Sl Trib cuts 1/3rd of staff

[bsjkki]

Newspapers are dying. I do worry about the end of local papers...It does not seem local tv news stations do the same type of investigative, in depth reporting that local newspapers provide. It is a changing media environment but even though we have numerous news sources, in some ways I feel that we are getting less information. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/05/14/reacting-to-plunging-revenues-salt-lake-tribune-lays-off-a-third-of-its-newsroom-cuts-back-print-offerings/  

[The Nehor]

It is going to to be a good time in the coming years to be a corrupt local politician.

[rodheadlee]

Oh darn

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Newspapers are dying. I do worry about the end of local papers...It does not seem local tv news stations do the same type of investigative, in depth reporting that local newspapers provide. It is a changing media environment but even though we have numerous news sources, in some ways I feel that we are getting less information. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/05/14/reacting-to-plunging-revenues-salt-lake-tribune-lays-off-a-third-of-its-newsroom-cuts-back-print-offerings/  

The internet is destroying a lot of things.  Perhaps some of this is the bias in the media.  If one has a news source that is more right or left in how they handle issues, they pretty much turn off half of the population.  So they have to try and attract enough people on their side to stay afloat which is hard in all the various different sources of news we get today.  I find the Tribune online subscription too pricey.  They are slanted on a number of issues and I have banned a number of times on their comment board for really silly stuff in my opinion.  They don't just delete a minor post that offends a few people.  They just ban without explaining why.  Why should I pay good money to an organization that i have to choose my words very carefully or else be banned for offending even one person who complains?   Not worth it to me. 

[Bernard Gui]

¡Que’ les vaya bien, pero que’ les vayan!

Edited May 15, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The internet is destroying a lot of things.  Perhaps some of this is the bias in the media.  If one has a news source that is more right or left in how they handle issues, they pretty much turn off half of the population.  So they have to try and attract enough people on their side to stay afloat which is hard in all the various different sources of news we get today.  I find the Tribune online subscription too pricey.  They are slanted on a number of issues and I have banned a number of times on their comment board for really silly stuff in my opinion.  They don't just delete a minor post that offends a few people.  They just ban without explaining why.  Why should I pay good money to an organization that i have to choose my words very carefully or else be banned for offending even one person who complains?   Not worth it to me. 

The real problem with journalism is that no one is paying for it any more and without an income stream the important journalism, especially on the local level, is not happening. No one is going to local zoning board meetings or city council meetings to report on anything shady going on and articles about it are not good enough clickbait to be worth doing. The internet hyperfocuses everyone in the United States (and I assume elsewhere) onto national and international issues. Hence, good to be a corrupt local politician. You will probably get away with it.

[bsjkki]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The real problem with journalism is that no one is paying for it any more and without an income stream the important journalism, especially on the local level, is not happening. No one is going to local zoning board meetings or city council meetings to report on anything shady going on and articles about it are not good enough clickbait to be worth doing. The internet hyperfocuses everyone in the United States (and I assume elsewhere) onto national and international issues. Hence, good to be a corrupt local politician. You will probably get away with it.

I listen to local talk radio just so I can hear news that is not based on national politics.   

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The real problem with journalism is that no one is paying for it any more and without an income stream the important journalism, especially on the local level, is not happening. No one is going to local zoning board meetings or city council meetings to report on anything shady going on and articles about it are not good enough clickbait to be worth doing. The internet hyperfocuses everyone in the United States (and I assume elsewhere) onto national and international issues. Hence, good to be a corrupt local politician. You will probably get away with it.

I don't disagree, but what passes for "journalism" these days is unfortunately better described as "advocacy".  Addressing your primary point, it's a definite problem.  Because our local newspaper was getting steadily thinner and thinner, containing less and less relevant local news (probably because of the Internet), I once contemplated starting an online newspaper for my community that would actually focus on local events, recruiting semi-volunteers to report on actual local happenings, ignoring as much as possible national and international events.  I didn't follow through, but still think it might have been a useful idea.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The internet is destroying a lot of things.  Perhaps some of this is the bias in the media.  If one has a news source that is more right or left in how they handle issues, they pretty much turn off half of the population.  So they have to try and attract enough people on their side to stay afloat which is hard in all the various different sources of news we get today.  I find the Tribune online subscription too pricey.  They are slanted on a number of issues and I have banned a number of times on their comment board for really silly stuff in my opinion.  They don't just delete a minor post that offends a few people.  They just ban without explaining why.  Why should I pay good money to an organization that i have to choose my words very carefully or else be banned for offending even one person who complains?   Not worth it to me. 

The problem has nothing to do with whether a newspaper blog makes someone feel welcome or is fair, but whether real investigative reportage will take place, and whether we will have public disclosure of basic facts -- thus allowing citizens to draw their own conclusions.  Our society has become so partisan, polarized, and tribal now that we expect to have only institutions which side with our POV, regardless of facts.  Indeed, if the facts don't fit our preconceptions, we can now easily shout out "fake news," just because we are uncomfortable with the facts. 

We are tending ever more to be a one-party state with only one serious newspaper, and that cannot be good for public policy in the long run

[rongo]

11 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I listen to local talk radio just so I can hear news that is not based on national politics.   

We have a rivalry between two local papers, so there are pretty robust efforts to scoop each other. One of them likes to dump on the local high school (where I work), while the other one carries the water for it. It's a good balance! The owner of one of them is on the city council, and there was a controversy recently when the city gave preferential treatment to his paper. Good times!  

My son has recently had interviews, photo sessions, and videotaping with both (valedictorian and spotlighted senior). 

The editor (and sometimes reporter) of one is in our ward. She is literally a Minute Man, sniffing out stories and getting there for the story. A 24 hour job, factoring in "on call" when news happens. 

I recently learned a trick from someone: clearing your browsing history allows you to get as many free articles behind the paywalls as you want!  I wonder when online news will figure out a way to prevent that. 

[Guest]

On May 14, 2018 at 3:17 PM, bsjkki said:

Newspapers are dying. I do worry about the end of local papers...It does not seem local tv news stations do the same type of investigative, in depth reporting that local newspapers provide. It is a changing media environment but even though we have numerous news sources, in some ways I feel that we are getting less information. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/05/14/reacting-to-plunging-revenues-salt-lake-tribune-lays-off-a-third-of-its-newsroom-cuts-back-print-offerings/  

It will once again become the job of opposition discussion boards to attack the Church. Or is that the job of the 2/3's remaining? Either way, it is never good news when anyone losses a job, as families and communities suffer. 

[juliann]

Our local paper went to a so many articles a month lock out for awhile and then stopped it and now there are a lot more ads. The Trib recently set up a limit. I don't get the reasoning. All it means is that I now see much, much less of their ads. (And clearing my browsing history didn't get me past the paywall.) 

[bluebell]

I've noticed that with most news stories, if i can't access it through a paper that has put up a paywall I can almost always find it somewhere else for free.

[rodheadlee]

 There aren't 10 articles a month I care to read in the Trib. They are definitely Utah centered with not much  world news. I used to read to get the comments sections but it's the same few people over and over bashing the church.

[juliann]

On 5/17/2018 at 7:15 AM, bluebell said:

I've noticed that with most news stories, if i can't access it through a paper that has put up a paywall I can almost always find it somewhere else for free.

I quickly figured out that all of the surrounding local papers were using the same articles. It is a Catch-22 because reporters definitely deserve to be paid, but the fact is that news, or what they call news, is free now. 

So now the Trib has made sure that it will get significantly less hits when I assume advertising revenue has to based on that. It makes more sense to subject the free riders to a plethora of pop up ads.

[provoman]

On 5/16/2018 at 10:23 AM, juliann said:

Our local paper went to a so many articles a month lock out for awhile and then stopped it and now there are a lot more ads. The Trib recently set up a limit. I don't get the reasoning. All it means is that I now see much, much less of their ads. (And clearing my browsing history didn't get me past the paywall.) 

Opera Browser with VPN activated, should assist with getting around sltrib restrictions. I agree they would be better off with more ads and have their website detect ad blockers. 

[bluebell]

Does anyone else have trouble with those websites that want you to white list them?  There are some websites that no matter how much I turn off my add blockers, they still tell me they are one and won't let me access them.  It's really annoying.  

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Does anyone else have trouble with those websites that want you to white list them?  There are some websites that no matter how much I turn off my add blockers, they still tell me they are one and won't let me access them.  It's really annoying.  

They're not necessarily try to pop ads at you; they are probably checking the cookie they set that tells them whether or not you're a subscriber.  Or whether you have whitelisted them.