported.

Some of the Post’s angry digital readers have also already paid for a year’s access, and will retain that until their subscriptions expire.

“After another month or so, the election will have ended, and there may be people who say that ‘I need the Post more than they need me’ and come back,” said Rick Edmonds, media business analyst at the Poynter Institute.

The Post also saw a big increase in subscribers during Donald Trump’s presidency from people attracted to the newspaper’s aggressive coverage, raising the possibility of a repeat if the man that the newspaper wasn’t prepared to endorse is returned to office.

In the meantime, Edmonds said, “it’s very bad.” After losing readers during the Biden administration, the Post had reportedly seen positive signs of growth — until this week.