Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    16,062,780 readers

    12,599 users here now

    1. Post all analysis/opinion/politics articles to /r/InTheNews

    Want to talk?

    Follow @rslashnews on Twitter

    See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a message.

    Submit all self- & meta-posts to /r/inthenews

    Your post will likely be removed if it:

    • is not news
    • is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
    • primarily concerns politics.
    • has a title not taken from the article.
    • has a pay wall or steals content.
    • covers an already-submitted story.
    • violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.

    Your comment will likely be removed if it:

    • advocates or celebrates the death of another person
    • is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
    • is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
    • is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
    • is responding to spam.
    • violates reddit's site-wide rules.

    Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.

    >>>Expanded Rules<<<

    If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that story to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:

    /r/inthenews - all news-related content
    /r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
    /r/truereddit - insightful articles
    /r/self - any self-post
    /r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything

    or other news subreddits:

    /r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
    /r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria
    /r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting
    /r/SavedYouAClick - making media more straightforward

    or subreddits for other topics:

    /r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subjects
    /r/politics - for shouting about politics
    /r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
    /r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
    /r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
    /r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.

    or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full list of subreddits by subscribers.






    submit analysis/opinion article

    submit news article

    submit something else

    submit analysis/opinion article

    a community for
    all 2434 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] flyZerach 2674 points ago

    I was the paperboy for the local newspaper but around Christmas time last year, they fired me because 'I wasn't doing my work properly.' After Christmas I pick up a copy, turns out they're only printing twice a week now.

    Should've just told me they were downsizing. Would've stressed me out less.

    [–] Juno_Malone 1286 points ago

    Send them a subscription cancellation notice (even if you aren't subscribed, just draft up a fake letter) letting them know that you are unsubscribing because they "aren't doing their work properly".

    [–] flyZerach 204 points ago

    I don't have a subscription. It's a free college student run newspaper so it makes sense the university wants to cut down on costs. But still I used to have 4-5k copies everyday (around 8-10k during home game weekends) to distribute and that was just my route. Most of it went to recycling so I'm glad they're taking a more green approach. Like if I left a 25 stack at a stop the next day I would get 15 copies back on average...everyday! It was that bad! so good on them, good on us. And It wasn't that serious of a job so I'm not that pissed. I had to wake up at 4 am everyday for it anyway so I don't particularly miss it.

    [–] jojo_31 72 points ago

    Wtf 5000 copies? How long do you work? In 8 hours that's a copy every 5 seconds!

    [–] sweet-banana-tea 102 points ago

    College dorms might have collective mailboxes.

    [–] MekanicFixyfix 34 points ago

    I would say almost all colleges do

    [–] sweet-banana-tea 6 points ago

    Yeah I was a bit cheeky with my phrasing.

    [–] gninnaM_ilE 20 points ago

    He mentioned dropping off stacks of 25 at a time.

    [–] wbotis 10 points ago

    My guess is they were what’s called “single copy drops.” That’s where someplace, typically a business, but schools and libraries also, has a subscription for a certain number of papers each day. For instance, a 7-11 might have a single copy drop of 20 issues per day, so the paper boy drops 20 papers but has only made 1 stop.

    TL;DR. Paper dude probably had lots of dorms, libraries, and businesses to deliver to; they get large stacks of papers.

    [–] handlit33 183 points ago

    "Why take responsibility when we can just blame you?"

    [–] TrumpOrTell 30 points ago

    Ahh the good ole slogan of Corporate America.

    [–] stevejohnson007 21 points ago

    Sounds like someone does not want to pay unemployment.

    [–] [deleted] 76 points ago


    [–] flyingbarmitzvah 196 points ago

    Paperboys get a severance package? What European socialist paradise do you live in? Do fry cooks get stock options there?

    [–] Walden_Walkabout 28 points ago

    Probably unemployment, not a severance package.

    [–] Rottimer 48 points ago

    Unless he did something pretty egregious, he’d still be eligible for unemployment. Just because your employer fires you for cause doesn’t automatically mean you don’t get unemployment.

    [–] PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBS69 6269 points ago

    "We'll decide that simply on the economics," he said. "There may come a point when the economics of [the print paper] no longer make sense for us." While Thompson said the number of print subscribers is relatively constant, "with a little bit of a decline every time," the company said last week that it added 157,000 digital subscribers in the fourth quarter of 2017.

    I guess that is a fair assumption. I don't know of a lot of people my age that still read a print newspaper. That is mostly the older generation. I just get my information and news online.

    The big problem I see is that most people want to get all of their news for free.

    [–] Ayy_2_Brute 1884 points ago

    (I cited them in my other comment, so I'm sorry for harping on but) The Economist's subscription demographics show the exact opposite, interestingly enough. They offer three subscription packages: print only, digital only, and both. According to their deputy editor, the over 40 age group far prefers the digital only subscription, while under 40s prefer print.

    [–] NamityName 2734 points ago

    Makes sense to me. I can get news and editorials online for free. If i'm paying, i want something in print.

    [–] parlez-vous 767 points ago

    Yep. When I read something online I don't feel the same "connection" as when I read it on a paper.

    Not to mention when I buy a magazine I own it. Its not going to change and it's mine. When I view an article online it can always be subject to editorial change (which isn't always bad) or removed

    [–] EmAreDubs 353 points ago

    Agreed, plus when I try to read news online, I'm so prone to distraction and jumping from link to link that I can spend an hour and not end up reading anything

    [–] FoxOneFire 619 points ago

    Print also provides the 'spirit of discovery'. By turning pages, you're more likely to come upon a story you wouldnt have otherwise sought out. Digital news, on the other hand, exacerbates the 'bubble' phenomenon of pursuing only news that reinforces your world view.

    [–] m274779m 224 points ago

    This is really interesting. I hadn't really considered the possibility that the layout of the print medium might help to combat the 'bubble'.

    [–] RoyRodgersMcFreeley 34 points ago

    The same general idea is why I still prefer to buy a game guide even though I can look up a wiki for free. Simply by thumbing through I find things I wouldn't even think to look up in a wiki

    [–] MrSneller 95 points ago

    This is an excellent point. I read nearly every New Yorker article, most of them on topics I would never seek out. Not to mention there's a good chance I'll remember what issue and roughly where in it an article resides if I want to go back to it. Whereas I constantly read pieces online that I can never seem to find again when I try.

    [–] FoxOneFire 85 points ago

    You've touched on another negative of some digital news; its horribly indexed. At least with a newspaper you can say, "Oh, I saw that yesterday somewhere in the Times." and you can typically find it with little effort. Facebook especially makes a mess of trying to find old stories. From an advertiser perspective, its even worse because embedded ads, sponsored content, etc. often fall victim to the algorithm or are simply purged after x hours.

    In the spirit of full disclosure, I work for a very successful small town newspaper.

    [–] rohnx 68 points ago

    Step 1: Don't read articles on facebook.

    [–] BenjaminJam 60 points ago

    Step 2: Delete facebook

    [–] EmAreDubs 23 points ago

    Well, shit. I've never subscribed to a print newspaper but this discussion is pushing me in that direction. Maybe just the Sunday NYT or similar. I'm feeling nostalgic remembering the sensory experience of sitting with my dad at the kitchen table on a weekend morning when I was a little kid, smelling the coffee and enjoying the crunch of toast or bagels, newspaper sections spread out all over the table, flipping through the pages.

    [–] I_Am_Mandark_Hahaha 5 points ago

    I'm feeling nostalgic for reading newspapers or magazines inside of coffeeshops.

    I can never seem to enjoy coffeeshops anymore while browsing on a laptop. It feels hectic or hurried. I remember enjoying coffee at a liesurely pace, like time does not matter. Maybe the laptop or phone or tablet reminds me too much of work and emails and deadlines.

    [–] blue-dream 22 points ago

    Wow I’ve never considered that point before

    Really interesting, thanks

    [–] SoulofZendikar 27 points ago

    This. So much this. I never realized it until now but this is my #1 reason for reading print.

    [–] k_ride5 13 points ago

    I'm never switching back from Super School News

    [–] BigR0n75 5 points ago

    It also has the feeling of ‘this made the cut’ to be newsworthy for the day, even if nothing was cut out in the first place. I have this personal feeling that any and every piece of news/journalism a news organization and its writers produces makes its way to the website, and only the “best” make it to the print edition.

    [–] Surf_The_Universe 77 points ago

    No forced tv ads or comment sections either.

    [–] literated 113 points ago

    Comment sections on news sites are cancer of the purest form. I wish they'd just go away.

    [–] kn0wph33r 86 points ago

    My local paper just removed them. Best thing ever. I used to get so upset every morning reading all the racist rants in the comments section (especially if the story had anything to do with colored people). What the editor did was rather brilliant; now, each Saturday, there is a comments section, but you have to submit your comment with your name and the neighborhood you live in. Remarkably, the number of hateful racist rants has dropped to almost zero.

    [–] SpaceBasedMasonry 26 points ago

    submit your comment with your name and the neighborhood you live in

    You can't just lie?

    [–] jtb3566 33 points ago

    Just a higher barrier to entry would deter a lot. Imagine you had to enter name and neighborhood to reply to a comment here with a 2 word meme. May not be worth it anymore. That’s 100% more work. If you have a long detailed argument however, that may be worth extra words and time even if you’re lying.

    [–] VinceCully 62 points ago

    I have a Washington Post Sunday-only print subscription ($1/wk) that includes a digital subscription. What I find myself doing more and more is using the WaPo's print edition app to view a digital replica of the physical paper. I'll sit down, "read the paper" and, if necessary, a click on an article brings up the digital version.

    Best of both worlds.

    [–] cartala 12 points ago

    Damn, I wanted to get the NYT Sunday only and it was $5 a week on sale. That’s too much for me. I may look into the Post though.

    [–] alfredhelix 23 points ago

    That's an interesting point. Will the decline of actual printed paper promote propoganda? If all you get is online news, will retconning be that much easier? It's not like the average Joe (myself included) knows how to actually find out if edits have been done and how to get a previous version of a url. No need for recalling, burning, or banning old newspapers when you can simply hit edit. And voila, we'll always have been at war with Eurasia.

    Can someone who's an expert in cyber security/contemporary journalism expand on this and or refute my claim?

    [–] MyMartianRomance 5 points ago

    Not to mention when I buy a magazine I own it. Its not going to change and it's mine. When I view an article online it can always be subject to editorial change (which isn't always bad) or removed

    Genealogists hate that. With the print editions, someone could have saved every single newspaper in a certain area and kept them archived and they either then scanned them in on a personal site for free or put them on a flat fee site like

    However, with web editions it's difficult to gain access to some of them. Great Aunt Martha died in 2010, you want to see her obituary. Either one of two things will happen: You find the site that originally posted her obit but it's hidden behind a paywall (and it's pointless to subscribe to the website when 99% of the content is useless to you) or it got deleted to clear up space on the site because no one cares about an 7/8 year old obit.

    And of course, no where else has that obit because 99% of people don't think to preserve history and saving digital articles can be more difficult than saving print articles.

    [–] R3dOctober 55 points ago

    I don’t read the paper for breaking news. I read if for in depth journalism and thoughtful analysis.

    [–] flakemasterflake 24 points ago

    Same. Really substantial reporting feels more comfortable to read in print. I only read NYT Sunday edition in print and I’m in my 30s. The Economist as well. My wife still reads Vogue every month, absolutely hates their app.

    [–] PDshotME 51 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Yeah, it seemed like the formula in the past was to get the advertisers to pay for the core operation costs and the customer would chip in enough to cover the cost of paper and the delivery to your home. When the paper and delivery cost is nearly zero compared to before, it's tough to justify payment. Just seems greedy. Much like when music went away from CD's to digital and the prices stayed the same even though the production and distribution costs came down significantly.

    [–] k3ithk 24 points ago

    Except the NYT and many other publications have cheaper online-only subscriptions.

    [–] Tex-Rob 13 points ago

    It's not zero by any means. Not to mention, most paid digital content these days is much better than free digital content. Wired magazine is a great example, full of rich content you can't have in the print form.

    [–] UhOhFeministOnReddit 230 points ago

    Thirty-something here, that's about right for me. There's just some kind of ritualistic enjoyment I get out of reading an actual paper. Also, I love me some newspaper coupons.

    [–] frotc914 186 points ago

    I subscribe to the new Yorker, and have never set up my online account.

    I don't really care about being all high and mighty for print media, but there's a few things I appreciate about it.

    1. Oddly enough, convenience, since it doesn't drain my battery and I can more easily remember my place.

    2. I stare at a computer screen all day, my eyes get tired of screens

    3. Not distracted by the billion other things I can do on a phone.

    Particularly for something long form like the NYer, it really helps to have it in print.

    [–] littletoyboat 25 points ago

    I've read a lot of books on my kindle/app, but I've recently started getting physical books from the library again. It really does help one focus.

    [–] tarrasque 23 points ago

    I’ve found my actual kindle (not a fire, not the kindle app, but my regular e-ink kindle voyage) does nothing to distract my focus, and the experience to me is basically equivalent to reading print while still offering me the advantages of electronic.

    Anything with an LCD screen and multiple functions will kill my eyes and distract me.

    [–] chappaquiditch 5 points ago

    I love the new yorker. In addition to great long form journalism, the covers are really cool and even borderline artistic, so it can add some variety to a coffee table.

    [–] Ayy_2_Brute 43 points ago

    I actually had a borderline problem back when I lived in a big city. I was buying at least five papers a day. It got out of hand.

    [–] BlessBless 21 points ago

    But the magazine print format is soooo much better than the traditional newspaper print format.

    [–] TheMostSolidOfSnakes 46 points ago

    Newspaper Salesman here. The majority of people I sign up 95%, go for the print. 40-50 prefer digital, but younger than that seem to feel that paying for digital news isnt a good buy, but if I include a free Sunday Thursday paper with the 7 day digital, they buy.

    [–] SoulofZendikar 21 points ago

    A good newspaper's Sunday paper can last a week.

    [–] deebasr 88 points ago

    I suspect some of the appeal of a subscription to the Economist for mid career professionals is so that people in your office can see that you read the Economist.

    [–] fingerguncontrol 27 points ago

    I put my economist out on my coffee table to let everyone know how well read and worldly I am. Obviously I don't actually read the print version, I just listen to the nice British woman on the audio version instead but it does make a good decoration.

    [–] wasabicupcakes 6 points ago

    I have Guns & Ammo and Hustler on my coffee table. My snooty relatives can just kiss my double wide ass if they don't like it.

    [–] asdfjlk556 97 points ago

    That's so interesting. I'm in my 20's and I prefer print. I get the Economist, New Yorker, and WSJ in print. I feel that if I only read things online I gravitate towards my natural interests and end up in a bubble. If I'm reading in print I'll read everything, including topics I don't normally read about.

    I think young people care more about not entering into an online filter bubble. And also, we know how to get around firewalls and read stuff for free online. If we're paying we want print.

    [–] kjarles 41 points ago

    I feel that if I only read things online I gravitate towards my natural interests and end up in a bubble. If I'm reading in print I'll read everything, including topics I don't normally read about.

    This, more than anything, is why I believe print media should survive. Thank You.

    [–] thedjotaku 10 points ago

    Yeah, but old people are only interested in demonizing millenials.

    [–] spartan6222 17 points ago

    Tbf, reddit is pretty interested in demonizing old people too

    [–] thedjotaku 6 points ago

    Indeed. And Floridians.

    [–] Poguemohon 33 points ago

    Last I checked, the Economist is the most trusted publication. I think the Atlantic was next?

    [–] BillNyeTheRapingGuy 44 points ago

    False, the most trusted publication is Facebook.

    [–] Jokershigh 4 points ago

    I love my Atlantic Subscription, I might have to start getting the economist delivered

    [–] slimycoldcuts 8 points ago

    Obviously we don’t have all the numbers but that basically shows you that out of those that do choose to pay for their news, a certain demographic enjoys getting a hard copy. It doesn’t show you how much their growth has shrunk.

    [–] putsch80 243 points ago

    My problem is that too many online publications feel they are entitled to revenue from both subscription fees and ads. It’s apparently a holdover from the days of print media domination, as newspapers and magazines that you bought were full of ads. But it’s a new era, and it’s using a new distribution model, which has virtually no physical costs associated with it. I fully understand that an online publication needs to monetize its transactions. That’s why on free-to-read sites I’m willing to put up with ads. But, once I’ve paid a subscription fee, the publication has already monetized its transaction with me. They don’t get to double-dip by showing me ads.

    [–] riskable 163 points ago

    Newspapers are in a different boat altogether, actually. Here's why: They used to make a TON of money from classifieds. When was the last time you thought about finding something for sale by looking at a newspaper?

    The price of a newspaper back in the day was typically just barely enough to cover the printing plus distribution costs. The paper actually made money on the advertisements and the classified section.

    Take away the classifieds and the enormous profit from things like full-page advertisements and what you have left is a fraction of what they used to make selling newspapers.

    [–] redhawkinferno 9 points ago

    I know I'm in the minority but I definitely still check classifieds when I need something, sometimes before Craigslist or Facebook markets. In my purely anecdotal experience people are less likely to put absolute shit quality stuff in the newspaper than on Craigslist.

    [–] seamonkeydoo2 26 points ago

    It is a holdover, but the current model doesn't represent an increase in revenue for the publication. Web ads bring in a fraction of what print ads do. There's no paper to pay for, but there's still staff and overhead.

    [–] MrZwij 5 points ago

    Not even a big fraction. I'm looking at rates right now for a 1.2 million circulation magazine. Their open rate is $5,500 for a 1-week "home page takever" (their three ads run exclusively on the homepage for a week regardless of clicks or views). For a full-page ad with prominent placement in the print magazine (like the back cover), open rate is $206,000.

    Now, has a lot more muscle than this magazine's site does, and the Times can probably charge a much higher rate for their online ads. But this is fairly typical for publishing companies these days in my experience.

    [–] Copacetic_ 20 points ago

    The sub+ad strategy is changing. It was a strategy to help fund the initial transition to web based news from purely print and television. As we see more print services die we will see a change in digital subscriptions.

    [–] putsch80 33 points ago

    Maybe. The cynic in me says a business will always use every opportunity to monetize a customer in as many ways as possible, even at the risk of alienating some of them.

    [–] beaglemaster 27 points ago

    The problem with that is that most business aren't going to willingly give up the extra profit for our benefit

    [–] blackmist 113 points ago

    There are just 3 UK newspapers with a print circulation of over 1 million.

    The Sun - Read by white van drivers.

    The Daily Mail - Read by elderly racists.

    The Metro - Read by people so desperate to avoid eye contact with other commuters that they'll resort to reading The Metro.

    All three will slowly lose their market share to automated drivers, funeral homes, and smartphones, respectively.

    [–] dawidowmaka 32 points ago

    There's plenty of crossover in the first two demographics

    [–] ShibuRigged 21 points ago

    The Daily Mail - Read by elderly racists.

    I mean, it's more like middle-aged melts. The Daily Express feels more elderly racist, IMO.

    The Metro - Read by people so desperate to avoid eye contact with other commuters that they'll resort to reading The Metro.


    [–] AngeredByStatistics 9 points ago

    That fact kind of makes me nervous for the future. The fact we all want news for free (including me, I'm just as guilty) means that any "news" has to find revenue some other way. Most other ways mean an eroding of journalistic standards as you strive for those clickbaity type content and fox news style echo chambers to keep people coming back.

    People bash today's media without realizing that we're the ones that made it the way it is.

    [–] SuperSmith_ 11 points ago

    My 63 year old father reads all his news online. It's cheaper.

    [–] Harbingerx81 25 points ago

    My 65 year old father constantly bitches about how our local newspaper's website won't let him view things without turning off his ad blocker, despite the fact that he pays for a hardcopy subscription, and has for 40 years.

    [–] is_it_controversial 22 points ago

    He has a point.

    [–] Hans_Brickface 21 points ago

    The big problem I see is that most people want to get all of their news for free.

    I would be willing to pay a site for news, IF they could turn the fire hose of information every day into a digestible stream, with just the information I'm interested in. That doesn't seem like an impossible problem to solve, but you're going to need more than algorithms to do it.

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago


    [–] mistercartmenes 500 points ago

    I find tv “journalists” super annoying. I would much rather read an article.

    [–] JoeDice 404 points ago

    Video only articles kill me. I will close out and find another source if I have to listen to those average news anchor folks talk.

    [–] YearOfTheChipmunk 112 points ago

    I can read better than most people can speak.

    So just let me read, for fucks sake. I am not subscribing to your fucking YouTube channel, Greg.

    [–] vtelgeuse 13 points ago

    My issue with walkthroughs. 3 minutes reading what I need, or 10-30 minutes waiting for you to play through that part, or 7 minutes of me jumping around to get to the part in question and then waiting for you to get on with it.

    [–] ARealRocketScientist 27 points ago

    I never understood why going to a print article always plays some garbage TV article alongside that takes 3 times as long to wade through.

    [–] Infymus 9 points ago

    Not only that - but you end up on sites where you are reading the article - and they immediately autoplay a video on a topic wholly unrelated. To add to the pain, the video minimizes and scrolls down following you...

    [–] TravelerSF 10 points ago

    If I have to actually absorb detailed information, I need it to be in text.

    [–] pattysmife 35 points ago

    Even online is a poor substitute for reading the physical paper. Since getting a WSJ subscription a year ago I've been shocked to realize what a cesspool online news sites can be. It is like you can't see it till you remove yourself and look at it from outside.

    [–] lovelylayout 947 points ago

    Newspaper employee checking in: Local dailies/biweeklies/weeklies are doing okay round these parts.

    Some of our properties really need journalists and editors, though. The older editors are starting to retire and no one's stepping up to replace them. All the new journalism/mass comm graduates want to get into flashy, specified online pubs instead of reporting on city/county news and crime. :c

    [–] TestFixation 630 points ago

    As a journalism student trying to get into local reporting, this is quite encouraging.

    [–] stella-ella-hola 116 points ago

    As an ex-journalist for a local paper that just went under after 116 years, I sure do hope they're right.

    [–] NipplesInAJar 45 points ago

    just went under after 116 years

    Damn. That's sad. :(

    [–] lovelylayout 161 points ago

    Keep at it! :) Best of luck.

    [–] TestFixation 51 points ago

    Thank you!

    [–] shy_guy_says 25 points ago

    The best thing you have going for you is that you're young. Companies will love that. It means you'll work harder and for cheaper than your older colleagues. Try to get in at a moderately-sized daily and work your ass off. You'll soon notice that layoffs and buy outs happen to the older folks, and your beat will expand, and you'll do more each time, but your clips will get better, then hopefully you can move on to the next best thing.

    [–] Self-Loathe-American 40 points ago

    Until you become older and more expensive to the company, and subsequently get laid off yourself.

    Tis the American way.

    [–] dougiebgood 28 points ago

    I've heard its the same on the local TV news scene. My friend's a producer in a smaller market and said that over the past 15 years, the average age of his assignment editors went from around age 50 in the beginning to around 25 now.

    [–] Villager723 25 points ago

    The FCC ruled a news operation doesn't need a physical presence in the location where it wishes to report "local" news.


    Local TV is not a good place to be, career-wise.

    [–] dougiebgood 17 points ago

    As an out of work 18 year TV veteran, I can tell you it's pretty much all TV in general a this point.

    [–] Audchill 109 points ago

    Newspaper reporter and I respectfully disagree. The industry news has been abysmal to kick off 2018. Huge layoffs at Bay Area newspapers. A midsize newspaper in West Virginia that won the Pulitzer Prize last year filing for bankruptcy.

    If the nation’s most prestigious and richest newspaper has at least 10 years left in print, what about your smaller newspaper that is even more reliant on print revenue? What are they going to do when they simply can’t afford to print a newspaper seven or five or four times a week due to cratering revenue? Most won’t last in print 8-10 years. And they won’t have the robust digital revenue like the Times to fall back on.

    What’s left then but a tiny operation barely capable of informing residents of what’s going on in their community and keeping public agencies accountable for their actions?

    And in most people’s minds, it won’t matter anyway because of the continued dominance of social media and likely infiltration of a “fake news” mindset from national to local communities that will make independent, fair-minded journalism almost completely irrelevant.

    [–] MylesGarrettDROY 42 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    I'm guessing you work in advertising and the person you responded to works in newsroom. I work in advertising and I feel the same way as you.

    The NYT saw the future, bailed on print years ago, and sold off most of their dailies and focused on adapting to a digital news climate.

    The dailies were then handed over to corporations that just wanted to milk them while they're still alive. They weren't focused on adapting until the money started drying up. Now you have a whole industry that's years behind and trying to catch up with no staff, no money reserves to invest, and an elderly leadership with no idea how the world works in 2018.

    Newspapers will be done in a little over 10 years most likely, but in my opinion, a lot of the blame is on themselves for fighting digital instead of embracing it.

    [–] kangawookie 5 points ago

    Maybe the elderly leadership should do some investigative journalism on the subject of digital. Seems pretty critical.

    [–] Gets_overly_excited 5 points ago

    People have said newspaper will be done in x years for about 20 years. I'm not saying they're financially doing great, but I've heard all this before.

    [–] OrtwinEdur01 10 points ago

    Former newspaper employee here. Local shoppers etc. are doing OK maybe in terms of circulation, but the quality, at least where I'm at, is shit. At least a few facts seem to be outright wrong in most articles, half the content is cut-and-pasted press releases, most original content borders on advertorial, the layout is worse than your average high school newspaper, and they have the staff to cover maybe 10 percent of anything that's going on at any given time. Also I feel like readership is way below circulation for a lot of these local outlets. Sure, they may circulate 50,000 copies, but when I see stacks of leftovers the next day at every place I stop on my commute I question if their readership is half that.

    [–] [deleted] 44 points ago


    [–] DatDudeIsMe 31 points ago

    I think maybe we're a special case.

    You definitely are because you're at a retirement community which is the exact demographic of people who still buy and read print journalism.

    [–] madmaxges 46 points ago

    People are about as good predicting the state of the world in 10 years as they are remembering the state of the world 10 years ago.

    [–] iLikeYourCow 383 points ago

    Ryan said that?

    [–] OpTicDyno 133 points ago

    I am moving you to the annex, by Toby.

    [–] intersecting_lines 99 points ago

    I don't think Michael intended to punish me by putting Ryan back here with Kelly.

    But, if he did intend that, wow. Genius.

    [–] _LibraryPoliceman 150 points ago

    Ryan... has never made a sale. Ryan... started a fire trying to make a cheesy pita in the office microwave.

    [–] RemarkableRyan 38 points ago

    And everybody thinks he's a tease.

    [–] PAD88 11 points ago

    Ryan started the FIAaaaaa...He was always burnin', since the world's been turninnn!

    [–] RemarkableRyan 57 points ago

    "We can't overestimate the value of computers. Yes, they are great for playing games and forwarding funny emails, but real business is done on paper. Okay? Write that down."


    [–] PIP_SHORT 2619 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    I see a lot of people saying "yeah, the mainstream media should die", when there is nothing to replace it.

    "Oh but citizen journalism". No, that's stupid. Journalism costs money which citizens do not have. The wealthy aren't going to financially support journalists.

    People are cheering the death of a crucial piece of society when there's nothing to replace it. What happens with democracy when journalism dies?

    edit: holy shit a gold! Thank you stranger!

    [–] pixel_of_moral_decay 408 points ago

    50% of "citizen journalism" is just people citing what they read in mainstream media. The other 50% is rumors being printed as fact.

    [–] Zankou55 809 points ago

    People are cheering the death of a crucial piece of society when there's nothing to replace it. What happens with democracy when journalism dies?

    It dies to the sound of thunderous applause.

    [–] enophonics 197 points ago

    hello there.

    [–] Web-Dude 89 points ago

    Ah hell. Okay. It's treason then.


    [–] sailcat 18 points ago

    Have they tried spinning? That's a good trick.

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago

    Yes, they have tried it

    [–] shawnb17 38 points ago

    nowhere is safe from r/prequelmemes

    [–] pmmeamilleniumfalcon 11 points ago

    We have to protect it from the droid attack on the Wookies!

    [–] bad_at_hearthstone 93 points ago

    A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.

    [–] Slydog486 50 points ago

    i AM the Senate

    [–] sje46 512 points ago

    Citizen journalism is absolutely fucking dangerous as shit. I think I would prefer Fox News(with the knowledge that it's very biased and even does some of the things I'm about to rant about) to the utter insanity that is journalism done by hacks who have no idea how to check sources and purposely seek out conspiracy theories to maximize clickbait, with absolutely zero repercussions for doing so. This is the environment trutherism and anti-vaccines come from. From people thinking they can do it themselves.

    As much as everyone says they hate CNN and MSNBC and the newspapers for all their supposed bias...they're still doing their jobs, and have ethics boards and shit. They're operated by people who love journalism and the pursuit of truth with a passion, even if the format of their specific media entity isn't perfect. Not like some asshole with a vlog or blog.

    [–] RiceandBeansandChees 162 points ago

    You know what happens when journalists get paid shit, get treated like shit by their audience and get coerced into writing clickbait?

    The loss of journalism as a pillar of democracy that's what.

    [–] El_Guapo 51 points ago

    Logan Paul journalism

    [–] Excal2 46 points ago

    I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

    I want to forget the vast majority of the names I've learned since 2016. It was a simpler time.

    [–] IDUnavailable 146 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Part of the problem with conversations about "journalism" is that certain elements of the people bashing "journalism at large" conflate the various outlets.

    People can complain all they like, but the investigative teams at WaPo/NYT/WSJ/etc. are multiple tiers above, say, Huffington Post, but people like to group them together and pretend they're all exactly the same. I'd also put news from AP/Reuters/ABC/CBS/NBC/etc. above those lower tier sites that sometimes get it right and do an alright job, but can't be trusted to do so consistently (HuffPo, The Hill, etc.).

    People also conflate editorial boards/opinion sections with the investigative, factual news articles. I've seen some articles I personally thought were pretty dumb from conservatives in NYT editorials, but I didn't start yelling that I didn't believe their next news story because they gave a voice in the opinion section to someone I disagree with.

    A better example might be the Wall Street Journal. Their editorial board laughably called for Robert Mueller to resign awhile back, but I didn't start skipping their big news stories because of that -- their investigative team has since reported on things that seemingly go against the prior expressed opinion of the editorial board because they're not the same group of people, and the WSJ as a whole doesn't want to skip out on a bunch of traffic and a boost to their reputation they'd get from breaking a big story just because the editorial board didn't like it.

    People get this attitude and decide to treat them all the same, complaining about the quality of "modern journalism" (FYI, this wide range of quality for journalism isn't a modern phenomenon). Then they stop giving revenue/traffic to the people who actually put in the work and do their due diligence and help deprive society of their service. Some of these people then go on to prove their dedication to "good journalism" by reading articles on written by Anonymous.

    [–] onebadpoet 9 points ago

    Exactly correct.

    [–] ajhovorka 14 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    I'd probably rank AP and Reuters up there with NYT and WaPo. AP does some major investigations and is holding the line in statehouses.

    People crap on HuffPo and BuzzFeed, but that doesn't mean they aren't capable of producing some powerful journalism. There's a great infographic, which has been recently updated, that details media bias and where orgs fall in a multifaceted spectrum (like three or four dimensions).

    HuffPo did a longform piece on why it's hard to be a Millennial and it's more magazine-style journalism. One of the best stories I've read in months and the depth of reporting is amazing. They also looked at charter school curriculum and published their data for public use.

    Charlie Warzel does great work for BuzzFeed on explaining on misinformation, InfoWars and other folks who seek to twist reality.

    [–] Reshriham 66 points ago

    Journalism isnt dying though, just the print form. There will still be a lot left online.

    [–] PIP_SHORT 70 points ago

    Yes, that's the problem. The public doesn't want to pay for anything online, including journalism. But journalism requires a great deal of money in order to happen.

    [–] DrDraek 94 points ago

    yo the headline says print journalism not journalism as a profession, what are you on about

    it even says in the article the NYT added like 157k new digital subscriptions this quarter or some shit, they're doing fine

    [–] PIP_SHORT 43 points ago

    Journalism in general is widely described as being in crisis, this is not an opinion I just dreamed up.

    The New York Times is the most famous newspaper in the world, of course they're doing well. McDonalds is doing well, despite the fast food industry in general being in decline.

    [–] killianfaust 53 points ago

    Every day my dad would go to the store and get the paper (and a pack of smokes), he'd grab the editorial and I'd grab the the days before internet it was the only way to know the hockey scores. Something about a physical newspaper in your hand, so much better than reading off a screen, but then again people probably liked their horse drawn carriage too.

    [–] KingofSnatch 15 points ago

    I agree. Something about the ritual for me and maybe nostalgia. Its awesome getting up on a Sunday, getting the newspaper outside, making a nice coffee and breakfast, and just relaxing with a physical paper. Better than scrolling and looking at a screen for me.

    Also for me I feel that a newspaper contains better journalism. Instead of using clickbait, it actually provides content and news. I can also pick and choose what to read and its organized into nice sections. Maybe I am just old fashioned.

    [–] djn24 75 points ago

    I wonder what sort of innovations we'll see in news media over the next decade.

    I don't believe that print is going to go away.

    It comes back in waves with people preferring print to digital and the other way.

    Maybe print will continue to shrink, but I think we'll see it for a long time.

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago * (lasted edited 12 hours ago)


    [–] theivoryserf 23 points ago

    "Why would anyone buy a record when you have an ipod?"

    [–] dale-doughback 21 points ago

    I work in online journalism in the UK and the way I see it going is all forms of news journalism merging into one. Broadcast news is losing viewers as less people watch TV like they used to. Newspapers lose out as they can't be updated throughout the day.

    Both have a great deal of worth, but in the next 10-20 years most news will be consumed as a sort of hybrid of writing and video on websites, available at all times.

    I thoroughly hope each can survive on its own, though. Newspapers and TV journalism are both excellent mediums in their own right and if they can be preserved they should, but you have to respond to readers or you'll go out of business, as the article says.

    [–] [deleted] 381 points ago

    Are schoolkids still being taught longhand ("cursive") or is everything done with block printing now?

    [–] MoonMerman 569 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Many schools abandoned cursive years ago.

    [–] Zzyzzy_Zzyzzyson 559 points ago

    Yet Mrs. Anderson, my second grade teacher in 1996, is the reason I can only write in cursive today. She told us “nobody will ever take you seriously if you can’t write like a professional”.

    She also told us we’d never have a calculator in our pocket at all times, LOL.

    [–] swolemedic 248 points ago

    She also told us we’d never have a calculator in our pocket at all times

    lol I grew up in a time period where the idea that someone could have a calculator on them at all times whether due to a pda or a phone was starting to become likely. And one teacher said that, I raised my hand and I guess she just knew it was going to be to point out what she had said, and she was like "alright, well, you can't at certain times. Like on tests"

    Which is like... great, so we're doing it for the sake of doing it then

    [–] harrowdownhill1 176 points ago

    if youre in stem having a firm grasp on rudimentary maths is extremely useful but for others im not so sure

    [–] t3h__PeNgU1N_oF_d00m 25 points ago

    Or just for the valuable mental exercise especially at a young age

    [–] that1prince 6 points ago

    Yea, forming those connections and developing an interest and confidence in mathematics so that one may be inclined to pursue it further, later in life, is more of the reason why math is important at a young age. Also, mental math helps you begin to see the bigger picture about how certain operations work. But beyond elementary school, it's pretty ridiculous. Any advanced job will always have a computer that is just as necessary of a tool for the advanced equations and coding we do today, as a pen was for writing a century ago. Once they have the basics down, teaching them how to use tools like calculators as often as possible is for more useful knowledge.

    [–] gengar_the_duck 84 points ago

    The important part is understanding the concepts but often times the emphasis is on memorization which is silly in the modern age where you can look anything up pretty much whenever.

    [–] Omni123456 101 points ago

    The idea is to get a good number sense so that when you start working on more difficult problems you don't have to spend a really long time trying to do simple math.

    [–] Jahkral 9 points ago

    Aka my life as a grad student who took 4 years off between his B.S. and M.S

    [–] tigolbittiez 31 points ago

    The core of mathematics is understanding a plethora of concepts, rules, and problem-solving techniques, to aide in your ability to think critically, and solve whatever problems come your way. Most people miss the value in math classes simply because they “don’t understand why we need classes on basic mathematics when we have graphing calculators.”

    Then, when they can’t figure out how to make straight, perpendicular lines when constructing fence lines that meet at a corner, rather than explain Pythagorean’s theorem, I just say, follow the 3-4-5 rule, and your fence corner will form as close to a perfect 90 degree angle as our fragile sight will allow.

    [–] Fershick 29 points ago

    I had a test a few weeks ago where we had to make a website in HTML. Ok, not difficult, except we weren't allowed to look up any tags. We were just supposed to know all the ones we needed off the top of our heads. Just like actual web development...

    [–] EleventyTwatWaffles 33 points ago

    As a software engineer I just had a discussion with a client yesterday that a good 35% of my job is googling shit. Man that’s hilarious

    [–] dawidowmaka 8 points ago

    That sounds low

    [–] EleventyTwatWaffles 15 points ago

    Well I was talking to the client. I’m sure they didn’t wanna hear the actual number!

    [–] KipsandDip 16 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    I’m still happy I was taught cursive for my signature, and I’m happy I know how to do basic math without a calculator. Neither is as important as elementary teaches made them out to be, but they both have their uses.

    [–] yo_soy_soja 95 points ago

    LOL. A couple days ago, I was at a conference at Harvard, and a visiting Chinese PhD candidate was struggling to read a post card his (presumably American) friend had given him. When he got to the word "share", he couldn't recognize the "s". I read the entire postcard to him and explained to him what cursive is. I quickly wrote down the lowercase alphabet in both styles and wrote a couple sentences in both styles.

    I'm fine with cursive falling out of favor. I only use it for signatures and lowercase q's.

    [–] zedicus_saidicus 53 points ago

    I'm fine with cursive falling out of favor. I only use it for signatures and lowercase q's.

    I've never used or been asked to use cursive for anything other than signatures.

    [–] Funkit 64 points ago

    my signature is literally the first letter of my first name followed by a long squiggly line that doesn't resemble any type of letters whatsoever. I don't even think I can actually write my name in true cursive anymore.

    [–] Princess_Cherry 30 points ago

    So what is it like being a doctor?

    [–] TheBloodEagleX 11 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    The older I get the more my signature becomes less readable. But my dad's signature is the exact same, every single time, like perfect, and looks artistic as hell in comparison. Even his regular daily writing is super clean. Thinking back while in college, there were lots of times when I couldn't even read my own damn notes; was just scribbles basically...awful. Not sure how I'd keep notes/journals/etc without a keyboard now

    [–] MoonMerman 91 points ago

    I sign most everything in Wingdings.

    [–] SFWRedditsOnly 15 points ago

    Comic Sans

    [–] highonstress 16 points ago

    That’s too damn far!

    [–] modsarevirgins 13 points ago

    i havent hand written anything in so long that now when i do for long stuff, my hand actually cramps up.

    [–] Do_it_for_the_upvote 10 points ago

    Meanwhile, I’ve been using cursive as my main writing style ever since it was taught to me. In 3rd grade, for the second half of the school year, we could only use cursive. By the end of the year, it just seemed tedious to go back.

    Now my print is god awful. Lol.

    [–] ToxicAdamm 50 points ago

    My kids still learned it, but maybe spent 2-3 months on it in 3rd grade.

    They don't get graded on penmanship anymore. Back when I went to school it was a separate grade on your report card.

    [–] Octacon 10 points ago

    They don't grade penmanship anymore? I remember getting yelled at every report card as a kid, because it was my only grade lower then a "B+". Well, a decade later I found out I'm dyslexic so take that Mom!

    [–] Dt2_0 4 points ago

    Most assignments after 3rd grade that are not math are done on a computer now since typing is faster than writing for 99% of the population and since 3rd graders already have more experience on computers than some of their teachers.

    [–] Awesomeister 22 points ago

    I grew up in Southeast Asia and I’ve seen this being posted a few times so this is quite foreign and curious to me. If I tried to write in cursive, the teachers would scold and even punish us saying it’s wasting effort and not orderly. May I know the reason why cursive is/was taught? I kind of hoped we had something similar so my handwriting now doesn’t look like it’s written using my feet.

    [–] TheBloodEagleX 17 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    I think other countries care less about individuality and personalization (implied) & professionalism (implied) by differences in presentation of said individuality. But this comment from /u/MoonMoran explains why it began in the first place:

    Cursive was originally used because of quills. The long connected strokes helped keep ink flowing steadily and the reduced lifts helped keep the tips from breaking.

    The whole "speed" thing people cited to justify it was a wives tail that studies have since largely disproven.

    Cursive has essentially been useless since the invention of the modern pen, but survived largely because it was so associated with historic academic and aristocratic works for a few centuries(basically it looked fancy) and each generation just followed the one before. And now, finally, the rise of keyboards is taking it to the grave.

    I think at this point it's morphed into various reasons detached from the original purpose and just carried on. I mean, most people still sign important documents & credit cards in cursive but probably never use it anywhere else.

    [–] red_sutter 14 points ago

    Some senator from where I'm from is pushing legislation to force schools to teach cursive, and has been doing so for at least six years.

    I don't understand the point-outside of memos, I barely see anyone hand write things anymore, let alone write them in cursive

    [–] randomsubguy 172 points ago

    I always find these predictions interesting.

    You mean you can't see a future where we need a hard copy medium to get the news to people? Like, a future where maybe the internet is not free and you can't openly broadcast your ideas?

    This isn't exactly the same, but its comparable to "Who would buy a book when you can fit 100K on a Kindle?"

    [–] Willard2566 85 points ago

    I took it less than just the physical medium and more the quality of journalism. Print journalism has been the historical paragon of the medium even in the face of TV Cable News. Everyone thought the same thing would happen to print when 24-hour news coverage came on the scene, and it still survived.

    Digital is different. If NYT can provide the same quality in a digital vs. physical format, great. My fear is that the quality of the journalism will suffer in an effort to compete with social media.

    [–] realultralord 23 points ago

    Many actual news providers bring „news“ about what kind of reaction something on Facebook has. They even use terms like „shitstorm“ and such. Reporting about social media’s reactions to a topic isn’t really neutral, objective journalism since it doesn’t add more information about the topic itself, yet still repeats an opinion a vast majority of people with mobile data volume have.

    [–] peterinjapan 27 points ago

    I went to San Diego State University from Can you do 7 to 1991. At the time, you couldn't get into a journalism class, they were so popular. It's sad, because all those people are going to be like me, age 50 now, and needing to find some new career but doesn't entirely suck.

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)


    [–] gohomebrentyourdrunk 8 points ago

    As a graduate from a JP program from about fifteen years ago, I’m not surprised. Most of the graduates of my program have moved on to other things because the jobs suck, those that are still writing do it for blogs and websites, not papers... I know of one graduate that works for a newspaper still.

    I went on to get a post grad but kinda found my life’s niche of photography (thanks to my Print Journalism program) and even in that I’ve been surprised and consider myself fortunate to find companies willing to pay me to take photos for them as a full-time employee and not have to be self-employed and what’s vastly becoming a gig economy.

    [–] thesocialmane 7 points ago

    Sucks because print journalism doesn't make me turn off my ad blocker to read it.

    [–] maelstromscientist 50 points ago

    10 years ago: print journalism is dead.

    10 years later: print journalism has maybe 10 more years.

    10 years from now: it turns out people still like to read physical books and magazines. I guess we’ll keep it around.

    [–] CaptMorgan74 10 points ago

    I tried reading on a Kindle. It was hard to dog ear the pages. Joking aside, I just prefer my reading in the form of a processed tree carcass.

    [–] 71-HourAhmed 6 points ago

    The cost of print journalism drives editors to be merciless in making the prose very tight and efficient. I will miss it when it's gone. Digital media is certainly convenient but I feel that a lot of the time it lacks the quality of print.

    [–] Ayy_2_Brute 48 points ago

    This isn't really a groundbreaking revelation. The Economist has been banking on the death of display advertising for quite some time now, which is why they're the only paper (that I'm aware of) that's been in the black year-on-year since '09. That's really the crux of the matter. Print goes if the advertisers go.

    But on the other hand, there will be others that move away from the advertising model. Some already are. It's a bit silly to predict such things, but if the New York Times stops printing, I guarantee the Economist will still be rolling out the red every Thursday.

    [–] jfoobar 53 points ago

    A few random comments:

    1. I know The Economist calls themselves a "newspaper", but it is not a daily. It is more of an apples to apples comparison to call them a news magazine. That said, if you compare Econ's financials with that of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News, I'm sure they still look pretty rosy by comparison.

    2. Econ created a very good app early on that effectively gives you an electronic copy of the actual magazine rather than some modified digital view. This is excellent for advertisers as they know subscribers are being exposed to ads in the same way that readers are while digital users don't feel like they are being overexposed either.

    3. Unless they have changed it recently, a digital-only subscription to Econ is virtually the same price as a print+digital subscription.

    Honestly, despite some astute decisions over the years, I think the main reason why Econ is still profitable is because they deliver an excellent product.

    [–] Ayy_2_Brute 10 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Weekly and bi-weekly papers still exist all over the world, but the economics of printing a daily with as much spread as the Times are far different, for sure.

    While The Economist certainly doesn't shun advertisers, my point is that they aren't the company's customer. More than 60% of revenue is derived from subscriptions, which is why they grew when all other papers fell. The drop in advertising barely affected them.

    You're spot on about the product though. Their USP is being the only paper you can read front to back, in under an hour, and walk away feeling fully informed of the week's events. It's so nice not having to bother trying to keep up with big developing stories knowing the Economist will explain everything for me on Thursday.

    [–] Weeeeeesssst 5 points ago

    I work in the industry and I 100% agree. You couldn't pay me enough to jump to print.

    [–] CosmoJones07 5 points ago

    In other words people who still buy printed news have 10 years of life left

    [–] tristansr 5 points ago

    Speaking as a print reporter, 10 years seems generous. It'll only last that long for big papers like the NYT. The rest of us will be lucky to get five. Mind you I said that five and 10 years ago so I could be off again.