My hometown newspaper just went digital-only.
TheMail Tribune is a victim of giant forces affecting community newspapers everywhere.
The Mail Tribune had been hollowing out for years, with less local news and more filler from the wire services. The publisher said that by cutting printing and distributions costs, he would be hire back some reporters. I am still a subscriber. I am hopeful. Trust but verify.
Until recently ads in daily newspapers were a primary way to buy and sell things. Classified ads were the golden goose. There were "Help Wanted" ads, real estate ads, car dealership ads. Grocers had their weekly ad specials. There were ads for items sold directly by individuals. Then along came Craigslist. Craigslist was free, easily searchable, unconstrained for length, and it had photos of what was for sale. It was better. The internet broke the classified ad monopoly. Institutions could go direct to the public. Here's this week's ad from a local grocer.
The internet also broke the newspaper monopoly on news delivered in written form. Americans changed, me among them. We got accustomed to looking at a screen.
Nationally, there is a movement away from advertising-based journalism toward direct payment for content. I was an accidental participant in Mail Tribune's awkward effort to get subscribers to pay more for content. Back in 2018 they used a stealth version of the teaser-rate system. By chance I compared my annual subscription cost to that of a friend. We each got a "thank you for being a loyal subscriber" greeting. I paid $100 more for the same annual subscription than he did. I had been a subscriber for more years than he had. I sat down with four friends over lunch and learned that one of us had paid $119 for the year; another paid $240, a third paid $374, a fourth paid $442--all for the same annual subscription. None of us--nor any of the other two-dozen people I spoke with--had any idea that the Tribune appeared to quietly bump up subscriber rates on different subscribers, so long as they didn't notice and complain. I considered this sneaky and abusive.
I looked at it from the perspective of my former role as a Financial Advisor. It would have been wrong--shameful--for me to have charged clients who most trusted me a higher fee than I charged other clients. It would be taking advantage of their loyalty, not honoring it. None of the several dozen people I spoke to about their subscriptions realized everyone paid a different rate, depending on how many times the Tribune had quietly bumped up their rate.
I wrote about it in this blog, and caught holy hell from the Tribune for tattling on them by publishing copies of the variously-priced invoices. This is but one incident of many where the newspaper slowly lost its credibility. The newspaper looked the same, but it wasn't the same. People quit reading it, telling me it "just wasn't worth it anymore."
So now the Mail Tribune is digital-only. Its subscription rate is now $1.99/week or about $104/year. Inexpensive. It is a bargain if they, in fact, hire back reporters. Possibly, with a restoration of people in the newsroom, it will fulfill the role of a community newspaper. For comparison, a digital subscription to The New York Times, the first year is only $40, but they clearly announce that for subsequent years it will cost about $220/year. The Portland newspaper, The Oregonian, charges $10/month for its digital paper--$120/year--after a brief teaser rate. The digital Oregonian newspaper offers Oregon news, but it is no substitute for a Southern Oregon newspaper. We are the outer boondocks to them.
I hope people subscribe--or resubscribe--to the Mail Tribune. A newspaper is glue that holds a community together. Gertrude Stein wrote:
what was the use of my having come from Oakland it was not natural to have come from there. . . there is no there there.
Newspapers help shape the there of a community.
I think it's very sad to lose our print newspaper.