Warren Buffet pessimistic about newspapers
Social media Web site Reddit has an interesting discussion on Warren Buffet’s recent assessment of newspapers (Warning: the discussion on Reddit contains explicit language) in Berkshire Hathaway’s annual letter.
It’s interesting to read comments on newspapers by people who don’t work in the media world. These are the readers that journalists have to reach out to.
Here are some excerpts:
“People aren’t paying for news. They’re paying for a newspaper to get coupons, the home shopper, classifieds, tv guide, or obits. But they would never buy a paper that was JUST those things. They want news.” - hopper
“The [reputable news sources] are more heavily edited and fact-checked, but they are also pruned into banality and contain hidden biases in the facts, interviews, and events never reported at all.” - tofocsend
On community journalism, Reddit user 570 writes, “Rather than imporve their journalism and give people a reason to depend on them again, they are depending on the public to give them free content. It’s part of their freaking business-plan now!”
“Young people do not subscribe to newspapers. I know I don’t want them in my house! So as older subscribers retire, they aren’t being replaced. The Boomers are headed out and a lot of stuff that catered to them will go with them and good riddance!” - goldenhb
“and why are newspapers so great? 90% of their “A” section content is repurposed wire data. yahoo news get the same data, save yourself the walk to the curb. the only thing newspapers seem to still dominate is municipal politics. the ad content is insane in most local papers. the ad content can be weighed in pounds in the san jose merc. i’m supposed to be rooting for this? goodbye, dead industry.” - cypress-hill
on March 7th, 2007 at 4:13 am
This, though indirectly, relates to a conversation I had with a media publisher today about bloggers. Many serious and main stream blogs wish to be considered journalistic publications. The bloggers themselves consider themselves journalists, and demand similar access rights and press status. This presents an interesting problem in that not all bloggers agree with this, and there is no clear line between the two. For example, if a blogger considers themselves a journalist, they must hold themselves to the same ethical standards. Other bloggers, however, exist simply to fuel the rumor mill or delibertly undermind companies they dislike. Most heavily read bloggers (political and business analysts) fall somewhere in between: disguising their biased opinion columns as factual reporting. On the complete opposite end lies Joe Blogger, who writes about what he had for breakfast. Other than number of subscribers, there is no difference between the publication formats of any of these blogggers. So, as the i-generation eliminates paper based journalism for faster, more available news feeds, the true journalists must find a way to differientiate themselves from the information manipulators. Historically, the consumer has proven to be unreliable in choosing a correct or informative new source, and as blogging becomes the dominent news medium, consumers will continue to access content that they enjoy, rather than un-biased opinion. This is partially the current news media’s fault: they have trained consumers to see news as entertainment. Go ahead, turn on CNN and see what happens right before the commerical airs.
on March 27th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I don’t think bloggers should be considered journalists unless they have an organization they are responsible to. Information put forth as fact should be peer reviewed and edited. Otherwise, it’s just musings.
The law, however, has a different opinion. Case law has determined that almost anyone who disseminates information to a wider audience can be considered a journalist.
http://www.slate.com/id/2114581/