An opinion piece titled What’s wrong with the newspaper? generated a flood of responses — some of them even constructive.
When I open the Free Press in the evening, I’ve found I have read all the articles and news already via the Internet. Some news I’ve read days before. And soon to come your way are web smart flat screen TV’s. Print media like the Free Press in its current form are doomed.
Unfortunately, convenience, instant followup, and easy access all day long, with updates while you’re reading are available on line. The daily press is just that, the daily press. The insta-story comes with ability to research the concepts/history/background on line, as you read, and people like things fast and firsthand.
As furious as that makes you feel, it’s the way of the future. Remember there once was a model T Ford.
I want the newspaper to be more in depth about the important stories of the day. More of not that this event happened, but why it happened. I am also looking for an educational gain from what I read in the newspaper. If the newspaper can do these things, then I will take the time to read it.
When I cancelled my print subscription and switched to online (for about half the cost), I shampooed my sofa. The water came out black. Never again will I have newsprint in my home. With the online news, I can read the paper from anywhere, never have to worry about weather delays, etc.
I’m so sorry for those young (laid off) reporters. The news industry IS evolving, and they would be the better people to make it happen successfully.
I’m a voracious reader of real news, and have no use for newspapers. I don’t need to pay money to be lied to, to read copy and pasted corporate/government press releases, coverage of only one side of issues, complete and total avoidance of major stories because they weren’t spoon fed to the paper for coverage, and advertising disguised as news (how many iPhone "news stories" today?).
— J Galt
Though entirely aware that this piece is about the decline and transition of print media to some Internet page, I think Ms. Cutrona unintentionally commented on the shallowness and superficial nature of modern culture. Where a headline is now the content, and the content is now redundant. While we would like to think that a progressive movement is happening, something with meaning and substance — the truth of the matter is that youth are not rejecting established journalism, but rather are unable to look beyond the surface of anything that is difficult to hold or takes too long to read. Opinion is now substance — we want to think like everyone else, and to validate ourselves by what the next person retweeted and followed. You’re Conservative, choose your feed accordingly. You think you’re modern, choose something ironic. Forget insight into anything — just wear the costume, the glasses, the lipstick — you think you have the gist, so you’re a part of the club.
I’ve read to the bottom of this page of comments, but no one seems to share my gripe that over the years that the number of ads in the papers seemed to be overwhelming the news columns, robbing the readers of their pleasure.
While I understand the revenue pays for production and wages, it was quite annoying to turn to any page and find only a smidgen of news hiding in the top corner, with the rest of the page devoted to ads.
Newspapers started the decline before the internet. When it was an evening edition the news was more up to date. Because I was disappointed with the paper after this change, I requested a Saturday only edition. This brought a constant follow ups from Free Press telemarketers that harassed me so much I cancelled the paper all together. The evening edition also provided employment to youth and provided a community tie. When it became a morning edition it was the end of the neighborhood paperboy as well.
As a carrier for both the Tribune and Free Press I remember getting to know the neighbors while collecting money.