I subscribe to the WSJ, NY Times (the opinions are garbage but I still like the reporting), The Economist, Reason, Financial Times, and The Athletic (for sports). All digital, I gave up physical subscriptions years ago when I traveled more for work.CastleRock said:powerbelly said:
Nope. I will gladly pay for news, but the DMN is not worth it.
I am not sure why people don't want to pay for good quality news. It is really odd to me.
This is a good point. What sites do you personally feel provide good quality news that are worth paying for?
hatchback said:
I pay for a digital subscription to the Dallas Morning News. While they do some things well and other things not so well, I still believe in supporting the local news.
I follow NBC 5 on Twitter and will usually watch their nightly 10pm news. (Yes, I am 34 years old and still watch televised local news.) I am thinking about picking up a subscription to D Magazine.
For coverage of national/international topics, I've got a subscription to Apple News+ and The New York Times.
YouBet said:
Their sports coverage was pretty stellar minus their blatant anti-Aggie coverage.
I'd gamble that most DMN readers can't name or DGAF about 80% of the schools in the SEC, so why report on it?hatchback said:YouBet said:
Their sports coverage was pretty stellar minus their blatant anti-Aggie coverage.
All of the local Dallas news outlets basically refuse to cover anything that any Aggie team does now that TCU is in the Big12 and SMU has had a couple of decent football/basketball seasons.
Great thoughts!Chewy said:
The entire newspaper business model was never built on journalism. It was simply a unique distribution model disguised as journalism.
The newspapers made most of their money due to 2 things:
1) Classifieds
2) Inserts
You know why advertisers chose to put all those inserts in newspapers? Because the newspaper had a model of distribution that was cheaper than mailing them directly to the consumer. You could argue it was more effective as people sifted through them on certain days but the reality is it was cheaper than direct mail.
Classifieds went away because online is cheaper, more robust, and more efficient. CraigsList may have started it but it was inevitable the classified business would end. That was roughly 40 percent of their revenue. I'm talking cars, homes, and job listings as well. That's where a TON of money was made. Especially in big city newspapers. Individual classifieds made some money but the majority was made in cars, homes, and job listings. Those three verticals allowed for a lot of journalism.
As the subscriber base has eroded the coverage for inserts declined because not as many people were getting the paper due to cable, online, subscription price, and a host of other reasons. Less people on a normal basis along with different ways to advertise eroded the insert business. It's still there but not what it once was. That Sunday paper was essentially a gold mine at one point.
Journalists won't admit this but the successful newspaper model was never about the content and subscriptions. Sure, a good chunk of people subscribed for the information but the financial model was never there for journalism by itself. Car dealers, realtors, and employers were the ones really paying for the journalism. It was all subsidized.
I always laugh when people say liberty and freedom can't exist without the newspaper. The newspapers really didn't start getting big until the mid 1900s give or take. The United States had been around for well over 100 years before the newspapers took off. Somehow the United States was able to grow without a massive newspaper presence. It'll continue without it.
It's a dying medium because it served a purpose from a distribution standpoint for journalism but mostly for advertising. The advertising has moved on. The journalism will just have to figure it out because that advertising subsidy is gone as has the distribution model for journalism.
Is there still a big home section in the paper? Someone told me a few years ago that that was pretty much the only thing keeping papers afloat and that once realtors wised up, it would probably be the end of a lot of newspapers.Chewy said:
The entire newspaper business model was never built on journalism. It was simply a unique distribution model disguised as journalism.
The newspapers made most of their money due to 2 things:
1) Classifieds
2) Inserts
You know why advertisers chose to put all those inserts in newspapers? Because the newspaper had a model of distribution that was cheaper than mailing them directly to the consumer. You could argue it was more effective as people sifted through them on certain days but the reality is it was cheaper than direct mail.
Classifieds went away because online is cheaper, more robust, and more efficient. CraigsList may have started it but it was inevitable the classified business would end. That was roughly 40 percent of their revenue. I'm talking cars, homes, and job listings as well. That's where a TON of money was made. Especially in big city newspapers. Individual classifieds made some money but the majority was made in cars, homes, and job listings. Those three verticals allowed for a lot of journalism.
As the subscriber base has eroded the coverage for inserts declined because not as many people were getting the paper due to cable, online, subscription price, and a host of other reasons. Less people on a normal basis along with different ways to advertise eroded the insert business. It's still there but not what it once was. That Sunday paper was essentially a gold mine at one point.
Journalists won't admit this but the successful newspaper model was never about the content and subscriptions. Sure, a good chunk of people subscribed for the information but the financial model was never there for journalism by itself. Car dealers, realtors, and employers were the ones really paying for the journalism. It was all subsidized.
I always laugh when people say liberty and freedom can't exist without the newspaper. The newspapers really didn't start getting big until the mid 1900s give or take. The United States had been around for well over 100 years before the newspapers took off. Somehow the United States was able to grow without a massive newspaper presence. It'll continue without it.
It's a dying medium because it served a purpose from a distribution standpoint for journalism but mostly for advertising. The advertising has moved on. The journalism will just have to figure it out because that advertising subsidy is gone as has the distribution model for journalism.
Weatherdouble aught said:
What's a met outlet?
