A lot of newspapers across the country have been offering buyouts to (or just plain laying off) their longest-serving, most-recognized columnists & reporters. As they have the most tenure, their salaries represent the big cuts. Not sure how the Chron / Hearst will handle it here, though.
Television stations around the country have been hit hard too by layoffs. The ad dollars aren't there anymore. KHOU has recently had some cuts throughout their company (Belo).
Maybe. But the internet model is simultanesouly improving the depth/variety/scope of news you have access too. No real complaints here.
my girlfriend worked for the chronicle until july and she (and now i) have many friends who work there. i'm very nervous for them today.
Thanks. I'm building up a website/blog/podcast because that's PRETTY MUCH the only way I'll ever find work. You know, unless the Rockets will hire me. That'd be awesome.
Not necessarily. I'm a recent j-school grad (undergrad 2006, Master's 2008) and I'm doing fairly well -- you just have to look outside the box and think outside of traditional outlets. Niche publications -- online, this means subscription Web sites, magazines, etc. -- have a lot to offer and many grads don't even know where to look. If you have any specific questions, don't hesitate to shoot me an email. Good luck.
exactly, the internet model like the Chronicle's website is supported by well paid members of print media. when there are no print media reporters, then there will be no internet reporters. the newspapers will either have to start charging for internet access or find a way to increase the ad revenue.
Aren't the "lowbrow" papers doing well, too? I know I've read that community newspapers are doing quite well.
It's all relative. They're still losing circulation, so they have some cuts as well... just not as much as the major metros so it looks better by comparison. (The Enterprise is having a pretty rough time, and their circulation has held relatively well... they've outsourced printing to Houston now, which means deadlines are at 10 every night, and for sports... that's a big problem, to say the least.) But yeah, at the lowest level of dailies and weeklies, those are still doing OK. A buddy of mine works at the PA News, and they haven't had many cuts at all. That might be the future of newspapers, honestly -- small, community-based publications that are only applicable to about 15K or so people. There are just too many broad-based sources to compete with, at least in terms of getting a subscription, which you have to do to make money online.
I used to worked for the Post and Chronicle from the early to late 90's, first as a door-to-door subscription salesman, then as a sales manager for the door-to-door guys. Hearing 'I read it online' more and more was one of the main reasons I decided to shift into another area of sales. I remember talking to my bosses and these guys all had their heads in the sand about the internet, saying that they weathered first radio then TV and were fine. Now they're going the way of the milkman and ice man.
The newspaper is dying. But the news isn't. It's just going other places. It's like saying that because pay phones are going away that communication is suffering...
They need to get a new web developer, because their site takes forever to freaking load. Gets on my nerves.
That's a terrible analogy, because people pay cell phone bills. That's why communication is going to be OK -- because the "other place" is well funded and can have a staff to make it work. It's not just the print medium that's dying. The online medium, as we know it (because it's supported by print) is dying. Television is having to cut back as well. In 10 years, unless the journalism industry figures out a way to make money through online advertising or get readers to subscribe, you're going to have CNN, ESPN, and a bunch of local bloggers. Maybe that's fine to you, but to me, that's news dying. You're not going to get anywhere close to the same quality of news when you don't have people committing 40 hours a week to building sources within city hall, the team, etc. and breaking local stories. ESPN can't do that via cell from Bristol. For all of you saying the news isn't dying, it's just going other places... can you tell me what "other places" it's going that actually make money? If not, they're going to die right along with the newspapers.
Agreed. I'm a news addict from the midwest who grew up reading 2 newspapers a day. No joke. The internet has relieved me from almost total reliance on a local newspaper and the amount of information available online is staggering. When I started to notice most of what I read in the Chron I already knew from the day before, that was the beginning of the end. What clinched it for me was extremely poor delivery (which I could go into at length but won't) and a poor sports section. And I don't miss having to throw away the mounds of paper, especially after the dog became housetrained. This will sound weird, but after subscribing to wsj.com for a very long time, they offered me the print edition AND the online subscription at a lower price. I rejected it and just use wsj.com. In addition to ditching the Chronicle, I no longer use the radio as a source of news. My addiction to Newsradio 740 was cured about 5 years ago (Clear Channel's destruction of the station had a lot to do with it). I've never been much into local TV news broadcasts. I feel for the employees of the Chronicle that will suffer. A good friend of mine worked there for 20+ years but he was fortunate to leave ~3 years ago on his own terms.
