Post Media layoffs

[Erick Estrada]

Sportak is a good guy and you hate to see that happen to the good guys.

[Erick Estrada]

Also how come none of the Edmonton sports guys got let go?

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Also how come none of the Edmonton sports guys got let go?

The Oiler's pay them and not PostMedia? I might only be half joking here.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by curves2000

As the newspaper business as a whole goes through a serious transition the simple fact is that MANY young people just dont believe they should pay for specific content when so much is available for free online. Its a fact! If its media, news, music, videos or sports that people try and find a lot of younger people just dont think the requrement to pay is indeed needed. Someone needs to produce this stuff and they aren't doing it for their health!

It's not "I don't need to pay for this content", it boils down to a lot of people saying: "I DON'T NEED THIS CONTENT".

People aren't buying newspapers or even reading newspaper websites. Back in the day, the newspaper had a monopoly on your doorstep, on your kitchen table, at McDonalds, at the office, etc.

Today, there are too many competing streams of information, entertainment, and interaction that I don't need a newspaper just like I don't need cable television. I would have paid for both if they actually provided any content that was important to me.

I think a lot of young people feel this way as well. I have better things to do than find a giant table to splay out a difficult to read paper format that is more and more full of ads than content and whatever content is there ends up to be regurgitated stuff pushed through a re-write desk. I'm sorry I simply don't hold local papers or journalists in any high regard. Over the years, there hasn't been a single local newspaper story or investigative journalism piece that has been compelling enough to stick in my memory. I learn more about the City of Calgary operations by reading Bunk's threads on CP. I find out more about the Flames by looking for SureLoss posts. I learn more about local events and controversies by reading r/Calgary. The local papers simply don't have any currency to me.

Local journalism is a niche product that has increasingly lower demands. If people really want this then they should be prepared to pay for it and the business model must change.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Also how come none of the Edmonton sports guys got let go?

John MacKinnon and Con Griwkowsky were both axed. They were sports reporters up there, I believe.

[killer_carlson]

Edmonton lost more people than Calgary. A lot of really, really good newsroom journalists were let go. Good veteran journalists, and innovative younger journalists as well.

It's a big shock to be honest.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

John MacKinnon and Con Griwkowsky were both axed. They were sports reporters up there, I believe.

Yet Terry Jones and David Staples still get to troll?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I learn more about the City of Calgary operations by reading Bunk's threads on CP. I find out more about the Flames by looking for SureLoss posts. I learn more about local events and controversies by reading r/Calgary. The local papers simply don't have any currency to me.

That seems disingenuous to me. While you may not be reading the physical paper or browsing the herald's website so much of the information being posted by those three are coming from the media. Think about how many articles and tweets sureloss and Bunk posts. Same with r/Calgary, most of the topics are stemming from the local media. You say the local papers don't have currency to you, but they do and I think you are over looking it because the source is being bypassed.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

John MacKinnon and Con Griwkowsky were both axed. They were sports reporters up there, I believe.

Joanne Ireland and Curtis Stock too.

[taco.vidal]

Not too long ago you would only be able to watch the odd game of your home city team on TV without having some specialty channels or pay per view. Go back a little further and those werent even options that were available.
If you didnt listen to the game on the radio, then you waited to watch highlights on the 6pm news sports segment. To get any analysis you would read the newspaper. The newspaper provided insight and maybe some inside information on what was happening with players, coaches, and other teams.

Today you can watch pretty much any game you want from anywhere you are. Real time highlights are available. The internet gives you access to 'insiders' from around the leaugue. Theres no need to wait to see the paper or a papers website the next day to see what a journalist wrote. You want game takes? I can get good info from places like this forum with no delay. Theres a few guys around who have access that others dont, such as Friedman, who provide something that isnt available elsewhere. Theres posters on here who write better and provide better insight that many professiknal journalists.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Burninator

That seems disingenuous to me. While you may not be reading the physical paper or browsing the herald's website so much of the information being posted by those three are coming from the media. Think about how many articles and tweets sureloss and Bunk posts. Same with r/Calgary, most of the topics are stemming from the local media. You say the local papers don't have currency to you, but they do and I think you are over looking it because the source is being bypassed.

This is a position being used by a lot of journalists but it's insinuating that the print journalists are the only ones doing the grunt work, which isn't true.

[Flash Walken]

There is still room for investigative journalism. The problem is that it investigative journalism isn't a profit driver.

So, that's why they are going to write 1 article for 2 newspapers.

It has nothing to do with millenials not buying newspapers or feeling entitled to free content. It comes down to Newspapers being husks of what they once were, transformed by 25 years of downsizing, cuts, layoffs and more downsizing in the newsroom.

Local Papers, papers that provide actual investigative content and inform their readers of news and current events in their local areas are one of the few places left in the newspaper world where things aren't dying rapidly increasing death. Why? Because they have actual content that people care about.

[Hockey Fan #751]

The crazy thing is that there is more of an appetite than ever for content and in terms of written content, newspapers do it the best but the newspaper industry's refusal to adapt has done them in. If they approached things differently 15 years ago they would be in a great position today.

[oilyfan]

It is an interesting point you make here. The newspapers are dying because they haven't invested in their business, yet no one is buying newspapers because nobody wants to pay for good journalism. I think its a catch-22

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

There is still room for investigative journalism. The problem is that it investigative journalism isn't a profit driver.

So, that's why they are going to write 1 article for 2 newspapers.

It has nothing to do with millenials not buying newspapers or feeling entitled to free content. It comes down to Newspapers being husks of what they once were, transformed by 25 years of downsizing, cuts, layoffs and more downsizing in the newsroom.

Local Papers, papers that provide actual investigative content and inform their readers of news and current events in their local areas are one of the few places left in the newspaper world where things aren't dying rapidly increasing death. Why? Because they have actual content that people care about.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

It is an interesting point you make here. The newspapers are dying because they haven't invested in their business, yet no one is buying newspapers because nobody wants to pay for good journalism. I think its a catch-22

You can pay for good journalism, you can't pay for good journalism and expect to be as profitable as your tabloid cousin. If you own a bunch of tabloids already, then you're going to see the newspaper division as 'losing money', even if it isn't actually losing money, it just isn't as profitable as one of your other ventures.

Warren Buffet bought a ####load of newspapers a couple of years ago. Why? Because they are local papers and still make money.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I find pieces from sources like Media Lens much more reliable and 'honest' than pieces from mainstream media like CNN.


You can't have honest and reliable media reported through big media conglomerates any longer. I am sure they fact check and ensure they don't print any liable, but they are not always reporting the 'truth'. That ship has sailed long before the internet took out most of their business.

Mainstream media may have its biases, but if you think the alternatives don't, then you're kidding yourself. Waving the flag for all U.S. foreign policy is simplistic and biased. But so is painting all U.S. foreign policy in the worst light - which is exactly what these alternative sources do. And even alternative media is better served by professional journalists with expertise and a broad range of contacts. These alternative outlets need some source of revenue to operate, just as every business does. But online readers refuse to pay.

[rayne008]

Exclusive content is the currency now.

I think in 3 years the Rogers deal will look like a steal, even if they are not making money off of it at the moment.

Although the papers did a good job getting online quickly, they weren't able to capture exclusive content.

It really sucks that these writers have been let go, but there are no bad guys here, just change.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

It's not "I don't need to pay for this content", it boils down to a lot of people saying: "I DON'T NEED THIS CONTENT".

No, it really is a matter of people not putting any monetary value on the information and entertainment they access digitally. There's so much free digital content out there, that newspapers, music, books, etc. have simply become devalued.

Information wants to be free. But people who need to put food on the table and pay the rent don't work for free. They may dabble for a while, but they won't dedicate themselves to it as a vocation. So we're entering a period when almost all music, news, novels, etc. will be created by amateurs - the very young and the independently wealthy. Professionalism in these fields will become a thing of the past, along with the behind-the-scenes infrastructure that supports professionalism - editing, proofing, layout, arrangement, design, production. Some of the amateur content will be good. Most won't. And while many readers won't care about or even recognize what we've lost, some of us will. But hey, it'll be free. So yay for that.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

It is an interesting point you make here. The newspapers are dying because they haven't invested in their business, yet no one is buying newspapers because nobody wants to pay for good journalism. I think its a catch-22

I started a digital NYTimes subscription this year to put my money where my mouth was. Obviously there's limited Canadian content there, but they still do fantastic journalism, and the weekend magazine articles are just good reading. I'm glad I did it, it's good stuff.

I find very little value on the Herald website to do the same though. Yes, theres local content, but the vast majority of it seems like regurgitated AP articles and fluff. I'm not expecting the same level of journalism as the NYTimes, but even so it always comes across like a skeletal operation.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It has nothing to do with millenials not buying newspapers or feeling entitled to free content. It comes down to Newspapers being husks of what they once were, transformed by 25 years of downsizing, cuts, layoffs and more downsizing in the newsroom.

Sorry, it has everything to do with younger readers not reading paper newspapers and no readers showing a willingness to pay for online subscriptions. That, and the collapse of newspaper's revenue model when classified ads went to kajiji and the like.