Within social media I've found the greatest impedance to conversation with people of different opinions is that we stand in alternate landscapes of "facts". I cannot see the information that they see, which shapes their opinions. Each of our "timelines" are unique, and so each of our landscapes are unique.
Print media provides a common landscape. And that landscape forms the basis from which meaningful conversation between different opinions can grow.
My small city is going through a minor scandal right now with the city council accused of giving preferential treatment to a developer while the neighbors around the proposed development are strongly against the work being done. Pretty common small city stuff, NIMBY, yadda yadda. We do have a local newspaper, and at every city council meeting the pro and con factions go to war either for or against the paper. The paper prints basic facts, which either side interprets as they will, and one side claiming the paper is biased towards the other side. Now half the city doesn't trust our newspaper.
Even one common source of facts can be skewed by personal opinion. The only thing the newspaper changes about the discussion is whose side of the argument the editor is on.
How is print media any different? People get into heated arguments over the entries in encyclopedias, how they can agree on a common landscape, printed or not? Media is just a projection of people's views, so as long as there are different views, there will be different coverage of events inevitably. Actually, the only cases of "common landscapes" I can think of are these in the oppressed societies where media is a propaganda tool in the hands of government.
So does Hacker News. A major differentiating feature between Hacker News and Reddit was subreddits, and that has resulted in substantially different cultures (for better and worse).
Hope they find much success and build a model that can be replicated.
It is a sin how little effort is put into local news. It is far easier for large corporations to re-package the same national news into different markets, than it is to do good journalism at the local level.
Your local news affiliate on ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX mostly just repackages stories from other affiliates, or run something easy to cover stories like a house fire or inclement weather. This local coverage is MANDATED by the FCC to benefit local communities.
Want to know what you city council voted on this week? What bills your state senate has passed? What non-profits have done to benifit your community? Good luck. It is unlikely that they will cover it.
There's little community blogs/papers here that cover that usually run by retirees and students though the real issue is having people around that can understand the gigantic legislation being pushed through city councils. Common here for thousand plus pages to get floated around nobody has time to sift through unless it's their F/T job to do so.
Human attention is the only currency the advertisers respect and are willing to convert into dollars. Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat command attention. So do online forums like this one. So do [to a lesser extent] televised sports and performances.
I always wondered why repackaging content is considered a bad thing. I feel like hundreds of thousands of hours are wasted by local journalists writing about national events, with nothing to add to the conversation.
Yes, Trump is important. But why does every local newspaper write their own article about everything he does? For every news item, there's thousands of articles on Google News, yet only 1-2 are worth reading.
To me, this seems like a huge reason journalism is having trouble. They're spending tons of time and resources just rewriting the same news stories, rather than embracing their strengths (local news; let WaPo/NYT/AP/BBC/etc handle bigger news stories).
> Hope they find much success and build a model that can be replicated.
I'm not sure Montclair is the best place to build a replicable model. It's a nice town, but it's also a pretty unique bubble (even compared to the rest of New Jersey). It might be a good place to incubate an idea, but any lessons learned there probably won't apply to most places across the country.
Local news is the most relevant news there is, in anyone's life, anywhere!
Our focus on national and international news takes up too much of an unnecessary time and energy. On top of that, we spend ridiculously more time reading about what far away politicians have to say, or do.
Glad to see people from technology sector investing time and money in strengthening the local communities.
If the majority of issues were left to local politicians to determine based on their constituency, local news would be more relevant than it is. In the United States, the fact that the federal government now controls vastly more things than they did 100 years ago, means that national (and even international) issues affect local issues way more than they used to.
It sounds like you are privileged with the ability to ignore the policies that far-away politicians enact because they don't affect you. Not everyone is as lucky as you are.
Local journalism should be able to do better than they are in the changing publication landscape. It's niche by definition: while I can get national news from a wide number of sources, and global news from an almost uncountable number, there are only a handful of providers of local news. It tends to require "boots on the ground". It can also be practically relevant in day-to-day life, more so than the more abstract issues of wider relevance.
What I don't need from my local and regional news provider is coverage of national and global issues; yet they keep reporting on them, probably because newspapers of yore were often the only provider of news for many people. That hasn't been true for a while.
Their subscriber income will be tiny according to their target of 6000 subs at $12 PA.
Their outgoings include 7 journalists and printing and distribution costs (currently they are giving away 15000 copies free every week, which they plan to reduce to 5000 per week).
I really want endeavours like this to be successful and would love to understand how they plan to make this a sustainable (non loss making) business. The traditional model is classifieds & local ads, but that's not been working for a while now.
I was toying around with a similar idea, but figured a local newspaper should provide local services -- hyper data-gathering at the local level. Like I'd love to see a dollar-by-dollar breakdown of where my [specific] property taxes are going, so I can be more informed when voting locally. Make it a special feature, and charge $5 per sub. Gets their $72k to $84k (say half your subs can't refuse @ $5) easy. (assuming i can trade one of those journalists for a data scientist)
I also think "local ads" needs a whole new approach, for a variety of reasons. You have local business associations shooting themselves in the foot every time a fellow business is not somehow advertised in any other member store.
Also, syndicate [free-ish] articles from bloggers who can help your community better itself. Also, extend into the schools - get a HS writer to report the sports there to pick up more subs.
OK, I'm not covering all the expenses yet, but that's just a few ideas...
In what sense is it not working? Layoffs don't mean something stopped working, they mean the business model couldn't support the same staff size as before. At some point the internet-driven "correction" in print media is over and it becomes a normal growing industry again.
And that's how a big corporation (USA Today) dropped a niche and someone had the vision and the guts to take the gauntlet.
Local news are (probably) the last niche for journalism.
People care about what's happening nearby - and unless you have a local newspaper, you'll miss that news or they can pass as fake ones.
The only problem I see is printing is cash-flow intensive compared to full digital. I mean, for paper you have a daily/weekly expense with a proper credit line/funded account with the printer. In digital "printing" cost is not zero, but scales better with higher audiences - which is not the case for local news unless you have "local" news from a big population cluster (which is probably served by bigCo's like Hearst, Knight Ridder, Berkshire Hathaway, etc..)
>The only problem I see is printing is cash-flow intensive compared to full digital. I mean, for paper you have a daily/weekly expense with a proper credit line/funded account with the printer.
On the other hand, with digital you have to spend money to advertise and market to your audience, otherwise it disappears. With print, you own the "platform" because you pay for the paper, ink, and shipping.
One thing this article and the comments haven't discussed yet is how much the viability of local newspapers depends on the local real estate market. Take a look at your local newspaper if you have one, and I bet it's chock full of real estate ads. (Where I live, the Palo Alto Daily Post certainly is, as is the competing Weekly; example here: [1]). And it makes sense: the most relevant ads for a local population are matters of local interest, and for expensive houses, the ROI for ad-spend can easily make sense.
So I expect that a big factor in whether quality local newspapers can survive is the strength of the local housing market, (measured through e.g. median house price and yearly volume). As a practical matter, this means that only in relatively affluent places is local news financially feasible, (although the housing market isn't the only reason why that's the case). It also means that more people searching for property online may present a challenge for local news.
I'm very happy this exists, but I feel like it's time for the underdog media to give up on money-making, and just register the paper as non-profit.
It seems like this developer isn't looking to make a profit anyways, and that move helps ensure he or a future owner has more barriers to changing their minds.
Not all valuable endeavors yield a profit-making opportunity.
As a resident of a neighboring town to Montclair, I couldn't be more excited to see a new local newspaper trying to keep the residents more informed. Needless to say, I spent the $12 to subscribe. If this goes well, I hope to see more papers of this nature popping up in my town and others in the area!
I think local newspapers are better placed to survive than national ones. Round here they send photographers to every community event and people love seeing themselves/relatives/friends/enemies in print.
Also district court proceedings esp involving drunks can make for great unintended comedy.
Presumably this paper is aiming to be mostly funded by advertising because their subscription target is only €72K p.a. and they have a staff of 7.
Interesting. I work in Montclair a couple of days a week. It probably is the type of town that could support this, but it's still kind of peculiar. The Montclair Times HQ was shut down - it's now a dialysis center. There is a blog of sorts as the article mentions, Baristanet, that covers local news in Montclair, although I have no clue how many people read it.
I would imagine that most people in Montclair read the NYTimes - perhaps it would make sense for the NYTimes to 'up' it's local coverage game in the tri state area.
> A subscription costs $12 a year, and he is aiming to sign up 6,000 subscribers.
That's nothing. Barely pays for basic business expenses. The potential in a market that size isn't even that great and there is also the cost to acquire those subscribers. And 6000 readers doesn't allow you to make any money from advertising at least not w/o taking advantage of the type of advertisers who don't understand media buying and aren't overpaying.
This looks like an amazing initiative - and shows an entrepreneurial spirit! As a side note, it's interesting, how many software engineers consider alternative careers for themselves?
Is there a currently updated database of local papers by region? I honestly have no idea how many local news papers are available to my area. I know of at least four from having seen them at the market, but no place online to check for more. I am finding dozens of historical dbs but none current.
> the animosity the Trump administration has directed at the news media has injected new vigor into a beleaguered industry.
I'm no fan of Trump, but leave it to the NYT to frame its industry as a victim. As though decades of increasingly partisan coverage had nothing to do with the industry's problems.
"Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful."
I don't necessarily disagree with you (or agree with Thompson), but I always liked that quote.
I do think "Objective Journalism" is a hard line to toe, and I don't think the NY Times does the worst job with it. Sure, the paper is clearly anti-Trump. My perspective is that this is only really a problem if they fabricate evidence. As long as they're presenting the world as they see it, it's hard to complain.
I'd apply that equally to right wing publications.
You are conflating the entire media landscape with the New York Times. NYT has its bias, but you are effectively saying that NY Times is just as a responsible for the destruction of journalism as the likes of Fox News and Breitbart.
As though decades of increasingly partisan coverage had nothing to do with the industry's problems.
When someone gains an advantage for their point of view by consistently associating it with professional, reliable journalism, I consider it an advantage well-earned. A point of view that isn't compatible with that advantage doesn't deserve it.
Much worse than having a point of view is trying to avoid the perception of having a point of view, which leads to vapid, passive, easily exploitable schlock journalism.
[+] [-] Dangeranger|9 years ago|reply
Print media provides a common landscape. And that landscape forms the basis from which meaningful conversation between different opinions can grow.
[+] [-] freehunter|9 years ago|reply
Even one common source of facts can be skewed by personal opinion. The only thing the newspaper changes about the discussion is whose side of the argument the editor is on.
[+] [-] kbart|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knowtheory|9 years ago|reply
So does Hacker News. A major differentiating feature between Hacker News and Reddit was subreddits, and that has resulted in substantially different cultures (for better and worse).
[+] [-] tacoman|9 years ago|reply
https://markmanson.net/everything-is-fucked
[+] [-] BurningFrog|9 years ago|reply
Only if everyone reads it.
[+] [-] bluetwo|9 years ago|reply
It is a sin how little effort is put into local news. It is far easier for large corporations to re-package the same national news into different markets, than it is to do good journalism at the local level.
Your local news affiliate on ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX mostly just repackages stories from other affiliates, or run something easy to cover stories like a house fire or inclement weather. This local coverage is MANDATED by the FCC to benefit local communities.
Want to know what you city council voted on this week? What bills your state senate has passed? What non-profits have done to benifit your community? Good luck. It is unlikely that they will cover it.
[+] [-] Zelphyr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackermailman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostphilosopher|9 years ago|reply
(The closest I've found is MPR, Minnesota's local branch of NPR.)
[+] [-] prostoalex|9 years ago|reply
Human attention is the only currency the advertisers respect and are willing to convert into dollars. Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat command attention. So do online forums like this one. So do [to a lesser extent] televised sports and performances.
Local news is on the losing end of this battle.
[+] [-] gkoberger|9 years ago|reply
Yes, Trump is important. But why does every local newspaper write their own article about everything he does? For every news item, there's thousands of articles on Google News, yet only 1-2 are worth reading.
To me, this seems like a huge reason journalism is having trouble. They're spending tons of time and resources just rewriting the same news stories, rather than embracing their strengths (local news; let WaPo/NYT/AP/BBC/etc handle bigger news stories).
[+] [-] steego|9 years ago|reply
I'm not sure Montclair is the best place to build a replicable model. It's a nice town, but it's also a pretty unique bubble (even compared to the rest of New Jersey). It might be a good place to incubate an idea, but any lessons learned there probably won't apply to most places across the country.
[+] [-] webwanderings|9 years ago|reply
Our focus on national and international news takes up too much of an unnecessary time and energy. On top of that, we spend ridiculously more time reading about what far away politicians have to say, or do.
Glad to see people from technology sector investing time and money in strengthening the local communities.
[+] [-] frogpelt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minikites|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morsch|9 years ago|reply
What I don't need from my local and regional news provider is coverage of national and global issues; yet they keep reporting on them, probably because newspapers of yore were often the only provider of news for many people. That hasn't been true for a while.
[+] [-] cjCamel|9 years ago|reply
Their outgoings include 7 journalists and printing and distribution costs (currently they are giving away 15000 copies free every week, which they plan to reduce to 5000 per week).
I really want endeavours like this to be successful and would love to understand how they plan to make this a sustainable (non loss making) business. The traditional model is classifieds & local ads, but that's not been working for a while now.
[+] [-] mholmes680|9 years ago|reply
I also think "local ads" needs a whole new approach, for a variety of reasons. You have local business associations shooting themselves in the foot every time a fellow business is not somehow advertised in any other member store.
Also, syndicate [free-ish] articles from bloggers who can help your community better itself. Also, extend into the schools - get a HS writer to report the sports there to pick up more subs.
OK, I'm not covering all the expenses yet, but that's just a few ideas...
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eb0la|9 years ago|reply
Local news are (probably) the last niche for journalism. People care about what's happening nearby - and unless you have a local newspaper, you'll miss that news or they can pass as fake ones.
The only problem I see is printing is cash-flow intensive compared to full digital. I mean, for paper you have a daily/weekly expense with a proper credit line/funded account with the printer. In digital "printing" cost is not zero, but scales better with higher audiences - which is not the case for local news unless you have "local" news from a big population cluster (which is probably served by bigCo's like Hearst, Knight Ridder, Berkshire Hathaway, etc..)
[+] [-] dilemma|9 years ago|reply
On the other hand, with digital you have to spend money to advertise and market to your audience, otherwise it disappears. With print, you own the "platform" because you pay for the paper, ink, and shipping.
[+] [-] hypertexthero|9 years ago|reply
I received their samples in preparation for sending out graphic design and photography promos and the quality is great.
[+] [-] petercooper|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naftaliharris|9 years ago|reply
So I expect that a big factor in whether quality local newspapers can survive is the strength of the local housing market, (measured through e.g. median house price and yearly volume). As a practical matter, this means that only in relatively affluent places is local news financially feasible, (although the housing market isn't the only reason why that's the case). It also means that more people searching for property online may present a challenge for local news.
[1] http://www.paloaltoonline.com/morguepdf/2017/2017_03_24.paw....
[+] [-] Ericson2314|9 years ago|reply
It seems like this developer isn't looking to make a profit anyways, and that move helps ensure he or a future owner has more barriers to changing their minds.
Not all valuable endeavors yield a profit-making opportunity.
[+] [-] markwaldron|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ct0|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barking|9 years ago|reply
Presumably this paper is aiming to be mostly funded by advertising because their subscription target is only €72K p.a. and they have a staff of 7.
[+] [-] Ericson2314|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tcarn|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dr_|9 years ago|reply
I would imagine that most people in Montclair read the NYTimes - perhaps it would make sense for the NYTimes to 'up' it's local coverage game in the tri state area.
[+] [-] gist|9 years ago|reply
That's nothing. Barely pays for basic business expenses. The potential in a market that size isn't even that great and there is also the cost to acquire those subscribers. And 6000 readers doesn't allow you to make any money from advertising at least not w/o taking advantage of the type of advertisers who don't understand media buying and aren't overpaying.
[+] [-] itsmee|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtreis86|9 years ago|reply
Edit: http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/
[+] [-] 11thEarlOfMar|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weberc2|9 years ago|reply
I'm no fan of Trump, but leave it to the NYT to frame its industry as a victim. As though decades of increasingly partisan coverage had nothing to do with the industry's problems.
[+] [-] tps5|9 years ago|reply
"Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful."
I don't necessarily disagree with you (or agree with Thompson), but I always liked that quote.
I do think "Objective Journalism" is a hard line to toe, and I don't think the NY Times does the worst job with it. Sure, the paper is clearly anti-Trump. My perspective is that this is only really a problem if they fabricate evidence. As long as they're presenting the world as they see it, it's hard to complain.
I'd apply that equally to right wing publications.
[+] [-] eeeeeeeeeeeee|9 years ago|reply
You are conflating the entire media landscape with the New York Times. NYT has its bias, but you are effectively saying that NY Times is just as a responsible for the destruction of journalism as the likes of Fox News and Breitbart.
[+] [-] wry_discontent|9 years ago|reply
Newspapers have been having (some self inflicted) trouble for a long time, but what Trump is doing is something new and very dangerous.
[+] [-] dkarl|9 years ago|reply
When someone gains an advantage for their point of view by consistently associating it with professional, reliable journalism, I consider it an advantage well-earned. A point of view that isn't compatible with that advantage doesn't deserve it.
Much worse than having a point of view is trying to avoid the perception of having a point of view, which leads to vapid, passive, easily exploitable schlock journalism.
[+] [-] snikeris|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pfhreak|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]