Star-Telegram RIP

[jefffwd]

This morning TIME released their predictions of the top 10 newspapers in the country that will most likely go under next... The Dallas Morning News didn't make the list but the S-T did.

Click for Complete List (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1883785,00.html )


The Fort Worth Star Telegram is another one of the big dailies that competes with a larger paper in a neighboring market — Dallas. The parent of The Dallas Morning News, Belo, is arguably a stronger company that the Star Telegram's parent, McClatchy. The Morning News has a circulation of about 350,000 and the Star Telegram has just over 200,000. The Star Telegram will have to shut down or become an edition of its rival. Putting them together would save tens of millions of dollars a year.

[gchrisbailey]

This morning TIME released their predictions of the top 10 newspapers in the country that will most likely go under next... The Dallas Morning News didn't make the list but the S-T did.

Click for Complete List (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1883785,00.html )


The Fort Worth Star Telegram is another one of the big dailies that competes with a larger paper in a neighboring market — Dallas. The parent of The Dallas Morning News, Belo, is arguably a stronger company that the Star Telegram's parent, McClatchy. The Morning News has a circulation of about 350,000 and the Star Telegram has just over 200,000. The Star Telegram will have to shut down or become an edition of its rival. Putting them together would save tens of millions of dollars a year.

We'll see...I'm looking forward to some of these doom and gloom scenarios to be blown out of the water when everything recovers...

[vman]

I can't believe how small the cirulation numbers for these papers are, the DMN and the Star, when you consider the metro population here. The Star has always been a second rate paper IMO. I've seen high school journalism classes produce a better product.

[mjblazin]

The problem with newspapers is that, during the downtorn, people and businesses are learning that they don't need the dailies. That's a secular, not a cyclical, behavior change and investors bringing new capital to keep these firms alive have better opportunities. These firms unwisely piled on the debt in good times and can't simply lose that drain on funds as they lay off people. It's not a question of hunkering down.

[ihavebeenseen]

Solution??? Turn the news papers into endowed non-profits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/opinion/28swensen.html

[gc]

Sad to hear. I have always really enjoyed the Star Telegram.

[cowboyeagle05]

Sad to hear. I have always really enjoyed the Star Telegram.
you know its not dead yet but one of the Seattle newspapers is planning to go only online by the end of the month and some of the journalists have been giving offers to write for the new online version. Other magazines have already been doing to this in the technology industry cause their audience is all on the internet now. This year will be definitely be the year when major news media falls and is forced to do something differently because they have no choice. Oh and I'm not saying all the newspapers will die either just major expectations will change.

[xen0blue]

eventually all newpapers will go away...even the NYT. in print form, at least.

[mjblazin]

People that read prefer to read on paper. If a paper has something unique to sell, like the Wall Street Journal, then its readers will buy it. If it's something that can be be scanned quickly like most DMN issues, then it will have problems.

Reliance on the advertising model as the the papers now see, as TV and radio are gradually seeing, and even the all-powerful Google will see is a path to riches and poorhouse. It ends in the poorhouse because the debt and infrastructure that are necessary to garner the riches are the anchors that drown you when someone finds something new to reach your audience.

[aygriffith]

This year will be definitely be the year when major news media falls and is forced to do something differently because they have no choice.

But why? You really think all of you urban hipsters are spending your mornings clicking your way through star-telegram.com or nytimes.com while sipping/serving your caramel macchiatos? To say you will have an increased readership or a sustainable readship online is questionable. Once you push all of those publications online then their less than objective editorials have to compete the less than objective editorial (presented as fact) columns by online news stalworts such as salon.com and slate.com.

[Spjz]

But why? You really think all of you urban hipsters are spending your mornings clicking your way through star-telegram.com or nytimes.com while sipping/serving your caramel macchiatos? To say you will have an increased readership or a sustainable readship online is questionable. Once you push all of those publications online then their less than objective editorials have to compete the less than objective editorial (presented as fact) columns by online news stalworts such as salon.com and slate.com.I can only speak for a very narrow segment of society (St. Mary's law students), but we consume a good amount of online news. I can only think of one of my school chums who has a print subscription.

I'm ready for somebody to offer a local, online news source that is thorough, comprehensive and user friendly. I'm more than willing to pay a reasonable price for access to such a site. The DMN's site is fine for the news of the day, but their search features absolutely suck. And of course there's the small problem of their biased as hell editorial board and metro columnists.

[LH_Newbie]

My parents love their printed newspaper. My wife loves the funnies on print, so my dad saves them for her. :) Other than that, everyone I know uses Yahoo News for news aggregation. Incidentally, Yahoo News does include Dallas Morning News, CBS11, Dallas Business Journal, NBC, WFAA, KERA, Fox News, Dallas Observer, The 33 and Star Telegram.

[jefffwd]

Saw this article yesterday...

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Time’s up for the Star-Telegram? Not yet
By Steve Smith of West and Clear

Are rumors of the Star-Telegram’s demise premature? Fort Worth’s only daily newspaper made Time magazine’s list of 10 most endangered newspapers in America that was the buzz of the blogosphere yesterday after the S-T rang in at No. 9. Sayeth Time: “The parent of the Dallas Morning News, Belo, is probably a stronger company than the Star-Telegram’s parent, McClatchy. The Morning News has a circulation of about 350,000, while the Star-Telegram has just over 200,000. The Star-Telegram will have to shut down or become an edition of its rival. Putting them together would save tens of millions of dollars a year.”

Nice theory, but the only problem is that Belo is almost as deep in the hurt locker as McClatchy. As Tim Rogers at FrontBurner correctly points out, “Belo isn’t in a position to acquire a decent Metro columnist, much less another newspaper.” A straight-up Belo acquisition of the S-T won’t happen unless Bob Decherd wins the Powerball Lottery.

That said, I think that increasing combined operations will lead to something approximating a de facto merger, if not a real one, at some point this year. Personally, I’m not a big fan of all this brand mixing and content sharing. I don’t particularly want to read DMN content in the Star-Telegram and I think Dallas people people probably feel the same way about the Startlegrammer content. Part of the reason people are willing to plunk down for a subscription is the unique value of reporters and columnists who have the connections and the experience to put the news in context. The move toward less content plus less connection to the community is not a recipe for success. It’s a move further into “why bother?”

Which leads to my next point. What might have been overlooked by some — but not by the Blotch blog at the FWWeekly — was the announcement from the S-T last week of free weekly print edition of DFW.com that sounds like it’s designed to get all up in Lee Newquist’s bidness.

Of course, with all the slash and burn going on at 400 West 7th, I wonder who is going to actually write this copy, organize the listings and all of the other heavy lifting that goes in to putting together a useful entertainment tabloid. Well, wonder no more: looks like the answer is freelancers, according to a job posting on JournalismJobs.com.

Pardon me if I’m skeptical, but it sounds more like the type of innovation that has helped McClatchy climb all the way to No. 6 on Fortune magazine’s list of Least Admired Companies for Innovation. Is another print product really the answer when a more salient point would seem to be how to transition to online only? In spite of everything, newspapers are still profitable, but time to figure out a solution is running out. I think creating a new print product is more obstacle than opportunity.

[mjblazin]

I doubt any papers will merge. It's easier for the surviving paper to simply print more copies for the vacated market, using its own most likely under utilized print capacity. Merging organizations is tough and expensive work. The common denominators are money losing unit of publicly owned firm with big debts. The parents cannot afford to carry these subsidiaries through into the next business cycle, particularly if large doubts exist as to the industry's upside in the next cycle.

[cowboyeagle05]

But why? You really think all of you urban hipsters are spending your mornings clicking your way through star-telegram.com or nytimes.com while sipping/serving your caramel macchiatos? To say you will have an increased readership or a sustainable readship online is questionable. Once you push all of those publications online then their less than objective editorials have to compete the less than objective editorial (presented as fact) columns by online news stalworts such as salon.com and slate.com.

That's because you are imaging reading the paper in the same old way people do with paper news print. Us urban hipsters do not consume the news in a wake up read the paper tradition that you speak of anymore and those who still do can read it on the Kindle. The Kindle allows you to subscribe to your morning paper and when you wake up its already downloaded on to the device.

Its time to stop thinking the only way to read and explore stories is through a large piece of news print. The market for Newspaper style of delivery is over to at least the large masses. They have to reduce the cost severely of doing the print job and increase the cost to purchase for those who still want it but for the masses they have to look at what is the best way to get our eyes and minds online.

[aygriffith]

That's because you are imaging reading the paper in the same old way people do with paper news print. Us urban hipsters do not consume the news in a wake up read the paper tradition that you speak of anymore and those who still do can read it on the Kindle. The Kindle allows you to subscribe to your morning paper and when you wake up its already downloaded on to the device.

Its time to stop thinking the only way to read and explore stories is through a large piece of news print. The market for Newspaper style of delivery is over to at least the large masses. They have to reduce the cost severely of doing the print job and increase the cost to purchase for those who still want it but for the masses they have to look at what is the best way to get our eyes and minds online.

Isn't it still true that over 50 percent of the internet users in the United states use dialup? Do you think they own a Kindle if they are using EarthNET or AOL dialup? You think they can pay over 100 a month for Iphone service through ATT? I don't think this perceived group of people you are thinking of is any where near your description of "the masses"

The people I know that used to have Daily Rag subscriptions traded those in for WSJ or FT subscriptions. They didn't stop reading news in the print, they just chose not to spend their time reading the local version of it.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Isn't it still true that over 50 percent of the internet users in the United states use dialup?Not since 2006.

Last figure I saw for dial-up was 9%.

[mjblazin]

I'd also think the Venn diagram showing the overlap between Kindle owners and dial up users would be very small.

If you just want a news blurb, on-line is fine. But print is the best way to read. 0 energy usage, can size to fit your needs, write notes on it, tear off pieces to save. Closest replacement was Speilberg's creation in film Minority Report where commuters read USA Today on electronic paper. It felt and looked like paper, but was re-usable, and could change with updates. Kindle et al are a long way from that tool. I don't want another electronic block to carry.

[bshiker]

The fundamental problem is that the actual online news providers have not been able to make money online. All the young folks seem to think they have a right to free newsprint on the internet. The news aggregators such as yahoo and google and all the blogs and commentary pages rely solely on the reporting newmedia (which is almost entirely the newspapers). So, if the papers go under, where will we get news?

[LH_Newbie]

My wife watches the news every morning while she's eating breakfast - in front of the TV. Is that not news? Additionally, isn't that TV station (over broadcast airwaves) also expected to be "free"? Why do people paint the Internet as some evil thing because we want ads to make content free to the consumer? That's the model that's been in place since the day we started broadcast TV. Print media's business model of ad revenue + consumer revenue is outdated. Either keep up with the times or get cast to the side. The same business model is used in magazines - which are also hurting, but not to the extent that newspapers are.

Brian

[bshiker]

When was the last time the TV news provided in-depth analysis on a regular basis )if ever)? There is a reason the news aggregators and bloogers do not generally cite to TV stations.

That being said, the TV audience is willing to watch ads and TV stations can, therefore, make it work with ads. So far, the online print products have not been able to generate enough ad revenue to cover costs. I do not have any issues with online news; the problem is no one has been able to make it pay. When they can figure it out, that will be a great day. however, my fear is that good journalism will simply be lost or greatly reduced.

[cowboyeagle05]

Watch this weeks Buzz Report there is a point counter point on the subject of News Papers and the future of news media. Plus that list showing the Star Telegram as a possible dead horse is featured as well.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/2001-1_53-50005466.html

BTW its a humorous take on the subject so its condensed to pre-scripted answers to the ongoing debate so do not get too heated if it does not satisfy your debate on the subject.

The part I find the most interesting is the technology and methods for printing newspapers is outdated and largely unimproved in decades. No wonder they can no longer make any money printing the DMN is largely inefficient process. If they would have innovated in the process of printing Newspapers maybe there wouldn't be so much waste cost thrown out the door. Look like they dug their own grave but what else is new.