Does the local media have an agenda or are they just stupid

[downtownguy]

The Detroit News on the other hand has got slightly worse, but despite terrible decisions from it's Gannett overlords has somehow managed to stay one-step-ahead of the larger circulation Free Press. [[they run more opinion pieces, have a film critic, haven't adopted this zany thing the Freep now does where it restarts articles on other pages instead of continuing them, the News has normal-size photos and fonts, etc.).

Since 2005, MediaNews Group has owned the The Detroit News and Gannett owns the Free Press.

When the papers were really NEWS papers, I faithfully read the Free Press. Now, since there's so little actual reporting, I just skim both papers online. Given that, I lean towards the News because I find it's website much easier to read. What IS up with the Freep only giving a few paragraphs of a story per page? I find it aggravating to keep clicking through to read what amounts to a relatively short story.

[rid0617]

Local newspapers have not been worth a crap since they lost their local ownership. Newspapers I've been familiar with for the past 15 years are Atlanta and Greenville, SC. One a big city, one a city of about 15,000.

Once corporate ownership began reporting has been watered down and geared towards sensationalism to sell papers. There is no longer a desire to report local news accurately especially since you can reprint an AP story much cheaper.

Here our Greenville paper is Gannett owned and they have gone to a system you have to pay $9.95 a month to read the paper online. The 24 hour media is slowly killing newspapers, they just haven't realized it yet.

[fryar]

The 24 hour media is slowly killing newspapers, they just haven't realized it yet.

I have had the distinct impression that the newspaper business knows it has a target on its back. If they can't figure out how to successfully monetize the ipad, a lot of them may go under. Many, many people don't buy newspapers anymore.

[English]

The death blow to the papers was the strike in the mid-1990s, in my opinion. By the time the strike was over, the damage was done. [[The post-strike era also coincided with the proliferation of the internet.)

[pffft]

Since most news content on the web comes from "traditional," paid print journalists, I have to laugh when I read these doom scenarios. The web didn't kill journalism, it just expanded its reach into a new platform.

[Johnnny5]

Anyone notice that there is no longer a mention of the scumbag being from Detroit?

[smogboy]

Part of what also "killed" the print newspaper is the fact that their old traditional revenue generator, the classifieds went the way of freebie, craigslists.org. I remember as a kid delivering the paper and dreaded Wednesdays and Sundays just because of the ad inserts that we had to do. The Sunday papers were just full of color ads and the classifieds were sections long.

Not any more.

I fear for people who have to paper train their dogs because of how skimpy the papers have gotten! No revenue obviously meant no money to retain or to hire true journalists. As hard as it is to admit for investigative reporters and real decent writers, that account executive that sold ad space for the paper was just as vital to their survival.

[English]

Never fear. The ads may be coming back. Rupert Murdoch is trying to get us to pay for news content online, according to NPR last week [[I think I was listening to BBC World).

[smogboy]

Never fear. The ads may be coming back. Rupert Murdoch is trying to get us to pay for news content online, according to NPR last week [[I think I was listening to BBC World).

But once the genie has been released, I'm not even so sure a curmudgeon like Murdoch could even put it back in. There just seem to be a lot more alternatives to just a few news sources now and they all seem hell bent on beating one another to the punch despite losing the war.