Michael Moore: Newspapers 'Slit Their Own Throats'

Although Mr Moore refers to 'corporate greed' this is really a manifestation of human greed. In order to attract readers newspapers need to present a product that people want to read - is bang on.
http://www.dv247.com/guitars/

Others have said it: Mr. Moore does not know much about newspapers. Why is Mr. Moore so frequently quoted? He is a master of hyperbole and documentaries that are the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. Clever, entertaining, and a master of self promotion. If those are the attributes needed to be prominently quoted on all manner of subjects then who not choose the Cirque du Soleil? Proclaiming that there will be no newspapers in the future is typical of Mr. Moore at his hyperbolic best. And there is always a simple solution: Blame it on corporate greed.
Why not put Mr. Moore's comments where they belong? On the funny pages.

Moore clearly has no grasp of newspaper economics if he believes de-emphasizing circulation revenue and emphasizing ad revenue is the problem. Circulation has always been the revenue tail. Retail, classified and inserts make up the dog.
Yes, there has been some pillaging on rates. Yes, there is corporate greed and isolation from the far-flung communities where they own papers.
BUT a decent news operation is expensive. It requires a revenue stream, which the aggregators will find out if enough newspapers fail. Newspapers always have supplied 80 percent of the reporting for radio and television. Now they're doing it for the Web. Everyone should fear for what will happen to real reporting in other media if newspapers fail.

I am on my communities school board. This is so true it is disgusting. "My children" in my district need the best education they can get. The teachers need higher salaries.
To be a teacher today, you have to really care and be committed to our future, our kids. They need to make the salaries that CEO's are making. We are on our fifth try at passing a school levy. Why is it that people will give money to everything but education??? Don't they realize that the FUTURE is in the children. Learning to read. How sad that this is not a priority. Thank you Michael Moore. I know how I want to be remembered, I know how I will remember you, trying with all your might to help those that have so little voice and so much need!
And Anthony, grow up! Try reading something realistic! Ditto to all the rest of you naysayers. It's time to realize that newspapers are becoming a thing of the past...and then where will you get your information? From the internet, "Dancing with the Stars", Fox News???

I am on my communities school board. This is so true it is disgusting. "My children" in my district need the best education they can get. The teachers need higher salaries.
To be a teacher today, you have to really care and be committed to our future, our kids. They need to make the salaries that CEO's are making. We are on our fifth try at passing a school levy. Why is it that people will give money to everything but education??? Don't they realize that the FUTURE is in the children. Learning to read. How sad that this is not a priority. Thank you Michael Moore. I know how I want to be remembered, I know how I will remember you, trying with all your might to help those that have so little voice and so much need!
And Anthony, grow up! Try reading something realistic! Ditto to all the rest of you naysayers. It's time to realize that newspapers are becoming a thing of the past...and then where will you get your information? From the internet, "Dancing with the Stars", Fox News???

I read the New York Times every day... on line. The Times and other major dailies are working with search engines like google to monetize their products via micropayments. there's still room for newspapers and their in depth reportage, just not in print.

Unlike Moore, who I like a lot, I like capitalism, and I think he would agree with me if we had a few beers together. Because of capitalism, we have great cars (cheaper and better in real terms than ever), inexpensive food, clothing, computers, etc. And I think Moore would agree with me that where we have problems is health care, medical insurance, university educations, banks, energy, etc., sectors of the economy which have gained the system, have special relationships with government, and don't have to deal with competition. These raptors act in ways that are the antithesis of the animating idea behind capitalism, because they don't have to compete with anyone and want it to stay that way.

All quite true. Now.. fill in the "newspapers" blank with "healthcare" or "Insurance companies"

Francis, perchance was that professor you heard Paul Peterson at Ohio State? He preached the same mantra in the 1980s. It was true then, and it was true from the early days of newspapers. And until early in this decade, newspapers generally were very, very, very profitable.
But Roger is right, the corporate model – or more accurately, the Wall Street model did in newspapers. Rather than accept that a 10 percent to 15 percent profit margin was still pretty good margin (compared to 20 or 25 percent -- not a typo -- in previous decades), Wall Street fund managers started demanding that newspaper companies get those margins back to 20-plus percent or else.
By the time I lost my job in 2006, Knight Ridder was gone, New York Times and Gannett and Tribune among others were all suffering the worst downturn in their histories.
But Roger is mistaken if he thinks the Internet and other competing media had nothing to do with the decline of newspapers. They did, and newspapers in general did not respond well to the increased competition.

Moore's remarks are somewhat simple, but he's more or less right. I worked in newspapers for over a decade in the Midwest. Gannett took over several good newspapers and cut costs, and that always meant fewer reporters, younger reporters and interns. There are few good daily newspapers left. The 100 million figure cited probably includes all sorts of things that call themselves newspapers but really aren't. When a city the size of Seattle or even Ann Arbor loses its daily, it's not hard to see what's happening. Journalism is being transformed and going online. But the business model just doesn't support the way news was gathered in the past. I doubt people will notice that there's no reporter at the local zoning board meeting or school board meeting, etc. And then they'll be surprised when these bodies end up all corrupt, etc. The online population is mainly propelled by youth and they just don't find this stuff interesting, for the most part. So, we'll just see more corruption in government, that's all.

I don't always agree with Moore, but he is indirectly right on this point. Corporate ownership and acquisitions have leveraged newspapers to the point of bankruptcy and most will fail from a lack of advertising, not a lack of readers. But, newspapers were greedy long before corporate America took over. Papers added sections such as food, autos and business because there were ads associated with them, not because they were serving their readership. They have been about the money for decades. That is why corporate America bought them.

I can only remind any of you who care what a professor asked his class in 1992 about newspapers.

"Why are newspapers in business?"

Was his question.

"To save the world." "To tell the truth!"
"To expose the bad guys!" and much more smiliarly misplaced hyperbole mostly from thos eho did not- and obviously still do not- know any better.

He shook his head told us we were all wrong.

"Newspapers are in business for one reason and one reason only- to make money!"

That is the truth- and the ONLY way for newspapers to do this is to sell advertising space.

Apparently; Mr. Moore does not really know too much about newspapers or what it takes to run one or even be part of one at the smallest level.

The field is dying for a variety of reasons including, but not exclusively due to loss of advertising.

FACE IT- I am 49 and have been reading newspapers since I was 8.

Kids today and teens DO NOT read newspapers and are NOT interested in reading them.

Hence- Newspapers can not count on that market for revenue.

I can only remind any of you who care what a professor asked his class in 1992 about newspapers.

"Why are newspapers in business?"

Was his question.

"To save the world." "To tell the truth!"
"To expose the bad guys!" and much more smiliarly misplaced hyperbole mostly from thos eho did not- and obviously still do not- know any better.

He shook his head told us we were all wrong.

"Newspapers are in business for one reason and one reason only- to make money!"

That is the truth- and the ONLY way for newspapers to do this is to sell advertising space.

Apparently; Mr. Moore does not really know too much about newspapers or what it takes to run one or even be part of one at the smallest level.

The field is dying for a variety of reasons including, but not exclusively due to loss of advertising.

FACE IT- I am 49 and have been reading newspapers since I was 8.

Kids today and teens DO NOT read newspapers and are NOT interested in reading them.

Hence- Newspapers can not count on that market for revenue.

While it's true that Republicans are the vanguard Market-Leninist party ("what party has led the way?" Moore asks), the Democrats are their eternal enablers. It's funny to listen to Moore et al whine "Obama, get a spine!" - as if Obama, a Wall Street reichwinger, was going to do anything other than what he has done. The GOP goes and goes, pushes and pushes, and when they lose the consent of the governed, the other Wall Street party comes along to do a little amelioration, soothsaying, etc. The tagteam of capitalism-imperialism: Demoblicans and Republocrats. And why would anyone think that capitalist newspapers were going to behave any differently than side with the most vociferous and loudest drumbeaters for capitalist accumulation, aka, the GOP? Each party has a slightly different role and rhetoric, but their masters are the same: Wall Street, Pentagon, CIA. When the people choose to overthrow Plantation America, then we'll see change. The only change we can believe in is the change we get off our asses to make.

Moore was a great critic of GM's management, but I think he would agree that the company would have fared much better if the U.S. had national health insurance. Its competitors -- Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Nissan, BMW, etc. -- had lower costs, and fewer distractions, because their governments controlled health care costs. GM and the other U.S. automakers were simply done-in by a dysfunctional, outrageously expensive health care system. As for newspapers: He's right, and he's wrong. Right that U.S. newspapers began to sacrifice their public responsibilities when profits began to dwindle, wrong to suppose that European newspapers, which often are wards of political parties and movements, do better at protecting citizens from special interests. But the important European newspapers are certainly livelier and more interesting than the American ones, and people there are willing to pay a premium to read them.

What I find most striking about this exchange are the misspellings, fractured grammar and anarchic punctuation contained in the responses of Mr. Moore's critics. You would hope that people who imagine themselves qualified to comment on the state of the press might have some basic writing smarts. – Al Hooper

Michale Morre is, as usual, absolutely right. If he weren't the Republicans wouldn't be screaming so loudly.

And speaking of those corporate shills and the racist mobs who do their bidding, make sure to check out Morre's "Sicko" -- which descriebs the state of health care in this misbegotten country perfectly.

Mr. Moore essentially parsed the problem correctly and then veered off into political pontificating with an inaccurate prediction of the future.

Indeed, America has failed to grow future generations of news "paper" readers, but online readers are at record high levels.

Advertisers are spreading out their budgets across a variety of platforms to reach consumers on both the mobile and computer screens.

Local advertisers, long ignored by newspapers and compelled to advertise primarily with the over-priced Yellow Pages, are now the main target for everyone in the news media and business directory industries. But no one (yet) has a business model that accommodates an affordable effective method of advertising, WITH good customer service for the local advertiser.

Editors across the nation thought MM was such a clever, insightful smartie for his criticsm of Bush, et al. Now they must be wondering when he became such a idiot.

It's a good thing tubby here has donated all the proceeds from his blockbuster Hollywood movies to charity. Otherwise, he might look like a hypocrite.

Every time Michael Moore opens his mouth, 10,000 people on the fence decide to vote Republican. He is an embarrassment.

What has hurt newspapers in America is the corporations who bought small town daily newspapers. The corporations overpaid for small town rural daily newspapers. A small rural daily in the plains states grossing $500,000 or less is worth maybe $100,000 or less. Wal-Mart and other big box retailers have hurt small town daily newspapers by not purchasing much advertising in newspapers.

Newspapers raped their advertising rates for too long. In particular the classified sections for employment, automotive, and real estate. But I believe loyal readers will help the rebirth. I hope so. for our sake and our democracy.

Newspapers raped their advertising rates for too long. Specially in the classified sections for employment, automotive, and real estate. But I believe loyal readers will help the rebirth. I hope so. for our sake and our democracy.

100 million daily newspapers sold a day in USA, NAA says. In 2011, that will be zero? Is he insane? DOES HE EVER RESEARCH WHAT HE CLAIMS?

Michael Moore claimd that daily newspapers will be gone in a couple of years? In my opinion, that's a vote of confidence that the newspaper industry, which already has started showing signs of rebirth, will continue to thrive. When I think of media pundit, I think of Howard Kurtz, Bernard Goldberg, Ed Wasserman ... professionals who have an inkling of what is going on in the media, and not just out there engaged in self-promotion.

Well at least he's not 300 pounds anymore. It was inherently ridiculous when the dude was morbidly obese and going around decrying the "excesses" of America. Now he's just overweight, so his tirades against the "excesses" of America isn't nearly as humorous. Still chuckle-worthy, though.

What a shock. Michael Moore blaming everything on the Republicans. What was that about "simple minds"?

Moore seems like too smart a guy to keep making these kinds of sweeping statements. In the end he does more harm than good for the left, I'm afraid.

"Simple answers for smug, simple minds." Yes, good description of corporate-owned newspapers. Or what used to be newspapers.

It essence Mr. Moore is correct concerning the blunders of the newspaper industry and his prediction of the demise of daily newspapers.
This has been a subject of printing industry trade discussion for many years. In a nutshell, newspaper owners do not actually read articles written about their own industry and have long been enthrall to their advertising revenue base. Who have their own problems.
Concerning the prediction of the demise of daily newspaper, expect to see weekly's supplant them. In many cases it will be the same newspaper organization moving from daily news to weekly. Commonly most would be newspaper readers would prefer only the weekend edition but have not been allowed to subscribe just the the weekend edition. It was simply not offered.

Simple answers for smug, simple minds

You need to spell check the article.