Local news, its appropriate costs, and dea(r)th thereof

I received a letter yesterday from my local newspaper, informing me that my ~$10/month subscription for web access will be increased to $20/month.

I realize that I'm at a station in life where the extra $120/yr really doesn't have that much of an effect, but this still irks me somewhat. I should say that I subscribe to my local newspaper begrudgingly and out of necessity. When the pandemic started, my wife and I realized that we have the faintest idea of what goes on in our town (of 250k, also the state capital), and that we really should know a bit more.

We have derived some values from it, but the ratio of dollar/worthy news seems already low. For instance, one of the enduring features is titled Expensive (or historic/ newly constructed/ adjective du jour) homes in [the local area], and it's literally just a list of a bunch of properties along with the words taken verbatim from the listing ad. I mean, most of those I've come across simply by going on Zillow, and without any concrete analysis, it's no more than a puff piece. Then there was an article on a petition to recall the mayor, and the journalist writing the piece basically took the words of the lead petitioner that the latter is non-partisan, despite the fact that he was known to have ran for public office as a GOP candidate only four years earlier (which is something this paper's sibling publication pointed out when writing about the same petition). I emailed the editors and received no response; nor was there any correction made to the article. I got the distinct sense that these people gives close to zero effs. On the other hand, there really is no one else reporting on candidates for local elections.

So I'm at a conundrum. Should I continue my subscription? It'll be twice the amount I pay for the WaPo and about $40 more than what I pay for The Guardian (which I gladly pay, at least for the soccer coverage and cultures section). My heart says no, but my head says yes, especially given how many local newspapers have gone under in the past decade plus, and this is perhaps the real cost of keeping (mediocre) local journalism alive.

Consider the subscription an investment in your community, because having a local newspaper has a financial payoff.

See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ing-costs-rise

Quote:

---

When local newspapers shut their doors, communities lose out. People and their stories can’t find coverage. Politicos take liberties when it’s nobody’s job to hold them accountable. What the public doesn’t know winds up hurting them. The city feels poorer, politically and culturally.

According to a new working paper, local news deserts lose out financially, too. Cities where newspapers closed up shop saw increases in government costs as a result of the lack of scrutiny over local deals, say researchers who tracked the decline of local news outlets between 1996 and 2015.

---

Quote:

---

Without investigative daily reporters around to call bullshit on city hall, three years after a newspaper closes, that city or county’s municipal bond offering yields increased on average by 5.5 basis points, while bond yields in the secondary market increased by 6.4 basis points—statistically significant effects.

---

We subscribe to our local paper. And no, I don't generally read it.

I agree with caleb.

Also, while most of the time you may find the articles of little interest, it is worth it for the occasional article of value.

I subscribe to the print edition of my local newspaper, will always remain faithful to it, and while there has been an increase in fluff pieces, I still find valuable reporting. My subscription has not increased as dramatically as yours, but it does include web access.

To contrast my local newspaper, I subscribe to the VeloNews print edition and have for decades. Yet if I want web access, I have to pay extra. That's absurd and I've told them so.

The police blotter is worth the price of admission, well actually ten times that, for our local paper.

That and they have employed a least two young people who have gone on to careers with more major news outlets.

“SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY, 12:36 AM — Police were called to a downtown bar after a patron left a bag on the sidewalk outside and informed a bouncer that they didn’t want it searched; there was a bomb inside it. Officers determined that the bouncer misunderstood the patron and that the contents of the bag included a bong and other marijuana paraphernalia.”

There is some high-quality writing in that column every week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thollandpe

There is some high-quality writing in that column every week.

---

“LARCENY, 10:03 AM — A man tried to leave a store without paying for pills, ice cream, and personal lubricant. He was caught by management and agreed to go on his way without the items.”

Date night gone wrong.

In the past, the Arcata Eye police blotter was a masterpiece, I haven't read it lately though. Our local paper needs an editor that can read, and the sports section is good, even to the point of misidentfying teams in the headlines. It must suck, too, to be a local high school athlete and have your name spelled differently in the picture caption and the article.

Then there was years past where the police chief was notable because evidence (product) kept disappearing from the evidence locker, his wife was apprehended with a joint in her purse coming in to the station and he retired and opened a pizza place. High traffic, cash business, get it? They didn't until he was overheard on a wiretap promising protection for a shipment.

But somebody does need to cover City Hall and these days they at least are doing that OK.

Local reporting on a party that resulted in a county officer almost dying from strangulation lead to a wider investigation and likely contributed to the defeat of the sheriff in the most recent election. There is a paper version that comes out weekly. Cost is $1. The online version is paid for by a charitable fund, i.e. donations. The other paper is also pretty good. It is only online and the rate is $10/month.

If that's the only or best newspaper in town, stay with it. Write letters with specific complaints. If it isn't the best, sign up with the best, even (or especially) if it isn't the largest or best funded.

Classifieds used to be a stable source of revenue for local papers. Now eBay and Craig's List have killed that off mostly. Local advertisers often go to shopper's guide-type mass mailings.

Ironically perhaps some of the best political coverage I saw leading up to the last national election came from the Spectrum (cable TV/internet provider) news and information channel. Lots of one-on-one interviews with candidates, right down to the lowest-level electable office in the county. Amazing really. Like straight out of the days of public access channels, except that it wasn't a public access channel. It was from the company providing the connection.

Thanks for everyone's posts. Looks like I really was expecting too much (I guess $15/month for NYT or $10/month for WaPo "spoiled" me, as I also lived in the respective local areas once upon a time).

In that light, I guess this current one isn't so bad, and I'll stick with it for a bit. Although I think I'll eventually switch to the (former) sibling publication mentioned in my first post. The two publications had been different once upon a time (one leans liberal, one conservative), but the conservative one (which has the bigger presence in town) has since become a centrist paper now. The two papers somehow got merged under the same umbrella a while back, but are separating again. I might as well give the other one a try. Ironically, the other one is free-access, but I'd be more than happy to pay to read it.

I'm at the point in my life where I pay what I think is fair value for something, if it isn't, it's gone. Obviously, I need electricity/natural gas and there's only so much one can do to mitigate expenses like that. However, if it isn't a "have to have it for survival" thing it's on the block as far as cost benefit analysis. It isn't that I can't pay whatever the "new" price is, it's that I "won't". And while I'm at it, a price increase for me while new customers get a better deal is an absolute no go as far as I'm concerned. I've been keeping the lights on for X number of years and a new customer gets a better deal than me? Naw.

The only way to keep non essential services/charges honest is to quit them when they get too greedy and tell them why. Just like everything else in the world, they can only charge what the market will bear.

We are all digital for news and end up with a digital subscription our local paper (LSJ) as it's bundled up with the Detroit Free Press. The LSJ is sorely lacking. However we also have Bridge (also digital) and that IS worth supporting (https://www.bridgemi.com). WaPo and NYT also in the mix. News subs add supporting independent journalism like Bridge, etc. is critical.

Offering news for free and relying on paid advertising has proven a failed business model. Subscription news is the only way the fourth estate can survive. There's fewer and fewer quality outlets around, which is really bad for a functioning democracy. The government has turned a blind eye and allowed assets to be concentrated in the hands of a few large players. I don't count facebook or cable news as a legitimate source, too often they promote false information and seem to have adopted the Network (1976 movie) business model. So if you value your local news provider I think its a worthwhile investment. -Mike G

I pay for my locally-owned newspaper as well as the San Francisco Chronicle. I don't know about your paper, but it is possible that it's owned by Alden Capital, which would be bad.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...papers/620171/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexstar

I pay for my locally-owned newspaper as well as the San Francisco Chronicle. I don't know about your paper, but it is possible that it's owned by Alden Capital, which would be bad.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...papers/620171/

---

Thanks for that link. Rather sobering read.

I should probably also say that perhaps I do expect too much out of news organizations.

Take, for instance, this article titled "The magazine story that made Elizabeth Holmes famous could now help send her to prison". On the front section of WaPo's online edition.

I thought it was going to be an analysis about how a particular article may be used by prosecutors as evidence of state of mind of Holmes, thereby blowing apart her defense that she was too callow to be able to conjure up anything fraudulent.

I have a pretty good guess as to why WaPo allowed this particular title for the article. After all, the fraud trial is going on, and mentioning the trial in the title probably garners more clicks. And while there is actual discussion of substance (on how fawning tech reporters were in the early to mid 2010's), the majority of the article had nothing to do with the title. I kept on reading, expecting a tangible tie-in to the trial, but that never happened. Instead, the WaPo article chronicles how a Fortune cover article kicked off media's obsession with her, which eventually led to an article offering critical analysis of the whole farce (in an article by WSJ's Carreyrou), which then led to her trial.

Quote:

---

Carreyrou’s front-page story in 2015 and subsequent reporting turned up irregularities and questionable practices at the company. It led in 2018 to his best selling book, “Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup.” Apple announced last week that it will produce a movie based on the book, starring Jennifer Lawrence as Holmes.

Carreyrou’s stories eventually contributed to Theranos’ insolvency and helped set in motion the trial now concluding in Silicon Valley. They suggest their own lesson: the best way to drive out bad journalism is with a better kind.

---

I'm pretty sure that if I were to write an essay for a college history class and titled my essay in a similarly misleading fashion, I'd get docked serious points. But since WaPo is engaged in this sort of click-bait journalism, I guess perhaps I should cut my local news some slack...