Old things die...

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Yep, and rabid dogs get put down.

Why would anyone would want to keep this menace to society around?
The sooner they are gone the better.

hee hee



https://i.imgur.com/2nO4H1f.png

Buy low, sell no.

LMAO

Sadly this is correct.

My entire family on my father's side all worked as newspaper pressmen from the early 1900's, myself included. It was a wonderful business at the time. :thumb:

I had a life in print publishing and got out in the 90s. I’m honestly sort of surprised print has hung around this long. Most don’t realize what an impact Craigslist had on newspapers and the importance of classified ads to the bottom line. The papers were literally printing money.

Now you have to have content that people can’t get in other places or a print format that is evergreen or tailored towards a higher-end customer who doesn’t mind paying $15-$20 for a magazine because of the niche it serves.

It can be done (transition to digital). High-quality content that is well edited and you can’t readily get by putting in a search term into Google. The Athletic and Wall Street Journal are two that come to mind that have pulled it off but I’m sure there are others I’m not remembering right now.

The Athletic isn't even pulling it off well.

They fired a bunch of staff.

None of these places can pay anyone shit. The KC Star was paying a bunch of older writers 70-80 grand and they all got laid off and replaced with kids making 30k.

We're going to be left with media monopolies in the future.

KC Star is just another outlet for the Dems to spread propaganda- good riddance.

They really ****ed up trying to run one of our best and loved players out of town.

Haven't read the Star since JoPo left. (read articles that people copy/paste on here but that's about it).

And the website is just loaded with bullshit, ads etc.

The one good thing about them sucking so much is that it helped create CP. Other than that, meh.

There should be some Hyde Park estates up for sale soon.

I wistfully think about days when I could read a newspaper and not know the personal opinion of the person who wrote the article. Most news today is really amateurish and biased and uses poor grammar to boot, and I find it sad.

But then I wonder if it was always that way, other than the grammar. There were fewer media voices back when newspapers and the three major networks ran the show, which meant that there was more potential for powerful people to control the stories. We just may not have known it, because they were more subtle than the amateurs who are running the show today.

Democratization of the news is a good thing in theory, but in practice it means that we have to wade through a lot of bad journalism to find the truth. The Star at some point became stuff to wade through, rather than rely on.

As soon as "clickbait" became a thing, it was bound to happen.

The internet pretty much killed the days where you could read a newspaper and just kinda chill out.

I wonder who fired the first shot in that war. Be interesting to read a history of online portals and who started the trend of being annoying for attention.

I'm kind of amazed that sites like CNN have clickbait ads on their home page. Is the revenue really worth completely undermining their credibility? Apparently it is. But jeez, their money home page has links to "stories" that are blatantly fraudulent. Right now, I see "paid partner content" on the CNN money page that has the headline, "Beginners guide shows how to turn $4,600 into $460,164 trading options". And I'm supposed to find CNN credible?

But yeah, it'd be interesting to trace back and see where this decline started, and why.