Printable View
Did I miss an announcement about another Detroit Free Press and Detroit News price increase? $2.50 for Saturday and $3.00 for Sunday. I Enjoy reading the actual paper but not at those prices. No wonder print media is dead. They've lost another faithful reader to the internet.
I stopped buying the daily editions when they went to $1.50. Now i am not buying the Sunday paper anyomre after it went to $3.00. Besides the Sunday Edition usually has repeat stories from Fridays Freep.com.
I pay $10/month for Thurs., Fri., Sunday delivery. They've tried several times to charge me $20 something. I called them and told them to cancel and they offered me the $10./month......until next time.
Because you refuse to pay $3.00 is why print media is dying. It's not dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by 65memories
We need your investment to put out the stories that need to be told. Journalism is not free.
Well - I'll pay the 3 bucks for the Sunday paper, if it's leather bound.
Yeah but it should be a decent product. The Freep has been terrible for almost 20 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
I subscribe to the NYT and the Ann Arbor News, but when I lived in the Detroit I actually dropped the Freep subscription because it was unreadable. One day the entire international section was a single article about Michael Jackson [[ripped from the AP, of course). Unacceptable.
New York Times subscriptions are up, and they offer at least quality reporting and writing.
No, journalism is not free. I will happily pay for it, however, what we are getting from both of our 2 formally fine news sourses, is not journalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
Imho
Agreed. I subscribe to Crains. Even though it is a business journal, I get better journalistic coverage of the region from them in pretty much every relevant subject matter. Most of the articles written in the Freep/DetNews are click drawing material, and not informative from all sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncledave54
A regular classic example of poor Freep/DetNews “journalism” is they will often write a story about a pending lawsuit, and provide a bunch of comments from one side that may or may not be sensationalized. Then they will throw in a quick one liner of, “we reached out to [[the other side), and the other side responded they can’t/don’t/won’t comment on pending litigation.”
That is lazy journalism. When it is in the defense’s legal best interest to not comment [[which is regularly the case), the journalist should take the time to contact other subject matter experts and present the story from the defense’s likely perspective, even if the defense themselves can’t comment. But the journalist these days are lazy, and think they have checked their fair and balanced box by providing the “no comment from other side” line.
I will pay for journalism that covers all sides, particularly the side I don’t agree with... because I want to understand their perspective.
NYT is $5 for Sunday in NY and Chicago Trib is $4 for Sunday in Chi.
Count your blessings
I recently read a story in the Free Press hardcopy that said something like "Read more about ... here, and more about ... here, and more about ... here...."Quote:
Originally Posted by hhockey
It took me a moment to realize that by "here" they didn't mean this paper edition. They had simply pasted the hyperlinks into the hardcopy without translating their URLs for the reader.
LOL! I'm not making that up.
You do understand that newspapers, most at least, have a subscription with the Associated Press, so newspapers will run AP stories a lot. Mine does.Quote:
Originally Posted by poobert
Also, we can disagree on whether or not it's a good or a bad product, but what makes it bad, really?
Because although I will defend newspapers until my dying day, I want to know what it would take for readers to pay for content. What makes a newspaper a good product or a bad product?
I remember when the Sunday editions were something like 2 inches thick and the price was $1.50 or so, maybe less. It took you the whole day to read through it. The Classifieds alone were many pages. Sometimes 10 pages of more of Help Wanteds. Then there were the autos for sale.
You could get more than enough coupons to make that cost back, sometimes a few times over.
A good start to putting out a good product would be actual spelling and grammar checking, and I do not mean merely hitting F7 on the keyboard. Does anyone proofread anymore?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
I read both papers, almost cover to cover, every day and every day I see countless grammar and spelling errors that a fourth grader would know not to make.
I also read stories that are not at all cohesive. Also, I often see quotes from people who are not identified in the article, such as "... and Johnson said ...." But nowhere beforehand does the article identify who "Johnson" is.
Reporters today have gotten very lazy and that does not apply strictly to print media.
It's not reporters, it's the lack of copy editors. Those jobs have been slashed by the hundreds over the course of the past 10 year.Quote:
Originally Posted by SyGolden48236
Yes, we reporters make mistakes. We are human and it's normal. But the workload we have now is insane. That's not to excuse the mistakes, because we don't like making them, but you have to understand that there are less of us now to catch those mistakes.
It's not lazy, it's overworked.
But I get what you are saying.
Investing in papers means the ability to hire more and to lessen the workload.
I don't consider that I've ever paid for the news content. I consider news to be a public service, supported by advertisers. I paid for the convenience of home delivery. Remember, everything in a printed newspaper happened yesterday. At least with TV news, I could find out about things that happened today, then read about them in more detail tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
But notice, I said 'more detail'. That was when there were real reporters who went to incident scenes and gathered information first hand by talking to witnesses and officials. If you read three different papers [[which there were back then), you got details in three different ways because the reporters wrote their own stories. They didn't copy and paste off a link they clicked.
Today, I can hit five or more different 'news' websites and read exactly the same story, word for word, mistake for mistake.
I will NEVER pay for content on any website. I will never subscribe to any site that throws up a paywall.
I subscribe to the Sunday edition for a few reasons:
- I like to read a physical paper on the weekend [[I wouldn't have or take the time during the week). It gets me away from a screen.
- I believe in supporting local journalism. Is the paper as good as it once was? I don't think so. But I understand the reality of the situation; without funding, it can't exist. I know that the reasons for the decline are complicated. But I also know that if nobody pays for the paper, it's only going to get worse.
- The weekly cost of offset by, of all things, the coupons I clip. I get some sense of satisfaction showing up to my locally-owned grocer and using coupons I clipped.
I'm in my late 30's, and probably not the norm. But to think of a future where everyone gets their news from social media and TMZ...well, it scares the hell out of me.
I also subscribe to Crain's - which is a great paper, and well worth the annual fee.
I am happy to pay for content that is worth it to me, and I do. I pay for content that is worth it two ways: worth my money and worth my time.
The Guardian is a recent success story. The just announced their first operating profit since 1988.
Guardian Media Group announces outcome of three year turnaround strategy
https://www.theguardian.com/gnm-pres...round-strategy
Detroit's newspapers should pay attention to how did they did it.
How Tribune Publishing, The Guardian, and Slate tackled reader revenue by valuing their journalism more
Exclusive podcasts, tightened paywalls, and just plain asking each played a part.
https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/02/ho...urnalism-more/
I also fondly remember when Detroit's papers consistently offered journalism worth reading, but those days are long gone. They need to reverse the trajectory they've been on for decades and offer a much better product.
Good information is a pillar of a strong democracy, and citizens of Detroit are very poorly served in this regard. I would love to support Detroit's papers, but it pains me to say this: the product they currently offer isn't usually even worth my time.
I worry they have already cut themselves to the bone -- I don't know how they'll do it -- but I hope they turn themselves around.
That is really sad to hear. I hope you change your mind one day. We need people to continue to subscribe so we can get paid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
The fact you don't think you should pay for a service is incredibly sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
I hate paying too but it's going to become a fact of life. Other than that, you're going to be led around by the nose with fake news. Hang in there Zads07. Keep doing the best you can with what you got. I hope things will get better.
I think post #8 summed it up pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
But it does not appear as though the media does not choose to take into consideration what the readers are actually looking for.
I only subscribe to the Sunday paper, and, wonder who is stuffing the paper? I get this huge bulk, and all the flyers are packed in there twice and sometimes 3 times. My recyle bin is full of all this. Then, with all that advertising, I still have to pay more money. I read the daily on line, I miss having the paper in hand, but I am more productive without it. Bring back newsboys, give kids a job - I wouldn't mind if the paper was on my porch every day and I wouldn't mind tipping the carrier, but those days are gone.
An inexpensive way to support the Free Press, as I do, is to buy an annual digital subscription. It's only $29 a year. I like the traditional newspaper format, and one can get this way, albeit one has to scroll around a bit but the feel is much the same once one gets used to it. Here is how today's front page looks.
Attachment 38142
vs. the boring online version...
Attachment 38143
I get the bulk of my news from Public Radio and Television and have supported them for several decades, to the tune of a few thousand. They have great local, state and international news, business news and features and is largely commercial free other than donor mentions at the start and finish. It's the best there is in media.
I have subscribed to Crain's for decades still getting the hard copy, but I rarely read it as I get email updates and usually end up reading items online first. I have also been doing the NY Times digital additionally attracted in that I like to do the daily crossword puzzle.
I've heard Apple is going to come out with bundle of magazines and news papers for ten a month, but it appears to be like cable in that most of the choices will be of little interest to me. However I think that will be the model going forward as more and more paywalls get erected.
Support media, particularly local media. We need in depth reporting and watchful eyes more than ever.
I have read the NYT since 1982 every day. It is not that easy to do here. We have paid for home delivery since it was available in our zip code. I pay for electronic editions of the Washington Post and the Seattle Times.
Unfortunately, our local paper was purchased by Gannett and they have destroyed it.
Those of you who are complaining about the News and the Freep should thank your lucky stars. The lack of people reading the newspaper from front to back every day like my dad did is part of what is wrong with this country.
I thank God for the Sultzbegers and the Ochs and shudder at who I might be without the knowledge that comes from reading what is going on in the world. As opposed to what the Murdoch family has done.....
And yes, every time I am home, I buy the Ann Arbor News, The Detroit News and the Freep. I read the Freep on line most work days.
NYT is digital for daily and Sunday I subscribe to it and the crossword.Quote:
Originally Posted by carolcb
Although I started this thread because of my rant about the price, especially after reading Saturday's thin paper [[$2.50 for about 7 pages of real news), I must admit I like reading the actual print paper and will continue to so. It was a rant from an old guy who remembers when he could buy all three --- the Free Press, News and Detroit Times --- for less than a quarter. It's interesting that my sons, millennials, grew up reading the printed page and continue to do so when they get the chance. They are surprised that their friends don't read the paper, printed or online. They watched their Dad dissect the Sunday paper from front page to last. But that said, they don't possess the cultural connection to the printed word that their Dad has; heck, they probably don't remember paper boxes on corners. They don't remember the Restons, Salsingers, Roykos, Doc Greens, et al. But great journalism is a discussion for another day.
Thanks for the recommendation. I didn't know the traditional print format was available to digital subscribers. That's great. I hate the experience reading freep.com, and all other Gannet digital properties that share that awful design. And at $29/year it's certainly worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
Totally agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
I also agree with those who say Crain's delivers better quality. But their coverage is of course more narrow in scope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
The New York Times is among the handful of newspapers across the country that still delivers journalism of the highest standard. And a lot of it, every day. Even if they too have drastically cut back on the number of reporters and editors they employ, and they publish fewer and smaller pages and with bigger text than they did before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
As at The Guardian, their high quality journalism is producing results:
New York Times signs up more online subscribers, shares rise
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-idUSKCN1SE1L3
I was also until very recently a long time subscriber to The New Yorker. They tackle complex issues in even greater depth. My current lapse in my subscription is only for practical reasons. I'm Jonesing to pick that up again.
Two more I love are The Atlantic and Harpers. But I gave those up for the New Yorker some long time ago. Again for practical reasons. I just didn't have time.
The Economist is another excellent source of information. I have off and on been a subscriber for decades, and I never stopped listening to their podcasts.
Speaking of podcasts, they too can be an excellent source of news. I listen to many. Some of my favorites are from NPR, WNYC, the Guardian, the BBC, and the NY Times, as well as several more topic-oriented ones.
Don't get your hopes up Apple News will benefit journalism. All signs are that if anything, it may be another nail in the coffin. It's probably no better than when Facebook courted publishers, only Apple demands an even bigger cut:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
Apple reportedly demanding a staggering 50 percent of revenue with ‘Netflix for news’ subscription
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/12/1...ers-media-deal
Apple News Plus is a fine way to read magazines, but a disappointment to anyone wishing for a real boost for the news business
https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/03/ap...news-business/
Hear hear!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
Something else I wonder is whether journalism should be dependent on advertising in the first place. Many believe that model is at best troubled, if not outright broken from the start. For example:
The Guardian view on journalism and advertising: selling the news short
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ing-news-short
It's easy to convincingly theorize how local news outlets have similarly turned a blind eye to corporate malfeasance in Detroit.
The Salt Lake City Tribune just announced they are becoming a 501[[c)[[3) non-profit organization:
Salt Lake Tribune seeks to become a nonprofit ‘community asset,’ a first for a legacy newspaper
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/05/...tribune-seeks/
There are many complications with that approach, but in desperate times it's an idea worth further exploration. ProPublica produces great journalism. And there are many other examples of success:
A new look at local nonprofit news sites finds revenues of more than $325 million, 2,200 journalists
https://www.poynter.org/business-wor...0-journalists/
Sunday paper is $1.00 at the dollar store.
Well thank you, [[bust), for a in depth view on the problems that are faced.
And thank you Wheels for saving me $2.00. :D
FYI, I tried to sign up for the Freep's $29/year e-Edition subscription Lowell recommended, but it can no longer be bought a la carte.
Maybe libraries can be part of a solution how to improve the dreadful state of most local news:
Should a Colorado library publish local news?
https://www.cjr.org/united_states_pr...ct-library.php
Journalism is an important public service and we should figure out the right way to invest in it like one.
I signed up for the home delivery and had to get dressed, walk 1000' to the other side of the building, step between two locking automatic doors to get my paper and not get locked out. Home?
I can remember the Detroit News as being 60 cents for a seven day subscription. The Sunday paper was a "visual feast". The thinnest paper was Saturday. The Sunday funnies were multiple pages in two sections. Every single day, the paper gave full schedules and starting times for all Detroit movie houses and most of the close in suburban houses. The sports section had complete box scores for all of major league baseball and daily lists of batting and pitching stats for the Tigers. Sunday paper sports section had complete major league stats. The business section had complete NYSE listings as well as major ASE listings and the commodities markets. There was also a pretty good look at the major bonds on the bond market and the mutual fund listings. Sic Transit Gloria.
I gave up on the Freep one Monday when i bought one on the way to get breakfast before visiting someone in the hospital, and literally 2/3 of the Monday edition was sports. Sorry folks, but things happened in the world yesterday that don't involve Comerica Park, Ford Field, or LCA. Or maybe consider an interpretive story explaining what happened last week.
Sports happen and it's news. I have no idea what edition you are speaking of, but would be curious to know the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don K
A newspaper should not be 2/3 sports and that's coming from a sports reporter.
But to give up on a paper because of that seems a little silly, doesn't it?
Invest, continue to invest. Call the reporters tell them what is going on. Tell them information in your community that you think is important and should be covered.
Tell them what they are doing right and doing wrong. Constructive criticism is key for us. We're here to serve you and keep you informed and hold people accountable.
Giving up does no good.
No it isn't. Sports is sports and belongs in the Sports section .... NEVER on the front page.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
Business is business, Entertainment is entertainment. Neither generally belongs on the front page. Business can sometimes go there if it's significant enough, new plant/store opening, adding jobs or something closing, costing jobs.
Entertainment and Sports should only be on the front page if some news event [[accident) happens during the event.
And yes, this is another big reason why I stopped getting papers or watching TV news.
Another is that the news people showed obvious disregard for what the readers/viewers wanted. That shows in your replies here.
Sez who?....Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
Oct 11, 1968 Free Press front page
Attachment 38196
What's especially sad about the Detroit'sdailiesthrice weeklies is despite offering precious little original content, how much of it is devoted to sports vs the rest of the [[vastly more important) universe of news.
When you get your next paper next Thursday, count how many articles it contains, count how many were written by local reporters, then discard all those [[like sports) that have inconsequential news value. What do you have left?
Zads07, no disrespect whatsoever, but it's not surprising you're a sports reporter. Those are a big percentage of the local news jobs that remain. Certainly much more than before.
What about the sports Ill Itches? Who better than a sports reporter to deal the dish on them?
But doing so might cut in on the free passes and other goodies, right?
As someone with a degree in journalism, sports can be on the front page if it's big enough. It doesn't happen often, I'll admit that, but sports on the front page, it's normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
Examples: Championships or championship losses, a human interest story that involves sports, etc.
I'm sorry you disagree and that you have stopped reading news. I hope you'll invest one day again.
It's tough sledding out there, it really is. The corporations that own a lot of our major newspapers across the country continue to gut them. I hope there's a solution at some point soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by bust
You really don't have a clue what we do, do you? This is such an ignorant comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
If you want to know what it is actually like, I'd love to talk to you about it. Otherwise, debate with you is futile with comments like this.
Apparently what you do is argue with and talk down to readers and former readers who are trying to tell you what the public wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
If my comments come off as arguing, that is not my intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
I am frustrated that people will give up on local news because of price. I am frustrated people want news for free. I am frustrated people call us fake.
I am frustrated that your ignorance toward my profession has caused you to stop informing yourself of what is going on in the community.
When you say "But doing so might cut in on the free passes and other goodies, right?" and assume that we do this for free stuff or that we don't do our jobs because of perks is asinine. I won't sugarcoat that comment because it's ignorant.
I'm sorry again if I'm coming off aggressive or rude, that's not my intent, but I would like to believe I'm trying to inform people of our profession, while at the same time, defending what we do.
You basically called him corrupt. How would you expect him to react?Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
No he's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
I used to work for a suburban Detroit newspaper. At one time there were dozens of suburban newspapers - in addition to the Freep and The Detroit News.
The problem for all print media is the internet. Printing presses cost millions to buy and operate. In addition to a huge staff of reporters, editors and photographers, you need a composing room of technicians and highly skilled press operators. You have to buy tons of newsprint and barrels of ink. You need a circulation department, a fleet of trucks and hundreds of people to deliver it. Newspapers can't possibly compete with the internet which costs virtually nothing.
Also, don't overlook the effect of shitty delivery service. A neighborhood kid used to deliver the paper to my front door. But they got rid of the kids and hired drivers to throw the paper on my driveway. EVERY time it rained my paper was soaked and unreadable. Or else I’d have to hunt for it in the bushes, or in my neighbor’s yard even tho my driveway is almost 20 feet wide. After years of complaining I gave up and cancelled.
"Supporting" local newspapers by buying a subscription does nothing. Subscriptions barely cover the cost of printing and distribution. The money to operate any newspaper or magazine comes from display and classified advertising revenue but the internet has pretty much taken all that away.
Hard times are ahead for any print media. I recently got an offer to get Esquire Magazine for $8.00/yr. That doesn't even cover postage. That shows how desperate print media are.
Hard times indeed. But as a former newspaper worker, you should konw that buying a subscription does help. Although a majority of our revenue comes from advertising, subscriptions do account for a portion of our salaries. So it doesn't really 'do nothing' rather it helps because at this point, any sort of money coming into print is helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat001
Also, the more people subscribe the more the paper can charge for advertising, because that correlates to more people they can say will see the ads. That's why some subscription rates are so low. They're collecting eyes for the ads. And since print ads still generate more revenue than digital ads, why it often costs the same for a digital subscription as for a print subscription with the digital subscription thrown in for free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
"Freep.com is not responding due to a long-running script"
I'm no longer visiting your sites due to your long running scripts. Thank-you, and good luck with your 20th century business model and technology.
Except for a little different editorial slant they're essentially the same paper. I'm surprised one of them hasn't disappeared by now.
The only reason they both exist is the Joint operating agreement. They share business operations while they have separate editorial staffs.
Mine went up to $15 month
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maof
Disregard that last post. It changed again. In early September, I get an email notification that my acct. was charged $26 for those same three days of delivery. I called to cancel. I like my Sunday paper so I settled for that at $12/month. Just two days ago, I get another notification for $19! Called and cancelled for good. Kinda sick of having to call every other month so I just did away with it. I'm sure I'll get an email with "better pricing":rolleyes:. It seems to always happen that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcole
Minimum wage hike, increased government regulations cost, paid family leave costs, "free" daycare costs, “climate change” driven energy costs, paid transgender sex-change costs, the list goes on and on and they all get passed on to you and me in the form of higher prices. The Free Press editorial page supported all of this free stuff, it’s like a suicide pack.
Michelle Albom??Quote:
Originally Posted by CassTechGrad
Toronto Star does the same. Once you have cancelled for 90 days you can get the same half price offer as a new customer. Last 3 years I've just taken that deal in the spring so I can sit outside with a paper and then cancel in the fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by CassTechGrad
Edit: Oops! Meant to reply to Maof's post.