Arkansas Blog

Support of Intrernet news media is not a bad idea. I subscribe to Salon.com and contribute small amounts to Talking Points Memo and Washington Monthly. These are my primary sources of national news. If the Arkansas Times were to say that the AT Blog could no longer continue without outside funding, I would step up and subscribe or donate.

Having said that, I must add that I want print media to continue. I grew up in a home that subscribed to four daily newspapers, two morning and two afternoon, and I have always subscribed to the local paper wherever I lived. Now, I subscribe to the DoG, Time, and Newsweek. But the Internet is my primary source of information, and I suspect this is becoming the case for most people. I receive news alerts from Arkansas Business, the DoG, and other outlets, and I check the AT Blog several times a day.

If you ever need to charge for the AT Blog, Max, I will do my part to help you continue your mission.

The problem with the government giving money to news media is that the government can threaten to take it away if a news medium publishes something the government does not like. Even Mr. Rutherford's proposal has the government making decisions on the front end about which media will be supported: those ". . . with sound business models, an effective approach to community-based news reporting, and a demonstrated ability to adapt to life on the Internet . . ." Some Alberto Gonzales type is sorting those sheep from goats up in Washington -- it's hard for me to believe that could come out well.

This business of the government effectively nationalizing industries did not work well in the Soviet Union. In fact, the place pretty much went broke. BUT everyone had a job. Still, I expect a market-based system still is better in the long run.

As for newspapers, it doesn't matter how many there are, or whether they even exist, if no one wants to read them. And if more people wanted to read them these days, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

A better idea? Why not have a newspaper void of advertising that reflects the content of the character of the journalists? And charge appropriately for the talent!

I must feel like my great granddaddy did looking over at the buggy whip plant by his house as the internal combustion engine made buggy whips obsolete. I will miss newspapers, but not enough to subscribe to one any more. I was told yesterday that the SWTR has notified its Oklahoma customers they will not be throwing the paper to their yard ever again. If you want the Fort Baptist paper in Muldrow you'll have to go to a blue box and buy one.

I don't like killing all the trees to make newspapers when pixels are our most renewable resource. If you reproduced every newspapers that's ever been printed since the beginning of time online, it wouldn't cost a single leaf off any tree. That's a real good thing. But I'll miss dropping by McDonalds and reading a paper while I devour my Quarter-pounder. Maybe electronic news readers at every booth would fix that? I just don't know....but big big changes are coming. I imagine stone carvers were pissed when papyrus started becoming popular. It's always something.

Bill, an operation like that would have to charge $10 a copy just to break even, and I don't know many people who could afford $70 a week for a daily newspaper delivered to their door.

Am I the only one left who still sends Max good money to deliver up in the hills what he gives away for free in the big city? (Have I ever explained why, every time I say it, this reminds me of my big high school steady when I was a poor boy on the share-crop Kansas wheat farm?)

For those of us of a certain age, it ain't reading if you can't hold it in your hands, turn the pages, and finish knowing the thing as an interconnected whole. That said, I'd surely send more money if it were ever necessary to keep the blog alive, even though I mostly just lurk and admire DBI and Norma.

I have a real philosophical problem with advertising. Nothing else in our economic system adds so much to the cost of goods and services while adding nothing to their value. On the other hand, if it will keep the blog alive, I'll be glad to keep clicking when the arrow goes to a finger. I'd be even more glad if someone would explain the economics. Do I have to actually look at the windows that open?

>>But I'll miss dropping by McDonalds and reading a paper while I devour my Quarter-pounder.

I doubt it. Before too long your McDonald's table top will contain the news. Technology is here.

Click on blue.

>>If the Arkansas Times were to say that the AT Blog could no longer continue without outside funding, I would step up and subscribe or donate.

Having said that, I must add that I want print media to continue.<<

Pavel and others, why not spend about 6 bucks a month and subscribe to Ark Times. Or if you think all you need is on these pages then make your AT subscription a gift subscription to a conservative who needs enlightenment.

The real danger I see in the demise of newspapers that serve smaller communities is the loss of the public's watchdog over local government. I find it hard to imagine that the Democrat-Gazette (or any statewide or regional paper) would commit the resources to keep tabs on what's happening in most, or even many, small towns or sparsely populated counties. If a local official gets involved in some dirty dealings or overreaches his/her authority, it may seem like small potatoes to the big paper and thus not worth the investment of staff time and newsprint; on the other hand, a local paper that is beholden to a local readership will be much more likely to follow such leads and report them out. Or so I'd like to believe.

With the contraction of ownership of local papers as corporations buy out more and more small owners, the very nature of "local journalism" is changing, falling victim to the (perhaps inevitable) economies of scale; what was once a fully staffed office becomes a bureau, or even just a drop-in office where a reporter who covers several cities drops in a couple of times a week. Even those family owned papers that remain are finding they have to hire generalists rather than specialists -- not just a reporter, but a reporter who knows Photoshop and can lay out pages and manage the website. It's hard to excel as a reporter (or even just do a thorough job) if you've got multiple job descriptions.

The internet certainly has the potential to supplant newspapers, and I don't think that's necessarily all bad. But it will be a dramatically different model. Until revenues can match what print has produced in the past, it will be hard to bring on board enough reporters to support a news site. Or you don't get reporters at all -- you get bloggers, who don't have the same training or hold to the same standards as professional journalists. That means more opinion being passed off as reporting; sadly, much of the public seems to already have made that switch.

Finally, an internet-based news service will still likely leave many small communities out in the cold, because those are the places less likely to have high-speed connections, as well as the lowest proportion of wired households. Anyone have stats on the percentage of Arkansawyers who do and don't have internet at home? And how that breaks down between central and northwest versus the rest of the state?

I'm sorry to say, I'm pretty pessimistic about the future of my profession these days. I think once we've lost newspapers, especially in our smaller communities, it will be hard to replace them as both a source of information and an advocate for the public interest. Here's hoping I'm wrong!

How about that- a blogger with a good idea!

For several years for Christmas I gave a subscription to some friends who moved out of state, but I doubt that the Times clears even a whole buck on subscriptions. When Max is forced to set up a "Friends of the AT Blog Fund," I'll chip in my fair share.

My favorite part of local papers are the columns by the locals. Blogs won't hurt that, and they'll set a fire under local corruption far faster than print will. What is lost by not having dedicated reporters will be outweighed by interactivity.

I don't ever want to see professional journalists go away. Though very few seem very professional any more when they go rap and dance with Karl Rove and stuff like that. But we wouldn't be here blogging today if professional journalists hadn't been keeping our government honest, as honest, honester since George Washington was a pup.

But I think what we're seeing here is the full convergence of the information age. If everyone in America paid attention to what was going on around them and blogged it when they found something amiss...Cheney-Bush would have never been elected. Rod Bryant's video about the dangers of getting gas from shale in yesterday's thread was great information that would couldn't have had 10 years ago. Many a macaca moment is ahead of us. If the government can spy on us 24-7, we can spy on them 24-7, in hopes of someday having an honest government that represents ALL of the people.

Like being able to buy stocks like the big boys, and advertising national wide or globally on Graig's list and other Internet sites, we can now also let our opinions be known, and report bad shit when it happens, while the professional journalists do their thing, which is also needed. It's a great time to be alive! That's why I'm so pissed that Cheney-Bush and oil speculators and banking creeps, and war mongers and profiteers have handed us such miserable times....they're ruining our milk and honey days! I don't know how it will work out, but it always does and it will this time around too. If all newspapers stop tomorrow, by next week we'll be lining up to pay for news service if we have to.

Another thing to remember, little places like Mountainburg, and Evening Shade don't have papers because no one there can afford a million in start up costs. But...back to those free pixels...some smart person could start an online news service for pennies and saturate the market in that area. It all sounds strange to us now, but at one time people would have laughed if you told them someday people could sit at home and watch a box with moving pictures on it.

PS I like that table top news stuff at your link eLwood. That would fix me right up. I love to eat and enjoy my food while looking through the obituaries.....somehow it makes me feel pretty lucky.

Silverback, I used to share your sentiments about advertising vis a vis the cost of goods. Until a wise man name of Pat Walsh explained to me one day:

What if the makers of something, say cereal, had no access to advertising, and the only way they could tell you about a new product was to send people door to door to tell people individually about their great new cereal. Not only is it likely you would never hear about it, but also the cost of the cereal would be astronomical.

I despise TV commercials and dislike billboards and lots of print ads, and I REALLY hate pop-up ads on Internet websites (especially those like the one the Blog ran for so long that made a growling noise every time your cursor came near it. But I also recognize that these ads do more than subsidize the things I like to read and watch. They also -- very seldom, but occasionally -- tell me about things I want to buy.

The demise of the newspaper has been in the making for a long time. And they dropped investigative journalism as an expense a long time ago. Even the better newspapers (on a state and local level) cannot begin to do what the internet does or reach the same amount or more readers in a nano second.

This is a national security imperative now, from a educational and energy standpoint. The internet must be our next national public works project. Super high speed infrastructure (with net neutrality as its core principal) must be in every home in the country. Every child and citizen should have access to this information highway. The rest will work itself out.

Everything from, periodic table, the library of congress to the bible at a child's fingertips.. is a must. We are already way behind to many other countries.. with only greedy obstructionist cable and telco's as the reason why. The amount of energy saved by telecommuting workers/students alone.. makes this application an imperative.

At my name is one proposal... for 44 billion.

.Produce next-generation networks capable of delivering speeds of 100 Megabits per second through tax incentives that stimulate private investment.
.Spur competition by awarding higher tax incentives to companies that deploy world-class, fiber-optic networks that are open to multiple competitors.
.Fund the construction of next-generation broadband and wireless networks in rural and unserved areas.
.Help low-income Americans get connected by using stimulus funds to extend universal service programs to support broadband.
.Modernize the e-Rate program to connect children at home by supplying them with computers and lowering the monthly cost of Internet access.
.Bring health care and public services into the digital age and provide technology training to senior citizens and families with children.

ES, I will not be surprised if we see some of what you suggest within 4 years.

BHO uses a blackberry and actually knows what the "internets" are about.

He could have an intelligent conversation with Bill Gates.

I'm with DBI. Even with the struggle we will endure economically, the future looks so
much better.

DBI, it would take far less than a cool million to start a small weekly or monthly newspaper. Computers, the necessary publishing programs and printers are readily available. So are digital cameras so there's no need for darkroom equipment anymore. There's likely a larger paper within 50 miles or so (out of the competitive area) that will be happy to make a little extra money from their printing plant as long as you can coordinate schedules.
Secondhand office furniture and that spare bedroom will work for a little while. But don't plan on that being the norm for long. Neighbors sometimes get testy.
Sure, there are a lot of other start-up and ongoing costs that you have to spring for and it won't be cheap, but it's doable.
What is probably not be doable in a small town is finding enough businesses that can or will advertise, even if you are a crackerjack ad person -- selling and designing.
Oh, and the best time to start might be in an election year. Aspiring politicians want to get their message out and will shell out the bucks for it -- in advance, please.
A reporter? That's you, in addition to advertising sales. (Hey, I said doable, not easy.) After the paper has been up and running for a while, you will likely have some local folks, maybe even a high school kid, who will write for you just for the pleasure of contributing. Pick the best of these, run with them and hope you can afford to pay them a pittance.
Like I said, it's doable. But you keep in mind that if the advertising support isn't there, you're sunk from the git go.

Ya know...it would be interesting to try my hand at reporting. My wife is an ex-reporter, a trained U of A graduate of the journalism department. She'd never make it in today's world because she totally swallowed all that ethics in journalism bullshit and that is a thing of the past.

But it would be interesting to try my hand at real reporting. I have no idea if I could do it. I may think a lot better than I listen and translate.....that keeps me respecting professional journalists..the few we got left in the world. I think your wrong about the start up costs of a new newspaper. You can't do it with a Wal-Mart PC and a Epson printer.....takes a lot more than that. It will all work out in the end...TV in 1946 didn't resemble what we have today. They didn't know how long news should last or how many times a day to put on the news or how to make advertising pay......yet in a few years it became the set standard we all grew up with. The same will happen with newspapers and Internet ventures in the future. Even at this point the Internet Tubes are in their infancy. It's still new and exciting and there will be a lot of trial and error in the future before it all becomes very standard and boring to our grandchildren.

Maybe not a Wal-Mart computer and a low end printer, DBI . . . It does take a lot of computer memory for some to the programs needed, but we're still not talking huge bucks. The printer? There are decent printers that copy, scan, fax and all the other stuff. While I'm not saying it will last forever, it can get you started. All the composing and cutting and pasting is done on computer now. You even send the dummied sheets via computer -- no paper involved here -- to the printing company's computer. Yeah, you 'll probably need a high speed connection, but that's usually not a problem if you live in town. If all goes well at the printing plant (hah!), you pick up your bundles at the appointed time.
Printing costs will tear a hole in your pocket, and so will mailing costs if you go that way. But if you're willing and able to do much -- all???? -- of the work yourself, I think you can make it.
In any case, the key to all this working is having a great ad person. I can't say that loud enough -- A GREAT AD PERSON.
Sorry to say that the reporter is waaaay down the list in terms of whether or not the paper succeeds. A really bad one can hurt you, but a good one can only build on what the ad person is capable of doing.

DBI--why don't you revive THE GRIT?

Or, produce something like THE POLICE GAZETTE, and harp over and over that Hitler is still alive.

>

I have to disagree with you strongly here, Doigotta. A good ad person is crucial for bringing in revenue, yes. However, if the product they're selling ads for is only mediocre, then it will have fewer subscribers, and subscriber numbers are crucial for selling space to big advertisers, or getting long-term advertising contracts.

Good, solid reporting that not only gives the people what they want to know, but alerts them to things they need to know, is central to a successful local newspaper. Especially at community weekly papers. If your reporter isn't beating the statewide daily in your own town, or isn't able to find new angles on stories the daily beat you on, then people don't have incentive to subscribe to your paper.

A great ad rep won't be able to overcome the drop in subscription numbers that a mediocre reporter will cause. Likewise, a great reporter who draws many readers in isn't much good to the bottom line if you have a mediocre ad rep who doesn't get out there and beat the bushes. While there should always be a strong wall separating advertising and editorial content, they're still two vital parts of the same machine.