Somewhat OT: Times Co. threatens to shutter Boston Globe

[Doug Broda]

Doug Drown wrote:
> Indeed.  Yes on both counts.  I have a sneaking suspicion, having been a parent, a teacher, and a clergyperson who for years dealt with kids, that most young people aren't dependent on any particular news source --- what they know is what they hear (A) from the thrice-daily five-minute (if that!) newscasts on their favorite rock station or (B) from their friends.  I hate to be cynical, but I honestly  think that a lot of them don't care what is going on in the world unless it directly affects them or it's something in pop culture in which they're interested.
>
> They do read online.  But they don't read online newspapers, or the Huffington Post, or even the Drudge Report, for that matter.    -Doug
>   
(Unlurking.) I think that the number of young adults (18-25, say) who 
gather news information in any depth is less than it was 20 years ago. I 
don't think it's non-existent by any means. I think that the problem of 
a somewhat shrinking audience combines with (a) the huge number of 
sources for news compared to 20 years ago; and (b) the fact that that 
the same age group, and many of us who are older, have now become 
accustomed to free news on demand, which no one has been able to get to 
work as a business model, even as the quality thereof lessens owing to 
layoffs in the sources providing much of that news.

I think this would be less of a problem had government chosen a 
different means of dealing with media concentration. I never saw the 
huge harm in the same company owning a newspaper, a tv station and a 
radio station in the same town, creating synergies economically, as long 
as there was a severe restriction on the number of outlets that could be 
owned in each area (e.g. 1 TV, 1 AM, 1 FM) if you chose to cross-own 
between print and broadcast. Instead, we got restrictions blocking such 
synergies but allowing one or two companies to utterly dominate the 
airwaves in many if not most markets.

What I fear is that we will lose most competent news-gathering outlets 
that remain and have far fewer voices with professional standards, 
leaving the unreliable and the interest-driven, because of the inability 
to make money off the new media, which, should it introduce charges for 
its content, would have to compete with less reliable but free voices. 
Should we allow newspapers to be fully integrated and co-owned with TV 
news operations, and then accept that print editions will likely slowly 
melt away, changing markedly in character in the interim, absent an 
unexpected new model, we might have a chance of saving the traditions 
that remain from the print media that are, in large part, worth saving. 
We would also have -- as we have lost now in even some larger markets -- 
at least some radio stations that would be in a position to go on-air 
with crucial, breaking news, using the resources from the other co-owned 
news services.

-- 
Douglas J. Broda
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 239
Troy, New York 12182
(518) 272-0580
Fax (518) 237-0949