Cartoon for August 9
I never understood why newspapers run listings and reviews of movies and TV. It’s like, go watch something else! Go away! Now they’re doing the same thing with the Web.
Weird.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Tedrall's Blog 
August 9, 2008 at 12:53 pm |
Ted,
I don’t know if your late obsession with the fate of newspapers is just a short-sighted view of the preservation of your trade or a weird fetish for soiling your hands on dirty paper.
Whatever it is, as you said, this issue has been settled years ago. Newspapers will meet the dodo bird sooner than later. Don’t worry your trade will survive just fine online. Have you ever thought about TV? How about a sketch in “The Daily Show”?
Wait, that could be a little hard after virtually having union thugs beat Jon Stewart to a pulp…
August 9, 2008 at 6:00 pm |
Why? Advertising revenues. They’ll print anything as long as the advertising revenues on those pages exceeds the cost of the material. The business model is simple. When they report their financials, they talk about changes in advertising revenue and costs.
With the web, they don’t have to print the pages.
I don’t think many people read the paper for the news unless they have time to kill. The most popular items are the daily horoscope, puzzles and crosswords, the comics page, the sports page and the business section. Some people like a particular local columnist.
On the weekend, starting with Friday, they want the entertainment section. On Sunday a lot of people seem to want to read about wine, food, and other life style issues.
Quite a few people don’t read anything at all. Some people just look at the ad pages and inserts.
I agree with “It’s weird.”
August 10, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
Having a long history of existence is not an imperative for continued existence. Technology gets overtaken, and it’s sad that we have not progressed past ones’ career being the dictator of one’s ability to survive, but it’s a sad tale that bureaucracies of any purpose strive first and foremost to exist, regardless of their obsolescences and in some cases outright assault on the progress of humanity.
Our economic mentality seems to implicitly justify the struggle for survival of business entities as though they were individuals with the right to do anything in order to survive. They are not and have no rights whatsoever. The end of an outdated industry shouldn’t be seen as tragic.
Stop anthropomorphizing corporations, Ted!
August 11, 2008 at 7:44 pm |
Sorry, but I think the answer to Ted’s confusion is extremely simple and everyone is missing the point (including Ted, despite having drawn many comics about the answer)…
The point is that these newspapers are no longer autonomous, but now they’re all owned by gigantic multimedia conglomerates all over the communications spectrum.
So the bosses at the top don’t really care whether the newspaper is losing print customers by referring its subscribers to TV or Internet sites, where they may well decide to stay (and thus abandon the newspaper). The newspaper is a money-loser with huge overhead costs. (Distribution and printing of millions of stacks of dead trees!) The TV and Internet arms of the conglomerate make more money for the bosses (higher ad fees), and/or with less overhead costs.
Yeah, sure, when a Knight-Ridder paper encourages its viewers to watch a Disney program, or go to a GE-owned website, they may lose some subscribers to the competition. But the “client” is not going to remain stuck at the Disney Channel or whatever, 24 hours a day for the rest of his life. He’ll surf around and surf back into a Knight-Ridder owned channel or website.
The owners at the top are simply betting that they can move the “client” to a media with a better profit margin for them, while counting on his “brand loyalty” to bring him back within their tentacled clutches. It’s just another case where giant corporations believe they can cut just a few corners on “customer satisfaction”, i.e. moving the people who like traditional print into an electronic medium — in order to improve profit margin.
In the past, newspapers covered “events” on the Television (or Internet) because they wanted to “keep relevant” to today’s customers. But what we have right now is not so much “coverage” as FUNNELING customers from an old-style media into a more profitable one.
August 11, 2008 at 8:13 pm |
Good show Ted … more of these please!
August 11, 2008 at 10:06 pm |
Interestingly, Incitatus declares the craft will survive “just fine” online. Then, in the following sentence they advocate switching mediums and creating sketch comedy on the Daily Show.
August 11, 2008 at 11:08 pm |
Aggie,
I hope your sociological mentality does not implicitly justify the struggle for survival of individuals as though they were entitled with right to do anything in order to survive. Phew! What a mouthful.
Now seriously, this “corporations are not individuals” meme coming from the dumb left is almost as tiresome as the “America is a republic, not a democracy” coming out from Limbaugh-heads.
August 15, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
I don’t see whats wrong with printing movie and television reviews. It’s printing television listings that I can see finding frustrating.
But reviews are a good thing, I think. Many people may read about an exhibit or a cultural event and go, which isn’t such a bad thing in this country considering how ignorant so many people often are.