I prefer the print edition of a newspaper. However, as this newspaper became more of an OPINION piece than NEWSpaper, I cancelled my subscription. Why PAY to read something I disagree with when I can skim for the real news online for free?

If this newspaper would concentrate on reporting facts and leave the lecturing and smug opinions out of it, I would most definitely resubscribe.

OK…I really need to step in here and try and set the tone. If you want another topic where you can complain about the Post-Dispatch, I will happily create it…but I’d really like us to stick to the topic here. Please.

Yes, I would miss it. For all that I often disagree with editorial stances, newspapers remain the best way to get relatively objective reporting in any kind of depth (even though budget cutbacks are making reporting more shallow). Television news is unbelievably shallow. I prefer to receive a newspaper rather than read it online, because it is much easier on my eyes, and quicker and easier to navigate.

News is very important to me. I spend a lot of time each day reading news sites on the Internet, including STLToday. No longer do I have to brush ink off of my hands, throw away stacks of used newsprint, or try to turn to page 8 while sitting next to someone on the Metrolink.

Yes, I would definitely miss the newspapers. I like to read the paper at leisure and come back to it later if necessary. It is too difficult to read the news online.

Yes, at the coffee shop I frequent. Fortunately, it doesn’t have wi-fi, so, those people plugging away at their laptops must be writers. Good news for the PD: the vending box in front of the store is frequently empty.

Kurt,

I’ve seriously wrestled with this. Would I miss newspapers - including the Post-Dispatch?

News IS very important to me. One of the joys of my life is to sit in my living room in the morning and read the newspaper - which is FAR preferable over sitting in front of a computer or television ‘viewing’ the news.

Yet, I’m still smarting from the lack of REAL investigative coverage of substance on President-elect Obama who, I sincerely believe, received a free ride from the national media from beginning to end…

…while that same media couldn’t WAIT to go to Alaska and dig up every expense report of Sarah Palin they could find, every grainy video of church service/beauty pageant that she was in, report every heinous rumor whether it resembled an ounce of truth or not (and almost ALL of it was NOT the truth).

It was truly disgusting to observe - and the Post-Dispatch picked up ALL of these stories, wrote numerous editorials (Eric Mink/editorial board) that reflected this stunning bias. How ANYONE could deny this is beyond me…and I predict four years of continued fawning coverage for this man.

But, back to your original question…would I miss the newspaper (or choose not to subscribe?)

It has nothing to do with having other avenues of accessibility to information.

Although, yes, I would miss the newspaper (and/or choose not to subscribe) but because of the reasons I’ve noted above…

…I simply have NO trust in what you all do any more…and I’m saddened by that.

I would say that (having grown up with the mindset of being paperless) I would prefer to read the paper online. I do realize that if the paper did cease to exist, many people would lose their jobs. I wouldn’t want that to happen, so, to each his own, but I would much rather skim over the details online. I really don’t have the time at morning/night to read the newspaper.

I guess everyone else (Clipper) can go to Fox news online and read over the “facts.”

Miss the Post with all of it’s Democratic views?? NO

Kurt:

I depends by what you mean by “stop publishing”. If the paper were to fold, I would miss it greatly. Having said that, We buy only the Sunday paper, and have done so for years, and we only get that for the coupons. Even on Sunday, I tend to read the paper online.

I’m an IT guy, and I find it easier to read the online version than the print version. I also like that on stltoday.com stories get updated as they develop. The time lag between writing, editing, printing and delivering is probably a newspaper’s biggest competitive disadvantage.

Yes, I would miss the newspaper. I prefer the real thing over staring at a screen.

As for all the liberal-bias crybabies: stop your constant complaining and go start your own newspapers.

Asolutely — I would definitely miss the newspaper. I love being able to scan a few favorite features on stltoday.com, like this blog, while eating luch at my desk, then going home to read in newsprint the editorials or other articles that deserve more in-depth examination. The paper is cheap, and I consider myself lucky to have daily access to it quickly and easily.

If I may add my own editorial comment, I think it is a sad day and an even sadder commentary on our shallow society when so many papers are going out of business. And contrary to the too-popular belief of those determined to look for one a them dadburn ole’ Lib’rals ehind every door, I don’t believe the decline of the printed media has anything to do with the mythical “Liberal Press.” Rather, it has everything to do with the dumbing-down of a society in which reading is devalued daily and pop/TV culture is all the rage. Next time you consider why Johnny can’t read or write properly, you might want to go to his house and see how many books you can find in it — or maybe ask Daddy how recently he put down the TV remote and picked up something written.

About two years ago, I cancelled my daily suscriptions as I can view news online during my lunch hour during the week.

However, I would definitely miss the paper on the weekend. Like someone mentioned in another e-mail, I like being able to sit back in my recliner and leisurely read through the paper. I work on a computer all week, and do not want to have the read on the computer when I am away from work.

My greatest memory is of Sunday mornings after breakfast. Mom and Dad have their sections of the newspaper, we have the comics and the older siblings are reading to the younger ones. Or Mom and Dad might read an article that they think would be interesting to us.

I continued that tradition when my nieces and nephews started spending weekends with me. Now that they have children of their own, they often stop by on Sunday morning, and we spend time together reading the newspaper and visiting.

Not at all. Once and awhile, I get a Sunday paper for coupons or the ad’s. But when the paper comes, the news itself is already old to me. My home page is yahoo, so every half hour or so, I look at the local and national news to see if there is anything new that catches my eye. The whole process takes maybe 30 seconds tops, since news doesn’t happen that fast around here and there usually isn’t anything new. It’s just so much quicker to scan the headlines online, plus I’m saving a tree.

Yes,I miss newspapers. I miss having two newspapers that would compete. I miss a paper that weighed more than the plastic it’s wrapped in. I miss how the vast majority of the articles were written by locals. I wish a publisher was a newspaper man, not an advertising executive. I hate that the PD is being phased out in favor of the Journals. Which, by the way, still litters my lawn, eventhough they say we have to subscribe (why would I subscribe to an advertising rag like that?).
Here’s what I’d like. StlToday by subscription only. A newspaper on my doorstep everyday with important local and national stories, written by locals who understand what those stories mean to St. Louisans. A publisher with guts and vision. An owner concerned with making an impact on the community.
Newspapers can become important again if people in the newspaper business quite giving all their power to the internet.
Yes, Kurt, news is important to me, but why would I buy the cow when the milk is free?

Rupert Murdoch nailed it when he said the media’s arrogance is the cause of their problems. If my customer base told me, by cancelling subscriptions, thousands of times a month, that I have a problem, I would fix it. Has your paper - or any of the other esteemed publications that are on the brink of collapse? Heck no, the Obama-fest amped-up big time. Fine - goodbye.

Another example. I’ve written columninsts from your paper to please quit using the term “The Lou” to refer to our city. I contend it reminds most people around the world of the loo - the toilet. (Do a search on the Internet for the term loo - newspapers around the world use the term.) Why not use St. Lou, which uses the same character count, is endorsed by our chamber of commerce, and is not a homophone for the toilet? Know what I was told by your esteemed Sherpa? Kiss off. Know what I was told by your entertainment writer (boy will I miss her when the cuts come (NOT))? Kiss off. Fine - goodbye.

I honestly don’t know if the decline of newspapers is due to the perceived bias of the press.

There are a myriad of other outlets for people to get their news and information.
Ad revenue is down across the board.
Individual subscriptions are down.

All I know is that I have many friends who have cancelled their subscriptions to the Post-Dispatch because of the bias who, otherwise, enjoy reading a local newspaper….and if I choose to do the same, it will be because of that reason - and that reason alone.

The Post is still publishing and people don’t miss it. The ever-dwindling circulation numbers tell you that.

Kurt, with reference to your original question - would you miss the newspaper if it stopped publishing, and then your comment to Clipper below. Most of the major daily newspapers don’t really report news, they are advocates for the Democrat party and the liberal left. Would I miss it? No. I also think that was Clipper’s point which you misunderstood. If print newspapers reported the news without an agenda they would have some value. Print media is like snail mail, late but worth something if you get something out of it. As it is however, what is the point if the value is only propaganda?

I get all my news online for the most part. I can’t tell you the last time I bought a paper. I am also huge on recycling. The fact that I have been unable to stop my Journal delivery so I have to throw it in my recycle trash irks me to no end….but I know I’m in the minority as I’m sure most people just toss them in the trash.

“Would you miss newspapers if they stopped publishing?”

Yes, when I travel, I like USA Today in the morning with breakfast, they have a decent sports section. Now if the question were changed to “Would you miss THIS newspaper if they stopped publishing?” I would miss the weekend coupons, but not the paper itself.

I would definitely miss the print version. As a recently retired person, the first thing I do each morning is turn on the coffee and bring in the paper. I cannot imagine life without it.

I would miss the weekend paper for sure. I don’t get the paper delivered to my home anymore because the guy couldn’t seem to hit my driveway. My wife stops and picks one up most days. I read it on the internet through the week but not on weekends. It’s kind of a ritual to read the paper on Saturday night. Enough said.

Less paper waste and killing trees. I love reading online. I can read several different news outlets a day from all over the US without having to pick up trash at the end of my driveway. The only part of the paper Id miss being delivered is the Sunday paper for its coupons.

Depends what you mean by publishing. Gathering and disseminating news, yes. Putting the equivalent of a split quarter of wood in my yard every week, no.

I’m with the group who misses when newspapers were newspapers, and not celeb/sports scandal sheets. I’m still not very happy with Internet news because it lacks editing/proofing/verification to a degree that paper did not.

And I find the variety of “sticky ads” on stltoday annoying, because with small screens, you cannot mouse around them; then the close button doesn’t work well. I will be interested to know if the current Suburban Journals model works at all…papers have been supported by a combination of subs and ads for a long time. With the paper free, and editorial matter supplied, I read that paper; I have not, and will not pay a subscription to look at the ads and entertainment fluff–yeah, the ad-only logs go right into the recycle now, and I wonder when the remaining ad accounts are going to catch on to this. The downside is there is no longer any way to find out what is happening in my town– there is no Franklin county politics website, and part of my town is in STL and Jeff Counties, too. Web navigation is still clunky. They need to fix that before all news goes digital.

I like the idea of micropayment for Net news perusing..you only pay for what you see. Newspapers are so often driven by their advertising, but they forget without the editorial matter, no one would even pick up the ads.

So is news important to you?

Yes.

Would you miss the newspaper if it stopped publishing?

Yes.

But you knew that already.

I have not subscribed to the Post since they became the only newspaper in town and are definitely liberal leaning. I never felt I got the “whole picture”. I personally know of individuals interviewed by the Post and the story that came out in print was NEVER what was actually stated by these individuals. I only view on-line if something of interest has happened in this area or I want to view the obits. I do not even watch local news unless there is something I need to know, i.e., weather, major crimes. Again, individuals I know personally were interviewed by the TV reporters and the story was not accurately reported. Speaking politically, I feel that the news stations, print news and so-called celebrities of our time who chose to shove their liberal agendas down the throats of all Americans will find out that their very livelihood may very well be affected since about half of America does not agree with them at all. One way to voice our disagreement is with our wallets.

I would not miss any newspapers if they stopped publishing. I don’t have the time to sit and read printed news, just pick it up online. I do read Stltoday but would never pay for it. I would pay for the Post if not for the fact that it has been nothing more than a press agent for the Democratic Party for years - there is not even the slightest attempt to appear unbiased. It used to be just the editorial pages but now it appears in all the news stories as well. I predict the PD will stop the print version within the next 3 years.

No, I probably wouldn’t miss it. Most of the local news reported in the paper is of no interest to me personally, and regional/national/global news is available all over the Net (and usually a lot faster too for that matter). I do appreciate and participate in the blogs, and read the occasional article online. If this was a pay site though I’d just go elsewhere. Perhaps print newspapers time has come and gone…

Dwindling subscription numbers. Some claim it has to do with the liberal bias, but I think they are missing the elephant in the room – we are in a recession (with signs of a depression). When times are tough, people make cuts where they can. Check with Direct TV, Dish or Charter – I’ll bet their numbers are down too. Does it have to do with their “bias”? No, it has to do with eliminating that monthly bill.

Others claim the Internet will be the downfall of newspapers. But the truth is; the Internet is a delivery channel – not a news source. Without reporters, how do we know what law the government is trying to pass/amend/repeal? You can’t have an opinion on the Governments actions if you don’t know about those actions. Without a reporter who’s JOB it is to be there, witness the events, and report back to the people, the Internet quickly turns into a massive example of the “telephone game” (“I know it’s true, because I heard it from my sister’s hair cutter’s house keeper who heard it from the lawn boy”). Reporting doesn’t happen for free, but if you want to have a Democracy, it has to happen.

The PD is one of the few papers that still has people getting out there and digging. It’s a testimony to how rare that is today, that many of our local stories make the National (and sometimes, International) news. The truth is, most news sites and newspapers are nothing more than “repeaters” for AP and/or Reuters. All the sites have the same news – often using the same wording, because they are all tapping the same sources. The PD is one of the few that still generates it’s own content, so St. Louis gets lots of attention. Personally, I don’t care about the notoriety- but I am pleased that this reporting makes it harder for people to get away with things here. Perhaps if the Chicago Tribune hadn’t been so in bed with Blago, he wouldn’t have gone so bad.

So yes, if the PD completely went out of business, I would miss it (and the region would be poorer without it). However, if the print form was to go away, without impacting the journalism, I wouldn’t be as upset. I like real hard copy – but I find the online version pretty convenient. I guess the real question is, could the PD (or any traditional daily paper) support itself - and it’s journalism - with online revenue alone? I don’t know the answer, but I sure hope they don’t decide to cut back on the real reporting – because if all they are going to do is repeat the newswire, I can go elsewhere online for that.

The print versions are good for puppy potties, the online versions ad-filled and clunky slow because of it. But the old line investigative reporters and opinion molders are priceless. Witness your brave reporters who reported the local defense department crooks, got banned form their premises, and saw their work go for naught as good old boy letters set the felons free to rob again. Wasting scarce investigative dollars along the way.

Bias is in the eyes of the beholders. It seems to me plenty of conservatives are allowed to dominate these blogs. Plenty of anti-liberal bias in the PD pages. (it’s funny how they keep coming back if it is so bad, you’d think Fox News would keep them busy enough) My grandfather had to encourage newspapers to print retractions after he was called a communist for his union organizing back when you could get killed for even thought of being one. So what you print DOES have consequences, and should be as factual as possible.

I’ve watched many who dropped out of school get their education reading newspapers, and they are often better informed than college grads staying isolated in ivory towers. Many of you working here have become very familiar to us becuse of your quirks and personalitites. Even those I don’t agre with I would miss if they were gone.

Absolutely. My morning paper–though late more often than not–is just as much a part of my day as my cup of coffee. My mind needs the stimulation, and I don’t always have the time to watch the news or get on line.

Mr. Greenbaum - I used to really enjoy getting the newspaper. I love to read and I try to educate myself on what is going on in the world. I much prefer to do that with the print edition. Yet, the PD (as evidenced by your response to my post) doesn’t really care why they are losing subscriptions. I had a subscription for years and finally cancelled as the news seemed to go by the wayside in favor of opinions. Did anyone from the PD ask WHY I was cancelling. No. Didn’t care (although I did receive call after annoying call to resubscribe for the longest time). I’m telling you the WHY (and I am definately not the only one), but you all are so hard-headed you will not listen to your readers and are going to make yourself irrelavant. What a shame.

Absolutely. My morning paper–though my subscription is late more often than not–is just as much a part of my day as my cup of coffee. My mind needs the stimulation, and I don’t always have the time to watch the news or get on line.

I’m trying not to laugh Kurt at your trying to not hear about the bias at the PD. That train left the station long ago and is just a given in this town and does have a lot to do with the number of cancellations since President Bush has been in office; however, here is my real comment:

Yes, yes, yes! I would truly miss the print PD and so would my mother.
I am a 7-days-a-week paid subscriber with a wonderful delivery person who has my paper in my driveway around 4:45AM. I get my coffee and turn on MSNBC and read the entire paper minus the Sports section which my spouse reads.

I have been begging the PD not to be so biased for the last 8 years so that it doesn’t go under. I feel that all my work may have been in vain. I spend a lot of time researching the news on-line and love not having to do so early in the morning to read my local paper.

I would not miss the print version. I get all of my news online, and I prefer it that way not only because it saves time, but also because it is more eco-friendly.

Someone in a previous post referred to people in my age group participating in the “dumbing down of America”. This is naive. I am very well informed, and so are many of my friends. Just because we choose to read our news online instead of via “print news” does not make us “dumb”. I am interested in both hard news and pop culture, and I am smart enough to have opinions on both. Newspapers are the casette tapes of the news world. They have become obsolete, and when the baby boomer generation starts dying off in large numbers, so will the print papers. Also, the unwillingess of print papers to change with the times will ensure their downfall. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

I would definatly miss the paper in print form and worry about the continuance of “free press” in this country. You can argue that the news media is all biased anyway, and I find a majority of this to be true. That being said, I believe the industry can survive if it were to change it’s business model slightly. It is true that the internet and increasng number of broadcast options available deliver content in a faster manner, however the power a physical copy of the paper has is unbelievable. The industry needs to report fact based news as it always has, but actuall needs to expand it’s offering to include more public comments. Instead of competing with the internet, it needs to publish the comments posted in these rooms in it’s print edition. The opinion based reporting needs to be limited to a specific section of the paper, the main sections being FACT only. I have sold newspaper subscriptions in all sections of the country over the last 2 years and hear the same reasons given for people to drop over and over. The newspaper industry is in serious decline and the only was to recover is to listen to the reasons for such decline and adjust. Anyone viewing this is welcome to contact me, I’d love to be a part of the solution.

Clipper: I think if you’ve read this blog regularly, you’d acknowledge that I leave myself and our newspaper open to criticism pretty frequently. And I try to address it when it comes up. I also note that we do the same on our Editors’ Desk blog.

My only concern about attributing The Downfall of Newspapers to some perceived liberal bias is that it doesn’t make sense to me. There are newspapers that are perceived to have a conservative/pro-business bias as well. They, too, are facing the same economic challenges.

Those challenges seem to have more to do with the economics of the industry than these perceived editorial biases. They’re issues such as classified advertising moving online; the consolidation in the retail industry; and the myriad of ways consumers get their news.

But if the prevailing opinion is that liberal bias is killing the newspaper industry, I reckon that’s as legitimate an issue as the economics. Perception, as they say, is reality.

“So is news important to you? Would you miss the newspaper if it stopped publishing?”

Yes to both. The sad thing is, paper mills and trees notwithstanding, the daily newspaper is gradually disappearing. It has been since I was a child, so for the past 60+ years.

The demands put on the newspaper are not the same as the 24/7 televised/broadcast news stations/channels. At their best local or regional newspapers provide calendars, summaries, and investigative reporting germane to the readers. However, until there is 100% connectivity in every community, newspapers will not disappear.

It does mean that the daily newspaper will eventually morph into something that embodies both the on-line world and print world.

Besides, how could one do the crossword puzzle while sitting on the pot — a lap top may not be the thing.

I get the paper on Sunday once in a while for the coupons, I like to browse the ads, and once in a while my comments in this forum were printed. I cancelled my subscription to the Post Democrat a few years ago because, for the most part, everything printed in it I already had read on-line the day before.

So I wouldn’t miss it if it were gone. Printed news is eventually going to go the way of the typewriter and the quill/inkwell.

Yes, I definitely would miss the morning newspaper. There is something ritualistically appealing about waking up, starting the coffee and walking to the end of my driveway at 6:30 a.m. to get the paper. I no longer live in St. Louis so don’t know if the Post is still a morning paper (when I was a kid, it was an afternoon paper).

I think many of the conservatives here are missing the point that the reason a lot of the newpapers are folding and becoming “biased” is that they are becoming owned by conglomerates with a biased corporate agenda more and more. And we have had a president who for eight years banned only the reporters who did not agree with his warped agenda of daddy’s vendetta. Few remember years ago when the Yippies, with much less resources than traditional media, would scoop them on stories by about eight years. The conservatives ranted and railed and tried to jail the Yippies, only to report the same stories themselves when the times made it less dangerous to do so, or it fit their new agendas better. Those who do not remember history…
Handing Kurt my full-face helmet>>>>>>>

I don’t think your question is valid, Mr. Greenbaum.

As someone who has studied journalism, I feel that I need to present a different side of the story. Not all papers are failing. In fact, some are increasing their circulation.

Which ones, some might ask?

Community Newspapers. Those in small towns. Why? Because those areas do not have a TV station, and so, as far as local news goes, they’re pretty much it.

In fact, the past decade has seen quite a bit of growth of both community papers and “alt-weeklies.”

That might be why the post is emphasizing the Journals. The only problem there is people in the “collar” counties, being St. Charles, Franklin, Jefferson and so forth, can get news with reporters who live in and know their communities, for a cheaper price, than, say, the Tri-County Journal, which features one reporter covering three counties.

The claim of a bias is not everywhere either. I’ve been a reporter for 8 months. In that time I’ve been accused of being too conservative and too liberal. Well, as the old saying goes, I must be doing something right then.

Polls have shown that people feel there are twice as many media sources that are too liberal than too conservative, however.

Regardless, bias has no place in the NEWS. It does, however, on the editorial page. People need to learn to differentiate the two as well. Just because an editor or editorial staff is left- or right-leaning does not mean every article to staff produces shall be, BUT, while everyone knows ad revenue is the TRUE source of a paper’s profits (if they’re even making profits anymore), without subscribers, advertisers have no reason to buy the paper.

So to answer your question, people won’t miss the papers that are and do go under, because they were obviously doing something wrong. It might be harsh, but “harsh reality” quite literally is.

Yes, I would absolutely miss the newspaper. There is nothing so relaxing as a Sunday with nothing to do, but curl up with the newspaper. Even the ads get read from cover to cover on those wonderful Sundays. I don’t live in St. Louis anymore, but still try to keep up with the news on-line daily. I do have access to the Sunday print paper so I can still have my St. Louis fix most Sundays.

Sorry? For intelligent dialogue and possible discourse? LOL.

I wouldn’t miss the newspaper in print form, but I would miss the newsgathering organizations the newspapers have behind them. I am from a city that had several newspapers, even today. I would pick up each of the papers and read about different angles each had rooted out for a story. Sadly, you can’t get that in a one-paper town, and you can’t get that if everything you’re getting is off the wire. There isn’t even a news radio station in what passes for some cities. Must be nice to be in an area where nothing happens, or extremely boring, or severely deluded. Worse is the dreck I see on cable television and a 5 second sound bite with a looping video tape which passes for electronic journalism. Even NPR had a significant reduction in force within their organization and stopped production of two shows.

So, if newspaper newsgathering organizations fold, who is going to do our journalism and give us information we need to be informed? Faux News? Bloggers? Streaming audio from Radio Havana? And, what do I tell my grandchildren when I try to describe how a real newspaper reporter could root out a story from what seems mundane to anyone else? What of the crusty editor deciding what’s news and what’s not? Eh, they won’t care. When they come to awareness, they’ll probably be tuned in to some bloviator spewing un-fact checked opinion as if it were true. Some skeezix actually told me once that it must be true because he heard it on his radio. I nearly threw my shoes at him.

Now that we’ve hashed through the hard stuff, I left you the easy part: all you have to do is develop some sort of revenue model where people actually buy things from the advertisers on your website so you could keep paying the reporters, editors, photographers, etc.

Iwouldn’t miss the post since they now only seem to publish local news but I would miss some of the real papers that have a national and global content.

I get 100% of my news online. Haven’t touched a “real” newspaper in 5 years.

My opinion has nothing to do with liberal bias. People who have an issue with liberal bias really have an issue with the Editorial Section of papers and not papers as a whole. What the Posts Editorial Page thinks of Obama and George Bush has nothing to do with reporting of serious local news events or sports coverage, which is what I use the Post for.

I wouldn’t care if an actual newspaper stopped circulation because I don’t get my news from hardcopy newspapers. All of my information comes from local and nation televised news or a handfull of websites like this. Now maybe circulation helps keep this site afloat. Thats great. But I have no need for “paper” news.

The only thing I would miss are the special editions marking sporting events.

I do have one final observation. My family recycles, my fiance is very into it. I’m sort of whatever about it. I have no problem doing it, but I don’t fret if one can hits a trash can instead of a recycle bin. Basically I’m not hyper green vigilant. Now I’m sure todays newspapers are printed on ultra recycled paper and all that, but when you take into account the amount of paper used on a daily basis by every newspaper in the nation, thats a lot. Someway, somehow trees are going down to get that out. I’d imagine the reduction of printed papers would have an “environmentally friendly” effect, at least in the eyes of the ultra greens.

Then again, there would be the job loss. Be it in house print staff or outside sources, that much of a reduction in production would cost a ton of jobs.

It goes to show that no action can have a univerally positive or negative effect. As for me, I might still be holding a grudge for not getting good delivery service last time I had a subscription.

We have not subscribed to, or even purchased, a printed paper in forever. I read several papers on line daily and get to read the newspapers that I enjoy and not just the liberal drivel of the Post Dispatch. (not complaining, just stating fact). I do read the PD online daily, and I do enjoy most of it. The beauty I have is that I can read other, more conservative papers, on line as well and get the other point of view, one more in line with my point of view.

It’s interesting we should have this topic today. Over the weekend I read that this economic crisis is the worst since the Great Depression. Then I sat down and watch “Meet John Doe”, a 1941 Capra classic in which a fiesty young Barbara Stanwick is layed off by her newspaper in the opening scene. A new owner takes over the floundering newspaper and cuts costs instead of looking for ways to increase circulation. With a fabricated letter from John Doe, Stanwick single-handedly saves the newspaper. It has a definite hard-times theme. BTW, the real culprit, of course, turns out to be the selfish publisher, who puts his political ambitions above the newspaper and it’s readers. So, to RHarnack’s point, the death of the newspaper industry is not a new idea. The difference? The publishers of the newspapers have a conservative tilt and they have political and social clout.

We would miss it as much as a person would miss having a prostate exam. The world would be a better place without the influence of HIGHLY biased and left-wing agenda driven newspapers and editorial boards.

Are you failing economically because your owners leveraged a value that is no longer viable?

I just witnessed a well capitalized company, AB, get itself cherry picked into an highly leveraged enterprise.

Is this about journalism and newspapers, or something else, and greed is too easy an answer?

Mr. Greenbaum - I would agree that you generally leave things open for criticism. However, The Editors Desk blog is not a good example. A couple of things Mr. Parker has brought up on the Editors Desk: the newspaper telling people who they should vote for and newspapers having an ombudsman. Does it make a difference what the readers think? Will the newspaper stop telling people who they should vote for or bring back the ombudsman if that is what the readers want? When I asked that question there was never an answer given (although I would say that is actually an answer in itself).

I pretty much lost all respect for this paper when Arnie Robbins violated Missouri state law and Lee Enterprises’ code of ethics to out the death penalty doctor. I had no problem with the story - until he named the doctor. What makes Arnie Robbins and the PD above the law? If you don’t care about the law or the company code of ethics, then you certainly don’t care what we lowly readers think.

I know, I know, if I don’t like it then don’t read it. Unfortunately, this is pretty much the only source for local news so I don’t have much choice.

Sorry I’ve gone on a rant. I will not make any further comments on the subject.

I’m a generation X’er. I get all my news and media from my laptop. It is the newspaper of the future. I can read Stltoday, New York Times, London Times Edmonton Journal and the Globe and mail all at my finger tips. Newspapers are good for training dogs and swatting flies. I like my news a little more current than yesterday.

Kurt,

Perception may be reality, but objectivity is a myth. I submit that it is impossible to be unbiased. Of course, the inevitable counter is, “facts are not biased – they just are”. Well, allow me to give you an example.

Fact: When Bush took office, the Dow Jones was at 10,587.59, it closed Friday at 8,629.68 – a negative 17.59% return for a 7 year 11 month period.

This is unquestionably true – but is it unbiased? I say that by bringing up a negative fact (the poor market performance under Bush), I taint him with a negative connotation.

The truth is, simply by choosing a topic, you show a bias toward that topic – regardless of whether the discussion stays fact based or ventures into opinion. Therefore, objectivity (meaning the absence of bias) is impossible to achieve.

Personally, I do not look for a lack of bias when I choose a news source. I look for two things, the first is that the paper chooses topics I find interesting. If the stories consistently make me think, they are choosing well. If they keep putting up articles that I skip, then I will soon skip the site (or the paper). The second thing I look for is a lack of editorializing in the news. To me, this is when opinion is found in a straight news article. For example, lets take the market fact I gave earlier. Here’s an example of Pro Bush editorializing/opinion:

Due to the lingering effects of Clinton’s policies and the meddling of Democrats in Congress, the markets under Bush have fallen by 17.59%.

Here’s an example of Anti Bush editorializing/opinion:

Bush’s love of “free markets” and deregulation have led to a market crash that has cost the Dow 17.59% since he took office.

The PD does a good job of keeping the opinion on the editorial page (or the blogs) not in the news. Some will argue it’s still “biased” - but that’s the nature of the news. To me, the PD fits both of my requirements, so I read it. And yes, I would miss it if it were to go away.

If all the MSM is going to do is reprint stories pulled from AP and other MSM disinformation sources and Government controlled propaganda, then I say Outsource the Post’s newstaff to India for reposting. The MSM has long sermonized the cost benefit of getting rid of the Middle Class and working Americans so I say let the MSM go the same route as the rest of us. Remember when you “journalists” pass us in the bread line, there’s no line cutting, go to the back of the line.

Ah, but anonaman…your post proves you are not immune to bias too. Very biased post. You SHOULD be arguing that it is even more important for the people we elect not to keep folks from participating in a democracy by banning the press, and only that part of the press that disagrees with them. Sorry, but I can’t buy your bull that GB didn’t frag this country down. Too much proof otherwise.

David,

I am biased, we all are. That was my point, that we shouldn’t be looking for a lack of “bias” in the news because it’s not possible. Some choose news that reinforces their preconceived notions, they Hate to read an opinion that differs from their own. I choose my news sources by how interesting they are, and how much real fact is there, vs. opinion. I love opinion (or I wouldn’t be here) but it shouldn’t be mixed up in the hard news stories.

As for your assertion that I was defending Bush, hardly. I simply presented examples of bias, both for and against him. Apparently, the pro Bush example stuck in your mind so hard that the anti Bush example didn’t even register.

For the record, my true feelings about Bush can be summed up like this (to be read like the Simpson’s Comic Book Guy):

Worst. President. Ever.

…….I’ve always been (even before the internet) a Sunday-Newspaper buyer only. I never have had a subscription, I always buy the Sunday-Paper at the grocery store, and yes I would miss my Sunday edition.

I am thankful to the internet though for providing access to other social/political points of view, because the Post Dispatch’s unabsashed kowtowing for every Liberal/Democrat issue is a bit adnauseum at times.

I’ll continue to buy the Sunday Post as long as you print it.

I would not miss the blatantly bias ones at all. I want the news, the facts and NO op-ed disguised as news. Most journalists today do not have a clue. People like Joe Pulitzer are spinning in their graves with the abuse of the peoples trust! Shameful!!!!

Seems everyone has a favorite newspaper. That’s not the subject.
I prefer reading the news without having to log, click, and squint.

Keep the daily newspapers. My morning coffee taste better when it’s resting on the sports page.

If newspapers were worth the paper they were printed on, I would miss them. These days, however, the paper is more about editorials, and editorializing the news. (Sorry Kurt, but you asked for it). Take the PD, for example. If it would report objectively, then would increase their audience. I don’t get the paper every day because I absolutely cannot stand the lazy, left wing reporting that goes on inside it.

If newspapers completely went away, it would be sad, but perhaps that is progress. Online news is more environmentally friendly anyway, and the focus really should be on more socially conscious means of distributing information. Imagine all the fuel that is wasted by newspaper delivery trucks and those printing presses. If we lose the PD to save our planet, then so be it.

Back when USA Today was 50 cents, I bought one almost everyday. After going up to 75 cents, I purchased only on Mondays and Fridays. Now that they are a dollar, I have stopped buying. The price keeps going up while the quality goes down.

The only role today’s media plays in Democracy is perpetuating the myth that there is one.

The media doesn’t have a liberal bias it has a government/corporate bias. It feeds the masses misinformation to keep them controlled and dumbed down. Why do you think the Pentagon is set to declare war on “The Net”? Because it knows it can no longer use the media to feed the masses misinformation and get them onboard with their programs. The media wouldn’t be at death’s door if it had done it’s job. The mainstream media only provides “junk food” for the mind. It’s of no relevance or newsworthiness. Most local media runs corporate advertisements disguised as news stories. Very little of what comes out of the MSM is value and is now what is called “infotainment”. When almost 70% of the American Public questioned the validity of the US Government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory, the media rose to the occasion and told everyone of how kerosene melts steel and steel and glass buildings fall neatly down in to their own footprint because of 9/11 boogeymen who could pilot sophisticated airliners after just a few lessons and do manuevers 30 year veterans can’t even do. Yet you can soak your own BBQ pit with kerosene, light and it will only create black smoke w/o the BBQ pit melting down in to it’s own footprint. The MSM is full of propanganda and answers to corporate globalists not the consumer. Because of this the “unwashed masses” have turned away enmasse and are never coming back. The MSM is at the same juncture the US Automakers were in the 1970’s thru the Mid 80’s - turning out inferior junk but still feeling that they deserve every dime. Now that the masses have choices the MSM is FURIOUS and wants the government to “TURN OFF THE INTERNET!!!, CONTROL THE MESSAGE!!” It’s too late and people can now get the truth w/o the corporate mindcontrol. The cat’s out of the bag and there’s nothing the corporate media can do about it. So - Media, take your junk and stuff it!

Actually, what is missing in most conglomerately held newspapers is the idiosyncratic spark and flare that folks find online. I will gladly read or listen to media with which I disagree (I’ve been known to fill the car with Rush and Hannity and OReilly on long drives, just for sheer entertainment value.) I don’t agree with those folks 80% of the time, but they are part of the world, and ignored at our peril.

While unbiased reporting (or at least reporting both sides of the story) is the sign of a good reporter, newspapers themselves have almost always taken a stance. No one could have called Pulitzer, or Hearst, or Mencken unbiased…they took a stand and stuck with it. Sometimes, these positions were taken to an extreme: the newspaper in Linn, MO is called the Unterrified Democrat. That in Quincy is the Whig, and there haven’t been Whigs around in a coon’s age.

If you take a look at some of the few remaining small hometown newspapers (try the Current Wave out of Eminence, or the Current Local from Van Buren) you will see there still are publishers and editors out there not hiding behind the gray walls of corporate media. Now, those are NEWSPAPERS!

I would sorely miss those small town newsies if they go under…maybe the bigtown newspapers, who have bent over backwards to be bland and uncontroversial should take a clue from them.

Another interesting thing…many people are decrying the death of the objective reporter and the rise of opinion. Well, what are they doing here? Expressing their opinion, of course!

Yes, but more importantly: would the ideal of democracy — which people here in the United States supposedly hold so dear in their hearts — suffer if newspapers stopped publishing? Undeniably. Then, we might not only have cracks at this country’s seams, as we do right now, but fissures. Democracy — or even a facade of democracy — can only exist via an informed public.

I look forward to reading the St. Louis Post on line every morning. I can hardly wait for my local newspaper to be delivered in the afternoon. So yes, I would miss published newspapers terribly. Thank you.

If you’re an older, stay at home type of person who has no technological ability or interest, you will probably prefer the paper itself. Me, I do not subscribe but I read STLtoday.com, USAToday.com and all of the rest. I can get a better grasp of local and world news faster and more accurately than just reading the physical paper. Also, I get news updates on my phone that is current and not yesterdays news. Further, with satellite radio, I listen to Fox News, CNN among others while driving. Interesting thou, I seem to remember advertisers more on the internet than those in the paper! Dillards ad location on stltoday at the Home Page location, front right center, is a killer spot for example.

My hubby and I debate about cancelling the newspaper because we just don’t seem to enjoy sitting down and reading it like we used to. Me for totally dumb reasons, but I hate the cheap paper it is printed on. I get so frustrated trying to fold back a page while it is creasing every which way but where it should. Everytime they “change” something for the better, I hate it. If something big is going down, I tend to head for the internet or MSNBC for coverage anyway so I just don’t seem to need the paper as much. I truly feel that I am purchasing the newspaper for the Everyday section only and that just isn’t worth the price anymore.

There will be a day when I stop subscribing. When that will be, I don’t know. My problem isn’t the editorial content (if you disagree with ‘em, just disagree) - my problem is the paper’s value. The number of pages decline, but not the price. You want more subscribers, don’t burden us with the cost of the paper’s production, put the burden on advertisers.

One of the major problems that I see with the post dispatch (and since I live in St Louis that is “the newspaper”) is that in an attempt to be lean they have cut a level of editors out of the chain. The post is now filled with errors that if there was still an editor, would be caught. Examples of this include the frequent substitution of: there for their, Were for where, and the other day I saw “an dour” instead of “and our” these are the simple errors that drive people away. Even in the lead in to this discussion you left out a chunk of info in the line about the christian science monitor and the capital times. I realize mistakes happen, that’s why we have the delete key and erasers. But when I am paying to read the written word I at least want it written correctly.

I enjoy reading the post on line.. I’m not a ‘tree hugger’ but the sight of all that newspaper around the house makes me feel wasteful.. So I read the paper on-line.. I know that’s bad for the good folks at the paper, and I especially enjoy Bill McClellan, and it would sadden me if the paper folded.. Perhaps you folks need a bailout..

Thanks for the heads-up, Paul. It’s fixed.

I would definately miss the paper. I grew up with it in my house and reading certain parts with my Dad, now that I am a Dad, I look forward to those times of sitting around with the paper. Also, I read the paper at work during breaks. It is my main source of news information, as I work crazy hours and may not be able to see one of the three or four news broadcasts (which they only give you a little bit of the news, and sometimes it seems like they get the news from the newspaper as they repeat sometimes almost exactly what I had read that morning.) I don’t usually read news online, just because who wants to sit in front of a computer that long and mess with that……the more that I am writing, the more I am realizing how MUCH I would miss the paper!!!!!!!!!!

I might miss SOME newspapers if they stopped publishing…

…but not The St. Louis Pus-Discharge.

This is not about the PD but is about the Journal that I think is owned by the PD. Where I live, they are trying to sell the Journal to you as opposed to giving it to you. It doesn’t appear to be working. Everyone that we get says it the last on. That has been going on for months. I won’t subscribe to it because the people in the neighborhood will just take if from my yard while I’m at work. They get the coupons out of the Journal. One of my neighbors has paid for the paper and it is always gone when he gets home to get it. I will miss the Journal more than I would miss the PD.

The majority of comments here seem to mention the liberal bias of the Post Dispatch…yet it seems to fall on deaf ears.

I have learned to disregard the editorials and skim over the political stories since they are typically one-sided. Since I have learned to play this game, I can enjoy the paper and would very much miss it. There is nothing better than sitting down on a Saturday and Sunday morning to read the paper along with a good cup of coffee. Of course, I don’t trust much of the news that comes out of the Post Dispatch and get other sources of news to help desseminate the real news..but I do enjoy the peace and quiet.

One more comment, I prefer to read newspapers wherever I go as opposed to turning on the computer in the morning to get my news. I can generally get the political slant of the newspaper by reading the first couple of stories and can then put the rest of the paper in perspective. Newspapers just feel “right”…

I could do without the ink that gets all over everything. Lots of times I’ve wanted to pick up a newspaper to read, but won’t because it will dirty my hands, clothes and anything else it touches.

Kurt, I could do without print newspaper throughout the week, but I enjoy spending part of my weekend reading the Sunday paper…old habits die hard.

Just to add to my point some sharp eyed reader caught sause in the AP feed about the poisoned dog…

Democracy is dead — if it ever lived at all (sigh).

I’ve seen a few comments here about the editorial pages, and I realized that in fact, these editorials are one of the main reasons that print media is dying out. While it may sometimes be difficult to find unbiased, straighforward news reporting on the web, there is NO shortage of opinions online. The web has given us all a voice, making the days when we had to open up the newspaper to read an opinion piece about a bit of news or politics written by one voice. Gone are the days of one or two people in a newspaper handing down their opinions from on high like a gift to the masses. We can all go online now and read any and every opinion on any topic known to man, including our own if we choose.

So really, if print media decides that their editorial perspective is more important than the straighforward reporting of the news, they are making an error in judgement. We don’t need thier opinions anymore. We have our own, and millions of others right at our fingertips.

Kurt, yes the Printed page of a newspaper in valuable because it repeats the news you have already heard on 10 different radio stations and at least 5 Television stations. It’s a historicial document when it is published. I can’t imagine anyone who would buy a newspaper unless his/her name was in it as the person of the week or something similar.

My favorite newspapers to read are those that are found in the small midwest towns or papers in the south. They have these great articles about things that would only make sense to the people who live there but are fun to read about anyway. They write about people who live in their communities, their weddings in elaborate details, the childrens births and the residents deaths in such a sweet way that you can feel the community hug. Our paper is cold. It has a few pages about local news, more about world news and then we have the sports novelette that goes on forever. Nothing fun to read about. I want to “read the paper” not just browse through quickly and then toss. I know in an earlier post I said that it was a debate we have been having to stop wasting the money on the paper, after reading these posts and thinking about it more I may just do it.

………….A HOUSE DIVIDED (An idea for saving print news)

Reading the posts here its plain to see that many perceive the Post Dispatch as a Liberal/Democrat newspaper, and despise it for that reason.

I doubt that perceived newspaper bias is unique to St Louis, nor are daily newspapers in financial trouble unique to St Louis.

The newspapers ought to pick up on that perception and play on it, by publishing Blue and Red editions of their papers on an alternating daily basis. Divide the newspaper journalists into two camps, the conservatives and the liberals.

On one day the Blue team gets to pick what stories go onto the front page and get control of the editorial page, the next day it would be the Red teams turn. Get some heated print debates going between the Blue and Red editions, put a new twist on the old product, hype it up.

The idea here is not to make one side look good or bad, the idea would be to renew interest in the print news and sell some newspapers!!

Some say a house divided will fall, I think it might just be what print news needs to survive.

Does anyone else find it curious that all of these Post-Dispatch haters who posted about how worthless and biased the Post-Dispatch is are constantly trolling the Post-Dispatch’s web site for the opportunity to vent? If they are so thoroughly offended by the “bias” of this paper, why in Heaven’s name do they continually log onto its website? I’m sure Fox Noise has some sort of web site where they can blissfully commune with like-minded haters. Why not go there (and don’t let the door hit you in the butt).

I would miss newspapers very much. Although the Post Dispatch doesn’t always share my views, reading the newspaper is how I remain aware of our towns happenings and actions. The Post Dispatch allows me to remain informed and gives me the opportunity to support favorable situations or try to change perceived social misdirections.

In a way I would missed the print version of the newspaper.The Post-Dispatch
seems to be doing a really good job with their news web site,but seems to be having trouble generating reveues from this relatively new media source.Those who have the right vision of the future would be the ones who survived.

crashtest-The Post-Dispatch have provided us with a red/blue “newspaper”,and its right here at our finger tips.This website gave all people the chanch to gave many diffrent and diverse opinions.The future is here,and now.

………….Steve M…..I agree with you thaqt STLTODAY is more or less the Red-Blue idea.

My thought though, is that if the “print” edition is to have any chance of surviving (I do not want to see more people unemployed) the print edition has to do something to rekindle interest in itself.

That is the only reason I suggested my Blue-Edition/ Red-Edition idea….is to sell the “printed” Post Dispatch, and keep people employed.

I feel 100% certain that if the print edition keeps on with the same old “don’t let the door hit you on the butt if you dont like it” format it will be a just a matter of time before it is gone.

I get most information/news from the internet/tv…sorry. Once in a while we buy a newspaper…mostly for the ads/coupons and sports information.

I feel a deep sense of sympathy for people who think that all of the media has a liberal bias. They don’t realize that it’s just reported, written, and produced by people who are more intelligent than they are and possess and a more informed world view than they do.

Oh, a positive article about Barack HUSSEIN Obama? The Post-Dispatch is a bunch of communists!

An article that portrays the Iraq War in a negative light??? I’m going back to the O’Reilly Factor where the news in unbiased!

Get over it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story

I am astonished at the large number of people who are commenting on this post about how much they hate the Post Dispatch. Why are you here, then? I am not trying to suggest anyone is unwelcome, I just don’t understand why people would come to a website just to complain about it.

That said, I would not miss the paper at all if it stopped publishing, but I would be lost without this website. I don’t get the paper at home for several reasons, but I am on here multiple times a day. It seems to me that your questions are unrelated–yes, news is important to me, no, I wouldn’t miss the paper if it stopped publishing in print. In fact, news being important to me is one reason why I prefer online, where you can easily find different viewpoints on the same news item.

I cancelled my subscription to the PD on July 17, 1996. The day the PD reported that TWA Flt#800 was shot down by a US Navy Jet. It was then that I appreciated that the PD was more of a tabloid, than a reliable news source.