A local buyer taking over a struggling newspaper in the 21st century is normally cause for some celebration. But The Baltimore Sun’s newly announced owner has a very specific political background, and some are concerned about what the 187-year-old publication could become.
David D. Smith, executive chairman of the Sinclair broadcasting chain and an active contributor to conservative causes, has bought Baltimore Sun Media from the investment firm Alden Global Capital.
This is not the first time that a right-wing rich guy has gotten ahold of a newspaper in a city that leans Democratic. It has not gone well before. Richard Scafie bought the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, took it to the right and ran it into the ground. What happens is if a paper is far out of synch with the population, then subscribers drop their subscriptions. Advertisers see the declining numbers and either stop advertising or demand lower rates. The loss in revenue results in firings in the newsroom, less local reportage and more reliance on the wire services. Readers notice and more drop their subscriptions. The paper tries to do more on the Internet, but the revenue is a tiny fraction of what they need to keep the lights on. The paper "transitions" from being a daily to printing five days a week to three to going wholly online. At that point, it becomes just another website that few people pay attention to.
The real beneficiaries of all that are the local politicians, government officials and companies, whose fuckery then goes unreported and unremarked upon.
4 comments:
Much like Sports Illustrated got "Woke" and put politics on Sports and fat and trans women in the swimsuit editions. People don't want Politics (ANY Politics!!) in their sports and babes.
Now they are out of business.
Fail your readers and piss 'em off and you will die.
Doesn't matter which way you try and flip it. Conservative to Liberal or liberal to conservative. Both have been tried and they both generally fail. Bad business decisions
Ah b, you woke up.
Generally dead tree publications have died for many reasons
the greatest is cost to publish, price of paper and ink,
payrolls. Add to that much of the same or better content
available free though the internet. Staying relevant is
a challenge.
So to blame your favorite anti cause besides being predictably
typical is mostly a lack of recognition of business reality.
That being you were half right, the failed print media stopped
supplying the customer what they want at an economical price.
Or failed to recognize the changes in what the customer wants
again at a acceptable price.
That and the exponential growth of sports, news, and entertainment
networks on cable/internet with their near instant updates and
images helping to displace print media and its inherent delays.
Eck!
The Washington Post, owned by billionaires, are cutting staff and firing people via buyouts.
The LA Times this morning fired 100 people from staff, which is 20 percent of their newsroom, directly affecting their ability to cover both regional and national news.
And the private investment group owning SI basically shut it all down after missing one payment.
The For-Profit model of owning newspapers - as ad dollars disappear into different media - cannot cope with the modern-day sensibilities of rich people slashing costs (i.e., PEOPLE) to the point where print media is dying. Not because print media is doing its job but because the billionaires don't give a (bleep).
It's a municipal bond buying opportunity. There should be more than one fund that is doing this as a strategy by now. Barron's is generally a good read if you have some shekels to play around with. One of my aunts had that religion.
Post a Comment