Jeff Bezos buys Washington Post

Well, this is certainly one solution. It would be fitting if these megabucks Internet guys, the ones who have made fortunes beyond belief with products that have destroyed conventional media, step in and save the very media they have been destroying. Bezos is worth an estimated $25.2 billion. He has so much money that he could afford to pay $250 million CASH for one of the greatest newspapers not only in the country, but in the world.

In the end, this kind of thing is going to be what is necessary to save newspapers. The old-fashioned news media conglomerates aren't working anymore. So they need to be saved one paper at a time. I have long believed that newspapers are community utilities. They aren't just a business that if it goes away, so what? They provide a vital community service. And if communities are going to have them, they're going to have to pony up, or find a filthy rich person to subsidize them. They aren't a profit-making machine, and they have to stop being treated as such before they become extinct.

Slimmed-down online products are fine, but they aren't going to be able to provide the kind of coverage that daily newspapers do. They don't have the staff. And many of you who do read papers may have noticed that your local paper isn't as big as it used to be or cover as much as it used to. The newspaper as we know it is being downsized out of existence.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/05/news/companies/wa … ?hpt=hp_c3
By BearinFW | 08/06/2013 01:06 AM | 9 comments
Comments are disabled for this blog post.
  • I am also mourning the selling of The Globe to the Red Sox owner. That would be the end of the journalism that I am so used to. Sigh.
    LGMBoston 08/06/2013 09:26 PM
  • If you think about it, it makes sense for Internet guys to invest in newspapers. And Bezos is a forward thinker.

    Some Internet guys have made fortunes by disseminating someone else's product. With the newspaper industry failing, it is good business sense to act to guarantee that you will have product for your websites to distribute.
    BearinFW 08/06/2013 05:30 PM
  • Remember that most of the news you read on the Internet is generated by newspapers or traditional news agencies like Reuters and AP. All the Internet has done is find new ways to disseminate the news. Not cover it (with the notable exception of citizen journalism, but that's really hit or miss). So even if you don't read a newspaper, per se, you're still reading a newspaper. They are still our primary source of news. So how, as Jacker says, do we save that? That's an issue that the Internet age has yet to address.
    BearinFW 08/06/2013 04:45 PM
  • We're all to blame here, let's be honest. When consumers find out about a more efficient, cheaper mousetrap, we tend to go for it. I haven't purchased a newspaper... well, ever. Even in the '90s, when I was clearly becoming more socially aware and news conscious. I got my news from TV and weekly news magazines like Time and Newsweek. This was a conscious decision on my part. Purchasing a newspaper seemed wasteful. The "news" seemingly relevant for a short period of time. I'm sure many of my generation felt the same way. Even then, with the unforeseen internet on the horizon newspapers were probably in decline. Fast forward to now. I read Huffington Post. The New York Times. Slate. A plethora a news outlets at my finger tips which are catered directly to me. All on line. By way of Facebook, Twitter, even Tumblr. And I get this news even faster and more abundantly than ever before, in real time. It feels "free", but it's not. I had to pay for that computer, laptop, tablet, or phone to read the information. I have to pay for the internet to stay connected. That "free" wi-fi in Starbucks and other establishments incorporate that cost into the price of doing business. The price of "free" social networking comes in the form of selling INFORMATION. Primarily, yours. And if you think these information avenues are going to be the new standard for the foreseeable future, you'd be wrong. Wait a minute, that will change too. I don't lament the "death" of the newspaper. I didn't much support it at it's apex.
    Blackbarephila 08/06/2013 11:37 AM
  • Like most of you, I bemoan the loss of the print media. Especially the great photography. But we have to face it, we were the last generation to read newspapers. The true challenge should be to take greatness of the print media and transform it to the net.
    jacker 08/06/2013 10:25 AM
  • This is all art of a broader question of what do we want as a society? Corporate profits that drive our media and innovations or do we want a society that is a more sustainable and community driven? I believe we are at a crossroads and need to have a discussion about this. We can have the banksters and corporate giants continue to make huge profits on the backs of us and then be happy when they turn around and give us a little treat like a newspaper just like the Rockefellers and Carnegies did or not it is our choice.
    barney290 08/06/2013 08:36 AM
  • I've got to expound just a little further, Mark. We are being so freaking short-sighted in favor of quick profits that we don't care about what we're losing. And it's not just the current product. Think of the history that is contained in the archives of newspapers around the country. There's no worry about the New York Times being lost, but small towns could very well be in danger of having their entire historical record wiped out when a paper folds. What is happening is idiotic, and our pursuit of the almighty quick buck could have unintended consequences that may never be recovered.
    BearinFW 08/06/2013 05:06 AM
  • The way things stand now, Mark, I agree with you. Newspapers are going to be gone. The question is, do we value them as a society enough to save them? The current business model isn't working and given current realities isn't going to. My guess is it's going to come down to a case by case basis. Some communities/rich guys will bail out some newspapers. (A la Bezos and The Post.) Many others are just going to go away. It will depend on community priorities and resources.

    I think it's kind of a sad statement that our business community values something like Tumblr, which could well become passé in a few years, more than a 100-plus year community institution like the Globe. Where the fuck are our priorities?
    BearinFW 08/06/2013 04:33 AM
  • The Boston Globe just sold for 70 million after being bought for 1.1 Billion in 1993.
    And most likely bought as a tax shelter and for the write offs.
    The kid who created Tumblr walked away with more than double that in his pocket after taxes for a few years work.
    News papers may be on the way out, at least in their current form.
    Marc 08/06/2013 02:17 AM