Industries began the downward cycle of consolidations and mergers when revenues are stagnant or declining. I agree with you that they can mismanage that process, oftentimes badly (e.g., letting go of a talent or on-air personality with a strong audience, saving a dime yet costing yourself a dollar), but the fundamental impetus here is declining advertising revenue for all forms of media because of the Internet.
The ears and the eyeballs are still there -- they just want it for free, online, and without ads, and the Internet gives that to them even if there is a drastic decline in the quality of the content in the meantime. Producing quality content takes time and money that just is not there anymore, which has set off the downward spiral killing local newspapers and radio stations. This is just the latest victim of the slaughter.
Story time (and this applies to your comment, too, @alarson) --
I have a friend who works for the Washington Post. She told me they have a "big board" in the newsroom, sort of like a stock ticker or a scoreboard at a baseball game, showing you the daily traffic to different articles and features.
One day, they had a very talented reporter release a long article about FGM in Africa, particularly in Somalia. This is an issue of special and personal importance to that reporter. The piece took months of work, was extensively researched with quantitative information from world health organizations, non-profits, and interviews with people involved with the issue on four continents from political leaders, public health experts and doctors, experts on Somalian and African culture, society, and economic development, generals, religious scholars, really just everybody a good journalist would approach.
...and that piece tanked. Last on the board.
What was first?
Yet another article from an author who basically writes the same "**** TRUMP!!!" article over and over again and copy-pastes the old one into the new one.
And that is at the Washington Post -- one of the most august newspapers in the country, even the world, covering national and world politics and winning countless awards for doing so, and even with sugar daddy Jeff Bezos and his billions behind it to subsidize against losses and giving it high-minded ideals like, "Democracy dies in darkness."
Even there, they are told, "Get your numbers up."
What sells is not the conscientious, nuance, detailed, intelligent, and uncomfortable stuff. You are better off writing shallow, mean-spirited, "us versus them" articles that complain about a problem but do not try to intelligently and fairly come up with solutions, particularly about celebrity-politicians. Throwing bombs makes you money.
Last edited:
