Freep, News Price

[bust]

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

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.

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.

Totally agree.

I have subscribed to Crain's for decades...

I also agree with those who say Crain's delivers better quality. But their coverage is of course more narrow in scope.

I have also been doing the NY Times digital additionally attracted in that I like to do the daily crossword puzzle.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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/

Support media, particularly local media. We need in depth reporting and watchful eyes more than ever.

Hear hear!

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/

[Wheels]

Sunday paper is $1.00 at the dollar store.

[Bigb23]

Well thank you, [[bust), for a in depth view on the problems that are faced.
And thank you Wheels for saving me $2.00.

[bust]

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.

[bust]

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.

[Bigb23]

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?

[Hermod]

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.

[Don K]

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.

[Zads07]

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.

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.

[Meddle]

Sports happen and it's news.

No it isn't. Sports is sports and belongs in the Sports section .... NEVER on the front page.

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.

[Uncledave54]

No it isn't. Sports is sports and belongs in the Sports section .... NEVER on the front page.

Sez who?....

Oct 11, 1968 Free Press front page

[bust]

What's especially sad about the Detroit's dailies thrice 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.

[Meddle]

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?

[Zads07]

No it isn't. Sports is sports and belongs in the Sports section .... NEVER on the front page.

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.

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.

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.

[Zads07]

What's especially sad about the Detroit's dailies thrice 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.

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.

[Zads07]

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?

You really don't have a clue what we do, do you? This is such an ignorant comment.

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.

[Meddle]

You really don't have a clue what we do, do you?

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.

[Zads07]

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.

If my comments come off as arguing, that is not my intent.

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.

[archfan]

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.

You basically called him corrupt. How would you expect him to react?

[Maof]

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.

No he's not.

[Pat001]

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.

[Zads07]

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.

[bust]

...buying a subscription does help. Although a majority of our revenue comes from advertising, subscriptions do account for a portion of our salaries.

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.

[Bong-Man]

"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.

[401don]

Except for a little different editorial slant they're essentially the same paper. I'm surprised one of them hasn't disappeared by now.