Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
IKnowPhysics

Downfall of The Buffalo News

Recommended Posts

There will always be a demand for good journalism, just like there will also be a demand for luxury SUVs.

But there will be helluvalot more Corollas.

 

Ford doesn't agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd imagine you get a near complete axing of the opinion department.  In a world where money is tight, it can't be all that worthwhile to pay people to tell us what they think.  That role is only going to exist with the biggest "news" providers out there.

Again it’s eyeballs.

If Sullivan’s opinions were a draw, he’d still be working.

There is plenty of room for John Stewarts in our media landscape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see that on local broadcast at all.  Certainly not radio, and didn't Channel 2 even promote Begnini to the news desk for a while?  (While keeping Demler, O'Connell, etc. on the books...)

 

Seriously?

 

Every time I tune into the 10 o'clock news, whether on the Channel 2 or Channel 4 affiliate, I see a report from some 20-something I've never seen before.

 

Sure, they keep around a few stalwarts (somehow including the cryogenically preserved remains of Don Postles), but the large majority of the positions are staffed by people who are young and cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again it’s eyeballs.

If Sullivan’s opinions were a draw, he’d still be working.

There is plenty of room for John Stewarts in our media landscape.

 

Right, and those types wind up with the biggest media outlets.  I'm not so sure that will be any newspaper anymore at this point, let alone the small local one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure there are still dinosaurs out there but the idea of “newspaper” or “TV” or “radio” is gone.

They are all “news” organizations, fighting for eyeballs. It’s just that most of them are wearing the chains of their old business models and none - including internet-only platforms - have found the right new business model.

 

Media success has always been about controlling the delivery system.

It used to be the guys with the printing presses and the broadcast towers that raked in the bucks.

Now it’s Google and Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously?

 

Every time I tune into the 10 o'clock news, whether on the Channel 2 or Channel 4 affiliate, I see a report from some 20-something I've never seen before.

 

Sure, they keep around a few stalwarts (somehow including the cryogenically preserved remains of Don Postles), but the large majority of the positions are staffed by people who are young and cheap.

 

I watch 2 at least three times a week, but I watch the 5pm and not the 10.  Maybe it's different later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The news business today is about eyeballs.

Carefully crafted articles are a luxury that generally require more investment for less return.

There will always be a demand for good journalism, just like there will also be a demand for luxury SUVs.

But there will be helluvalot more Corollas.

 

Point of order: this has always been the case. There's just more format-based competition today in a more rapidly evolving marketplace. I agree with you on everything else though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s this place, called Blockbuster, where you can rent almost ANY movie ... and take it home to watch whenever you want!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome back stranger.

 

Thanks man. Not sure how much time I'll spend here. Might just come back and post like I used to and just avoid the few that made this place not fun to be here. Tough to get away from here, lots of people I like talking to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why couldn't Harrington leave instead?

I know. We could have gotten rid of all the meanies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know. We could have gotten rid of all the meanies!

 

I like Harrington's writing and I think he's usually on point.  But he's a complete prick on twitter.  Remember, these writers interact with readers now on a level never before seen.  So they develop reputations outside of their writing.  I can see why people wouldn't miss Harrington, even if I, myself, would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Harrington's writing and I think he's usually on point. But he's a complete prick on twitter. Remember, these writers interact with readers now on a level never before seen. So they develop reputations outside of their writing. I can see why people wouldn't miss Harrington, even if I, myself, would.

I've never read TBN or a single column from anyone there. All I know of Harrington is on Twitter. He's an extremely thin skinned child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure there are still dinosaurs out there but the idea of “newspaper” or “TV” or “radio” is gone.

They are all “news” organizations, fighting for eyeballs. It’s just that most of them are wearing the chains of their old business models and none - including internet-only platforms - have found the right new business model.

 

Media success has always been about controlling the delivery system.

It used to be the guys with the printing presses and the broadcast towers that raked in the bucks.

Now it’s Google and Facebook.

 

I get what you're saying here, but I can't throw TV and radio under the same label as newspaper.  Two are still a very useful medium for drawing in those eyeballs for those "news" organizations.  TV and radio also serve a completely different purpose, which is entertainment.  There's plenty of options from the two that have next to nothing to do with news.  I can't say that the paper ever really had that at any point.  Some might say the comics or the crossword puzzles, but that was such a small piece.  The news side of tv and radio is always going to try to invade the entertainment side, but there's still an escape there if you're able to block out that side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying here, but I can't throw TV and radio under the same label as newspaper.  Two are still a very useful medium for drawing in those eyeballs for those "news" organizations.  TV and radio also serve a completely different purpose, which is entertainment.  There's plenty of options from the two that have next to nothing to do with news.  I can't say that the paper ever really had that at any point.  Some might say the comics or the crossword puzzles, but that was such a small piece.  The news side of tv and radio is always going to try to invade the entertainment side, but there's still an escape there if you're able to block out that side.

 

I don't think there are really any more distinctions like this, anymore. Any news organization must position itself to pop on every available medium or platform. TBN has taken a run at this, in fits and starts. For example, Sullivan and Gleason were asked to do a radio show of sorts (after being told to stop appearing on WGR (because they were viewed as a competitor)), and that radio show morphed into a podcast.

 

Your local news TV station is pushing plenty of written content, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there are really any more distinctions like this, anymore. Any news organization must position itself to pop on every available medium or platform. TBN has taken a run at this, in fits and starts. For example, Sullivan and Gleason were asked to do a radio show of sorts (after being told to stop appearing on WGR (because they were viewed as a competitor)), and that radio show morphed into a podcast.

 

Your local news TV station is pushing plenty of written content, too. 

 

And somehow seems to be able to remain profitable, even though plenty of people are reading articles on websites rather than watching news on TV.  This is my biggest issue with print journalism's constant cry for help.  Other media--even online "print" media like Huffington Post--seem to be able to do it.  Why can't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there are really any more distinctions like this, anymore. Any news organization must position itself to pop on every available medium or platform. TBN has taken a run at this, in fits and starts. For example, Sullivan and Gleason were asked to do a radio show of sorts (after being told to stop appearing on WGR (because they were viewed as a competitor)), and that radio show morphed into a podcast.

 

Your local news TV station is pushing plenty of written content, too. 

 

Right, which was what I assumed dudacek's pointn to be, that the news organizations have to push across forums to get their message out.  I'm just saying there's a side to tv and radio that is not about the news, the entertainment side.  There's that part of CBS that exisits solely to entertain senior citizens and ubkev.  Maybe that does exist in part to drive people to the news side, but I'd say there's a much bigger portion of radio and tv that served a purpose other than news when compared to the newspaper business and their new internet form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, which was what I assumed dudacek's pointn to be, that the news organizations have to push across forums to get their message out.  I'm just saying there's a side to tv and radio that is not about the news, the entertainment side.  There's that part of CBS that exisits solely to entertain senior citizens and ubkev.  Maybe that does exist in part to drive people to the news side, but I'd say there's a much bigger portion of radio and tv that served a purpose other than news when compared to the newspaper business and their new internet form.

 

Ah, I see. Okay.

 

Also: Lulz.

 

Thirdly: The CBS's of the world are in their own dogfight for survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thirdly: The CBS's of the world are in their own dogfight for survival.

Yeah, TV is facing all the same problems as print.

To Eleven’s point, print loves to endlessly write about its own issues, while TV - smartly - does not.

 

To Shrader, I was talking about news - which is just one part of content. You were talking about platforms and content.

Media has traditionally been about both platform and content.

Print, radio, broadcast and even cable TV are losing because they have expensive content, delivered through platforms that fewer and fewer people are using.

Google and YouTube and Facebook dominate because their content costs them nothing and they control the most popular delivery platform.

Edited by dudacek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Harrington's writing and I think he's usually on point. But he's a complete prick on twitter. Remember, these writers interact with readers now on a level never before seen. So they develop reputations outside of their writing. I can see why people wouldn't miss Harrington, even if I, myself, would.

I wonder if Jim Kelley would have been able to stand up to a barrage of Steve’s from Cheektowaga. I’m not convinced his reputation wouldn’t have been bruised from having to interact with the masses on twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Jim Kelley would have been able to stand up to a barrage of Steve’s from Cheektowaga. I’m not convinced his reputation wouldn’t have been bruised from having to interact with the masses on twitter.

Plenty of writers do just fine. Bob McKenzie is awesome on Twitter.

 

Twitter doesn't change who you are. But if you're a prick, it tends to give you enough rope to hang yourself. How many examples do we really need of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm betting Harrington would be one of the first to criticize an athlete for lashing out at a heckling fan. I wonder if vogl leaving saved him from the targeted buyouts?

 

As for his work, he's competent. But it's not like I'm excited to see his picture next to his story, like it used to be with Kelley.

 

I wonder if Jim Kelley would have been able to stand up to a barrage of Steve’s from Cheektowaga. I’m not convinced his reputation wouldn’t have been bruised from having to interact with the masses on twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Jim Kelley would have been able to stand up to a barrage of Steve’s from Cheektowaga. I’m not convinced his reputation wouldn’t have been bruised from having to interact with the masses on twitter.

Imagine if Jim had written, after the Lucic Incident, that Ryan Miller had pulled the chute on his teammates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if Jim had written, after the Lucic Incident, that Ryan Miller had pulled the chute on his teammates.

Why imagine that?

 

One thing Kelley absolutely would have written is that it's a travesty that the league lets guys get destroyed by garbage plays with no supplemental discipline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...