I think we can safely say that print journalism is as dead as radio and cable TV (to which I still subscribe). They probably won't ever die out completely, but will continue to become a smaller...
I think we can safely say that print journalism is as dead as radio and cable TV (to which I still subscribe). They probably won't ever die out completely, but will continue to become a smaller and smaller part of the population's everyday life. I used to be an avid radio listener, but now only listen when I'm in my car and out of podcasts. I will turn on NPR's top-of-the-hour news summary on my way home from work (when I'm not working at home). But beyond that, I simply don't listen anymore due to the lack of diversity and the unbelievable number of very loud, very annoying ads. I haven't purchased a newspaper or magazine in literally decades. My spouse has purchased magazines more recently, but they were the special-edition things mentioned at the end of the article. We didn't subscribe and honestly probably bought around 1 of those per year. The headline also makes it sound like 60 magazine launches in a year is a lot, but in the article they point out that's less than half launched in the previous year. Furthermore, the number launched is somewhat meaningless. How many are surviving now compared to past years? And what are subscription and newsstand sales like compared to previous years? Personally, I think it's fine to say that print journalism is dead. (Also, most of the magazines discussed in the article are not journalism. One was a cooking magazine, and the others sounded like celebrity-themed magazines.)
Agreed and I'm fine with that, on the magazine front, as it tends to push the publications to greater and greater niches. As an avid magazine subscriber (I just subscribed to a new magazine today...
I think we can safely say that print journalism is as dead as radio and cable TV (to which I still subscribe). They probably won't ever die out completely, but will continue to become a smaller and smaller part of the population's everyday life.
Agreed and I'm fine with that, on the magazine front, as it tends to push the publications to greater and greater niches. As an avid magazine subscriber (I just subscribed to a new magazine today actually.) there have been a number of magazines I had subscriptions to at one time that were bought up and merged with others to become broader interest in the same sort of hobbyist spheres. Each culling ended up with less technical, less interesting, and more form over function rags that I do not enjoy as much.
It seems these broader audience approaches have, thankfully, failed and now it's turning toward specifics as publishers realize that everyone fighting for the same piece of pie is less profitable than carving your own slice.
Personally, I think it's fine to say that print journalism is dead. (Also, most of the magazines discussed in the article are not journalism. One was a cooking magazine, and the others sounded like celebrity-themed magazines.)
How are the magazines not journalism?
From the article:
HGTV stars Drew and Jonathan Scott are behind Reveal, their new magazine that launched in January for 10 bucks an issue.
And even though the average cover price of one of these newly debuted magazines was almost $8 this year, up from around $5 or so for magazines from tried-and-true brands, Husni says it’s helping pay for a premium aura around these new titles. Their covers are thicker. The paper is of better quality, and reading them feels a little like the affordance of a luxury.
I've mentioned before that magazines are too cheap, so this is good sign in my opinion. Many of the non-US magazine subscriptions I've had are cover-price per issue subscriptions that are mailed to me, but in the US the subscription price is usually around a third of the cover price delivered to your door.
It's not that magazines are not journalism, it's that usually magazines (or even newspaper stories) about cooking and celebrities are not journalism, or at least not very good journalism. I admit...
How are the magazines not journalism?
It's not that magazines are not journalism, it's that usually magazines (or even newspaper stories) about cooking and celebrities are not journalism, or at least not very good journalism. I admit I was being a little cynical given the topics. That's not to say you can't have journalism about those topics. I think that America's Test Kitchen had a cooking magazine that was what I would consider journalistic a few years back, if I'm remembering correctly. They would do actual experiments to figure out the best way to cook something and explain why other ways didn't get the expected results, etc. It wasn't just a random collection of recipes whose main purpose was to show ads. (I think it was ad-free, at least initially.) But that seems pretty rare (or at least was rare back when I bought cooking magazines).
How many print magazines subsist entirely off of people who can't be bothered to attempt the arcane and Kafkaesque process of canceling their subscription?
How many print magazines subsist entirely off of people who can't be bothered to attempt the arcane and Kafkaesque process of canceling their subscription?
I think we can safely say that print journalism is as dead as radio and cable TV (to which I still subscribe). They probably won't ever die out completely, but will continue to become a smaller and smaller part of the population's everyday life. I used to be an avid radio listener, but now only listen when I'm in my car and out of podcasts. I will turn on NPR's top-of-the-hour news summary on my way home from work (when I'm not working at home). But beyond that, I simply don't listen anymore due to the lack of diversity and the unbelievable number of very loud, very annoying ads. I haven't purchased a newspaper or magazine in literally decades. My spouse has purchased magazines more recently, but they were the special-edition things mentioned at the end of the article. We didn't subscribe and honestly probably bought around 1 of those per year. The headline also makes it sound like 60 magazine launches in a year is a lot, but in the article they point out that's less than half launched in the previous year. Furthermore, the number launched is somewhat meaningless. How many are surviving now compared to past years? And what are subscription and newsstand sales like compared to previous years? Personally, I think it's fine to say that print journalism is dead. (Also, most of the magazines discussed in the article are not journalism. One was a cooking magazine, and the others sounded like celebrity-themed magazines.)
Agreed and I'm fine with that, on the magazine front, as it tends to push the publications to greater and greater niches. As an avid magazine subscriber (I just subscribed to a new magazine today actually.) there have been a number of magazines I had subscriptions to at one time that were bought up and merged with others to become broader interest in the same sort of hobbyist spheres. Each culling ended up with less technical, less interesting, and more form over function rags that I do not enjoy as much.
It seems these broader audience approaches have, thankfully, failed and now it's turning toward specifics as publishers realize that everyone fighting for the same piece of pie is less profitable than carving your own slice.
How are the magazines not journalism?
From the article:
I've mentioned before that magazines are too cheap, so this is good sign in my opinion. Many of the non-US magazine subscriptions I've had are cover-price per issue subscriptions that are mailed to me, but in the US the subscription price is usually around a third of the cover price delivered to your door.
It's not that magazines are not journalism, it's that usually magazines (or even newspaper stories) about cooking and celebrities are not journalism, or at least not very good journalism. I admit I was being a little cynical given the topics. That's not to say you can't have journalism about those topics. I think that America's Test Kitchen had a cooking magazine that was what I would consider journalistic a few years back, if I'm remembering correctly. They would do actual experiments to figure out the best way to cook something and explain why other ways didn't get the expected results, etc. It wasn't just a random collection of recipes whose main purpose was to show ads. (I think it was ad-free, at least initially.) But that seems pretty rare (or at least was rare back when I bought cooking magazines).
But how many will still be around in 5-10 years?
How many print magazines subsist entirely off of people who can't be bothered to attempt the arcane and Kafkaesque process of canceling their subscription?