Inferior audiences

David Carr, NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/business/media/13carr.html?fta=y
You know, you can argue, as the “digital evangelists” do, that monopoly newspapers should have saved for a rainy day while they were pocketing 15% profits, but when ad revenue drops 48% in a single quarter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/new-york-times-ad-revenue_n_161607.html it’s like kicking a guy when he’s down.
You can tell when content generators and content aggregators are using language like “parasite” and “shut up” that things are getting interesting.

Especially interesting in the video Yonghwan posted are the comments of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper talking about the importance of competition. So which is it – were newspapers arrogant monopolies which refused to save a bit of their obscene profits or were they aggressive competitors in two-paper towns fighting for the best journalism because that’s what sold? You have to admit, the quality of the journalism is getting a lot worse now, after cutbacks and buyouts... after the economics of media tanked, not before. I’ve said this before – I don’t think daily newspapers or the AP were broken a few years ago (I think they are now). I think what’s broken is the audience. If people strove to stay informed about their communities there would be more value for local newspapers, which still provide unique content – as Google has learned. Inferior goods? How about inferior consumers, who are the driving force behind this: “consumers...are used to paying for entertainment.”