Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

What comes after newspapers is worse

This blog is projected to make more money this year than your local newspaper. That's not saying much. A bum who finds a dollar bill will make more money than your local newspaper. Newspapers are bleeding money. The losses mount as advertising worldwide slows and moves to the Internet.

Now this is bad, but not for the reason you may think. This is not a rah-rah newspapers post, even though I am a retired newspaperman (albeit forced). Most of today's papers are crap and I heartedly endorse their euthanasia. Let me insert obligatory Jefferson quotation from 1787:
Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
Sadly, we have a central government without independent newspapers. Not a single one of the majors has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Hillary Clinton, who co-opted their reporters. Indeed, the newspaper owners and executives have invested millions in her election.

Newspapers push the global warming nonsense, which is a cover for pouring billions into the pockets of billionaires including Elon Musk, George P. Kaiser (Solyndra), and T. Boone Pickens. The reporters pushing this are smug idiots. These social justice warriors with a J-degree naively bloviate against the Big Oil companies, while unwittingly providing cover for real crooks to empty the treasury.

Then there is Black Lives Matter, which provides cover for the black nationalists and black supremacists who want to take over cities (Baltimore), large chunks of cities (Chicago), and any predominately black suburb (Ferguson) by reducing the police presence. Newspapers side with black radicals because the only staff members who live in poor neighborhoods work with a mop or a broom. The knowledge newspapers have of poor neighborhoods come from radical activists, not the people working to escape.

But as bad as newspapers are -- oh hell, they deserve to die.

However, what replaces them is worse. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest are run by social justice warriors who push an agenda so radical they consider Obama to be a conservative. Their animus toward conservatives has turned the Internet into Pravda on steroids feeding a young generation with a steady diet of disinformation and misinformation.

The non-advertising money going to Amazon also feeds the Government Party (Democratic, Republican, what difference does it make at this time?). The result is horrifying, Orwellian, and Kafkaesque.

Sure, there are a few successful conservative outlets, but their traffic pales compared to Daily Kos and others. The Internet is as liberal as the newspapers when it comes to politics.

It is against this background that I offer this from the Wall Street Journal:
Newspapers are suffering an accelerating drop in print advertising, a market that already was under stress, forcing some publishers to consider significant cost cuts and dramatic changes to their print and digital products.
Global spending on newspaper print ads is expected to decline 8.7% to $52.6 billion in 2016, according to estimates from GroupM, the ad-buying firm owned by WPP PLC. That would be the biggest drop since the recession, when world-wide spending plummeted 13.7% in 2009.
That decline is hitting every major publisher, increasing pressure on them to boost digital-revenue streams even faster to make up for lost revenue and, in some cases, even reconsider the format of their print products and the types of content they publish.
Many newspapers have trimmed costs to cope with the worse-than-expected revenue decline. The New York Times Co. and Wall Street Journal-owner News Corp, likely have further head-count reductions on the way, and the Guardian and the U.K.’s Daily Mail recently eliminated jobs. Analysts such as Jefferies & Co. have pared back their third-quarter estimates for publishers including the Times and Gannett Co.
“We operate in a time of rapidly changing market conditions, especially in the world of print advertising,” Gerard Baker, editor in chief of The Wall Street Journal, wrote Wednesday in a memo to employees. “These are days of accelerating change in the newspaper business.”
This story's appearance may be to blunt the news of the Baker memo.

Staff cuts mean the conservatives go first. I am guessing they are happy to leave because this is not the business it once was.

But what follows is worse. One-third of ad revenues -- a sum of $125 billion a year -- goes to Google and other online giants. That money then feeds the liberal machine.

I know not the answer.

All I can do is vote Trump and hope for the best.

@@@

Please read "Trump the Press," a fun romp through the Republican nomination that uses the deadliest weapon to skewer the media experts: their own words. "Trump the Press" is available as a paperback, and on Kindle.

11 comments:

  1. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. - Elric

    ReplyDelete
  2. People are tired of being lied to at their own expense.
    Question: why is it that newspaper people think black nationalism is A-OK, but when a white guy takes up the same cause he's some kind of dangerous nut?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I stopped using Google AdWords in my business. I also never click on an advertising link in the Google search results. If anything I go directly to the advertiser's website. I've even basically stopped using Google in favor of DDG. I don't want to give Google a single penny if I can help it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'll repost what I've posted several times before:

    ANTI-TRUST ANTI-TRUST ANTI-TRUST ANTI-TRUST

    Bust Google up into a multitude of independently owned and run Googlettes. Bust Amazon up and local brick and mortar stores will thrive again without the need for an Internet tax. And if you object to busting them up vertically, bust them up horizontally. Why should Jeff Bezos be allowed to own a newspaper?

    Yes, in the short run we will lose the many benefits of size a powerful monopoly conveys, but in the long run the nation will be better off if it avoids the problem Don writes about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I actually like your idea.

      Delete
    2. Bad thing is, without Amazon I'd have to travel 40 to 250 miles to do any nonstandard shopping. Our little town even lost our Sears contract store.
      We used to frequent our local brick-and-mortar small stores & shops, but as the owners aged, the shops closed.
      Not much left to shop in other than Walmart. We have several dollar-store type places, but we don't even have a decent fabric store for my wife. So off to the computer we go and shop there.

      Delete
  5. The ideas do live, and will live on. We're already in a phase reminiscent of Radio Londres, where small web sites have comment sections that are more active in messaging than the obituary section of modern day print mills. And, just like occupied Europe, oppressors tell us not to listen to them. Everyone now has their favorite place to visit, nest a bit and chew the fat. And for the most part they are not at Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, or any of Doug Ross's top 50 that have the ubiquitous Google analytic machine setting 50 or so daily cookies.

    What's even more significant is that when you venture off the internet completely and wade into 20, 40 or 80 meter amateur radio bands it's the same. On any given morning (prior to the excitement of the ionosphere), I would wager that page 1 headlines from the red team propagate quicker than on twitter or Facebook. And, it's rarely in the form of "John has a long mustache." It's actually quite charming to hear actual humans talking to one another and showing emotion in their beliefs. They tell me television was once like that.

    So, the principles of Darwinian selection predict that they'll indeed come around or perish because people have a tendency to do what they want. They also show a profound avoidance of foolery, whether originating from animal, vegetable or mineral.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you hang out on 80, 40, or 20 meters? I've got to put a multiband doublet and get back on...

      Delete
  6. Wouldn't the "beast" get money either way?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Not a single one of the majors has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Hillary Clinton, who co-opted their reporters. Indeed, the newspaper owners and executives have invested millions in her election." Remember, they went to J School and have been indoctrinated ever so well. Dems with by-lines, as Prof. Reynolds calls them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The twin reasons for the decline in newspaper reading is the 60-75% functional illiteracy rate of today's graduates along w/the exceedingly obvious slant of the newspaper reporters, editors, publishers, et al.

    The second item of the above might not have signified, if the reports and newscasters (... I know, the latter is tv news, but basically the same critter...) had had the intelligence to keep the extremely vitriolic contempt in which they hold their customers under wraps!

    Newspeople are the modern day equivalent of the Fool in folktales, who is the greatest of dullards, yet fancies himself the “brightest star...”, “the smartest person...” in any room. He considers himself the expert on everything, even though in reality he knows the world within his sight only one atom deep in any direction!

    Gee, that “smartest person in any room” sounds SO familiar... I just wish I could place it.... ;~)❱

    ReplyDelete