6 Newspaper sections rendered obsolete by the web
Monday, November 17, 2008
Newspapers are dying, we know. But which sections are already dead?
The front page of a daily newspaper is likely to contain news that, unless you don't read blogs, don't follow Digg, aren't on Twitter, don't read online news sites, and have no computer at all, is old news. Most newspapers now favor thoughtful analysis over breaking news stories, but you can get thoughtful analysis on blogs, Digg, Twitter...
Letters to the editor have been obliterated by online comment sections attached to individual articles. Why read the random musings of a handful of selected readers when you can read hundreds of comments on any one story or issue? Better yet, newspaper readers now have access to millions of blogs dedicated to every topic under the sun.
Who cares what one guy or gal thinks about the latest restaurant opening? A quick search through Yelp, CitySearch or any of their clones will reveal thousands of Average Joes writing about hundreds of restaurants near you. Even turning to the newspaper for simple suggestions has been been outmoded by tools like the iPhone's Urbanspoon application.
Just as Yelp has replaced print media as the go-to for restaurant reviews sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.com are kicking newspaper ass. Why read what one jaded critic has to say, when you can read the reviews of hundreds of jaded critics, all in one place.
The little box with the happy smiling sun and the day's forecast? It's probably either oversimplified or overrun with useless statistics, and on top of that, it likely isn't accurate for every area the newspaper serves. That's where the many online weather tools come in, giving web users accurate forecasts right down to the street level.
1995. The year craigslist was launched and the beginning of the end of newspaper classified sections. Oh well, the tiny ads were taking up space anyway.
People will die and as long as they continue to do so, there will be journalists there to write nice things about them.
Before newspapers were confined to concepts like impartiality and fairness, the printed word was made up of opinion pieces (that may or may not have been based on, you know, facts). Even at their most basic form, newspapers will always contain someone's opinion, albeit with a lot more fact-checking.
There's nothing like spending a Sunday morning with a cup of coffee and a page full of comics. And while many comic strips are now available online, newspapers provide the real estate for all of them to be read in one place.
Front Page/A1
The front page of a daily newspaper is likely to contain news that, unless you don't read blogs, don't follow Digg, aren't on Twitter, don't read online news sites, and have no computer at all, is old news. Most newspapers now favor thoughtful analysis over breaking news stories, but you can get thoughtful analysis on blogs, Digg, Twitter...
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the editor have been obliterated by online comment sections attached to individual articles. Why read the random musings of a handful of selected readers when you can read hundreds of comments on any one story or issue? Better yet, newspaper readers now have access to millions of blogs dedicated to every topic under the sun.
Restaurant reviews
Who cares what one guy or gal thinks about the latest restaurant opening? A quick search through Yelp, CitySearch or any of their clones will reveal thousands of Average Joes writing about hundreds of restaurants near you. Even turning to the newspaper for simple suggestions has been been outmoded by tools like the iPhone's Urbanspoon application.
Movie reviews
Just as Yelp has replaced print media as the go-to for restaurant reviews sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.com are kicking newspaper ass. Why read what one jaded critic has to say, when you can read the reviews of hundreds of jaded critics, all in one place.
Weather
The little box with the happy smiling sun and the day's forecast? It's probably either oversimplified or overrun with useless statistics, and on top of that, it likely isn't accurate for every area the newspaper serves. That's where the many online weather tools come in, giving web users accurate forecasts right down to the street level.
Classifieds
1995. The year craigslist was launched and the beginning of the end of newspaper classified sections. Oh well, the tiny ads were taking up space anyway.
3 sections that aren't going anywhere (or newspapers are really screwed)
Obituaries
People will die and as long as they continue to do so, there will be journalists there to write nice things about them.
Opinion
Before newspapers were confined to concepts like impartiality and fairness, the printed word was made up of opinion pieces (that may or may not have been based on, you know, facts). Even at their most basic form, newspapers will always contain someone's opinion, albeit with a lot more fact-checking.
Comics
There's nothing like spending a Sunday morning with a cup of coffee and a page full of comics. And while many comic strips are now available online, newspapers provide the real estate for all of them to be read in one place.
Labels: news on the news
15 Comments
GobberGo Says:
Where exactly are you finding "thoughtful analysis" on Digg and Twitter?
Also, with respect to letters to the editor, I disagree. And I do so speaking as someone who gets his news almost entirely online now. Have you read the comment sections of most news stories on most news sites? Thank goodness for Letters to the Editor sections where the diamonds in the (expansive) rough are given a chance to be more than a lone voice among a million inane bleats.
Also, with respect to letters to the editor, I disagree. And I do so speaking as someone who gets his news almost entirely online now. Have you read the comment sections of most news stories on most news sites? Thank goodness for Letters to the Editor sections where the diamonds in the (expansive) rough are given a chance to be more than a lone voice among a million inane bleats.
Will Says:
Good point on what will disappear, but surely when anyone can have a blog or leave a blog comment opinion will be better done on the Internet too.
Tish Grier Says:
might want to add high school sports to the list of sections that aren't going away--at least for small-town local papers in regions that don't have lots of professional sports. People love seeing their kids interviewed, and nobody's really blogging all that much (or regularly) on h.s. sports.
Rick's RSS Says:
First, your site is a wonderful resource.
There's not much to like about newspapers these days, but I would add crossword puzzles as a valuable newspaper feature. Its one of the few parts of the paper that the reader is allowed to do something to engage and interact with the paper itself.
There's not much to like about newspapers these days, but I would add crossword puzzles as a valuable newspaper feature. Its one of the few parts of the paper that the reader is allowed to do something to engage and interact with the paper itself.
teachj Says:
Also obsolete:
National or college sports pages
Stock market results
Still valuable:
Reporting on city hall or the county seat, school board, utility district, etc. i.e. local hard news
High school sports
National or college sports pages
Stock market results
Still valuable:
Reporting on city hall or the county seat, school board, utility district, etc. i.e. local hard news
High school sports
Ethan Stanislawski Says:
Mark,
I was very disturbed by your comments on movie reviews for two reasons:
a) Where do you think the reviews that make up rotten tomatoes and metacritic come from? How can you have a critical consensus on films if there is no forum for critical consensus
b)Casually referring to critics as "jaded" seemed a bit anti-intellectual to me. The need for expert opinion on film or any art hasn't decreased, the long-term viability of the previous economic model has. What we need is a way for that expert opinion to become economically stable. None of the comments on Digg can provide the same level of analysis of people like Jonathan Rosenbaum or Roger Ebert (who has switched to blogging, mind you).
I was very disturbed by your comments on movie reviews for two reasons:
a) Where do you think the reviews that make up rotten tomatoes and metacritic come from? How can you have a critical consensus on films if there is no forum for critical consensus
b)Casually referring to critics as "jaded" seemed a bit anti-intellectual to me. The need for expert opinion on film or any art hasn't decreased, the long-term viability of the previous economic model has. What we need is a way for that expert opinion to become economically stable. None of the comments on Digg can provide the same level of analysis of people like Jonathan Rosenbaum or Roger Ebert (who has switched to blogging, mind you).
John Chilson Says:
I have two local papers I can turn to: one is the large daily and the other is a small community newspaper that focuses on my community. I almost always read the small, local newspaper [albeit mostly online] before I read the large daily [mostly content I've read the previous day and mostly AP wire stories]. The small local paper gives me relevant news about what matters to me and my neighborhood.
On the other hand, I usually turn to the obits first. Morbid curiosity I guess. I also read the "crime blotter" section to see what crime has happened in my neighborhood.
And, yeah, like the poster said above, high school sports is huge and probably isn't going away. The sports pages here [Portland] are about 80% HS sports, 20% Blazers.
I'm also finding myself dividing my reading habits into two camps: "enjoyable reading" [such as articles, profiles, etc.] and "information and research," data I need for my job or quick facts.
On the other hand, I usually turn to the obits first. Morbid curiosity I guess. I also read the "crime blotter" section to see what crime has happened in my neighborhood.
And, yeah, like the poster said above, high school sports is huge and probably isn't going away. The sports pages here [Portland] are about 80% HS sports, 20% Blazers.
I'm also finding myself dividing my reading habits into two camps: "enjoyable reading" [such as articles, profiles, etc.] and "information and research," data I need for my job or quick facts.
Robin Brown Says:
I'm not sure that I necessarily agree, and the poster above who singles out letters to the editor is right.
The fact that someone goes to the trouble of writing a letter and posting it, then that letter is approved for publication suggests a thoughtfulness and likely quality that is bound to be missing from 99 per cent of online comment, which is more likely to be throwaway, sarcastic or simply insulting.
The fact that someone goes to the trouble of writing a letter and posting it, then that letter is approved for publication suggests a thoughtfulness and likely quality that is bound to be missing from 99 per cent of online comment, which is more likely to be throwaway, sarcastic or simply insulting.
Mike Power Says:
GobberGo Said: "Thank goodness for Letters to the Editor sections where the diamonds in the (expansive) rough are given a chance to be more than a lone voice among a million inane bleats."
Yes, but only if the editor approves!
Yes, but only if the editor approves!
Justin Says:
But letters to the editor are not instant like comments. They're delayed, so really you have to go back and reference what the letter is about, which also takes time and more real estate.
As for movie reviews, I think the idea of expertise from a small group of critics seems silly. The fact is just as many people go see movies if a critic doesn't like it. The day of tastemakers is over.
Besides I like to think people value reviews from friends and family more than critics, and the web offers that on a larger scale.
As for movie reviews, I think the idea of expertise from a small group of critics seems silly. The fact is just as many people go see movies if a critic doesn't like it. The day of tastemakers is over.
Besides I like to think people value reviews from friends and family more than critics, and the web offers that on a larger scale.
Jrue Says:
There use to be SOO many services I went to a physical newspaper for in the 80s. Think about it. People went to the newspaper for more than just news, they went to a newspaper for movie times, comics, coupons, stocks, horoscopes, puzzles, columns, obits, classifieds, job info, weather, etc etc.
Now how many of those things do people actually go to a newspaper Web site for?
Now how many of those things do people actually go to a newspaper Web site for?
marylouise Says:
I think this is a great question but the examples are lacking in thoughtfulness.
For instance, while everyone eats, there's a demonstrable difference between amateur restaurant reviews and a professional one. And we know people generally appreciate both, in combination. Movies is a national beat, and you can get a wealth of professional reviews online. Dining is a local beat. At the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and most newspapers, dining sections, online and off, are among our most read sections.
The comment about the front page of papers is kind of an easy shot, too. It assumes that front pages are one thing and have not changed. The front pages that work generally take advantage of the expertise within a newsroom to tell people more about the news than they'll get elsewhere, and it includes investigations that other media outlets simply do not have the resources to produce.
Another critical question to ask is not so much about which sections to ditch but how frequently readers need to physically have them in hand. The Christian Science Monitor has certainly got the industry asking that question.
Thanks for the thread, I look forward to reading more.
For instance, while everyone eats, there's a demonstrable difference between amateur restaurant reviews and a professional one. And we know people generally appreciate both, in combination. Movies is a national beat, and you can get a wealth of professional reviews online. Dining is a local beat. At the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and most newspapers, dining sections, online and off, are among our most read sections.
The comment about the front page of papers is kind of an easy shot, too. It assumes that front pages are one thing and have not changed. The front pages that work generally take advantage of the expertise within a newsroom to tell people more about the news than they'll get elsewhere, and it includes investigations that other media outlets simply do not have the resources to produce.
Another critical question to ask is not so much about which sections to ditch but how frequently readers need to physically have them in hand. The Christian Science Monitor has certainly got the industry asking that question.
Thanks for the thread, I look forward to reading more.
November 17, 2008 9:28 AM