Struggling newspaper sales have been a topic of conversation all over the world, and that includes France, but the French approach to saving this diminishing market is much different from that of others.
Eric Pfanner, of the New York Times, wrote about France’s plan to win back newspaper subscriptions and revenue; to give away newspapers in an attempt to gain regular consumers. This plan, called “My Free Newspaper,” offers 18 to 24-year-olds a free, yearlong subscription to a newspaper of their choice, with hopes that they will then continue to buy and read the newspapers when that year ends.
This may seem like a drastic measure, but France is facing drastic circumstances, even in comparison to the dwindling sales everywhere else; on a per-capita basis, only about half as many papers are sold in France then are in Germany and Britain, according to the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers in Paris.
France’s newspapers, much like elsewhere, are in crisis mode due to an advertising slump and readers’ movement to the internet for news sources, but customers are especially low among young people. A government study found that in 2007, only 10 percent of people aged 15 to 24 are reading a paid-for newspaper daily, which is only half of what that number was 10 years ago.
This certainly sounds like an innovative idea to me, but I had many questions upon reading the first paragraph, like, how will they pay for this, because if this doesn’t turn out customers after the year ends like they are hoping it will, how will they make up for what sounds like a pretty significant loss? The article said that the costs of the project will be shared by the government and the newspapers, with the government contributing $22.5 million over three years, which will certainly help.
Another problem that I found with the idea is that I would imagine that many of the people that will subscribe to this free year’s worth of newspapers are people that already pay to read papers daily, so, essentially, the newspapers might simply maintain consumers, rather than gain consumers. In response to that, the article said that over 30,000 people have already signed up for the free subscriptions, so let’s hope that these people keep their subscription when it comes time to pay for it.
This certainly sounds very interesting, but hopefully it will prove to be a success, more importantly. I receive a newspaper daily, and I enjoy reading it, and I can only hope that sales will increase so we don’t have to face possibly losing such a long-standing tradition.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Oreos: Milks favorite cookie
Craig Wilson knows the key to happiness in life. And it may not be what you would expect.
In his recent article, Wilson talks about the Dalai Lama and his book, “The Art of Happiness: A Handbook for Living.” Although the book was written ten years ago, it is being reissued this month, though that’s not surprising considering it sold millions, was on the best-seller list for two years, and was translated into 50 languages.
The Dalai Lama has also written a sequel, “The Art of Happiness in a Troubled World.” This is surely a book I should put on my buy list. His message is simple, something anyone can achieve; happiness is something that can be achieved by daily practice and discipline. Happiness is determined more by one’s state of mind than external events.
Although I have not yet mastered the art of being happy, or really come close for that matter, I have certainly learned that happiness IS a state of mind. Surely what goes on around you will have an effect on you, but you must find a way to not let your state of mind reflect whatever craziness is surrounding you.
Wilson, and the Dalai Lama, says that the whole purpose of life is to achieve happiness. According to the Dalai Lama, our money, our mates (or lack thereof), our physical appearance, none of this has anything to do with our ability to be happy. We are born with everything we need to be happy. Wilson goes on to say that most of us don’t buy this, otherwise we wouldn’t be at the gym, mall, or local bar looking to attain happiness in superficial things. This couldn’t be more true, but that’s our society, and I have a difficult time imagining a drastic change anytime soon.
As much as I want to be happy, I don’t think I will be if I don’t run at least 4 times a week.
Though this article wasn’t the best to stimulate an argument, it was very interesting and entertaining. Maybe I enjoyed it so much because it really hit home, especially the title, “The final word: Cookies and milk make a happy combination.” Wilson says Oreo cookies make him very happy; he can eat an entire sleeve in record time. I too am a strong believer that Oreos ARE milk’s favorite cookie. I eat cookies and milk pretty much every night before I go to bed. I guess that’s why I feel the need to go to the gym every day of the week. It’s a vicious cycle.
In his recent article, Wilson talks about the Dalai Lama and his book, “The Art of Happiness: A Handbook for Living.” Although the book was written ten years ago, it is being reissued this month, though that’s not surprising considering it sold millions, was on the best-seller list for two years, and was translated into 50 languages.
The Dalai Lama has also written a sequel, “The Art of Happiness in a Troubled World.” This is surely a book I should put on my buy list. His message is simple, something anyone can achieve; happiness is something that can be achieved by daily practice and discipline. Happiness is determined more by one’s state of mind than external events.
Although I have not yet mastered the art of being happy, or really come close for that matter, I have certainly learned that happiness IS a state of mind. Surely what goes on around you will have an effect on you, but you must find a way to not let your state of mind reflect whatever craziness is surrounding you.
Wilson, and the Dalai Lama, says that the whole purpose of life is to achieve happiness. According to the Dalai Lama, our money, our mates (or lack thereof), our physical appearance, none of this has anything to do with our ability to be happy. We are born with everything we need to be happy. Wilson goes on to say that most of us don’t buy this, otherwise we wouldn’t be at the gym, mall, or local bar looking to attain happiness in superficial things. This couldn’t be more true, but that’s our society, and I have a difficult time imagining a drastic change anytime soon.
As much as I want to be happy, I don’t think I will be if I don’t run at least 4 times a week.
Though this article wasn’t the best to stimulate an argument, it was very interesting and entertaining. Maybe I enjoyed it so much because it really hit home, especially the title, “The final word: Cookies and milk make a happy combination.” Wilson says Oreo cookies make him very happy; he can eat an entire sleeve in record time. I too am a strong believer that Oreos ARE milk’s favorite cookie. I eat cookies and milk pretty much every night before I go to bed. I guess that’s why I feel the need to go to the gym every day of the week. It’s a vicious cycle.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Rush to Judgement
Rush Limbaugh’s bid to buy part of the St. Louis Rams has stirred lots of controversy and brought about lots of opinions, and now the Reverend Al Sharpton has joined the mix.
Sharpton sent a letter to NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, urging him to reject Limbaugh’s bid, he also asked for a meeting with Goodell. The letter basically said that the NFL should reject the bid because Limbaugh would be bad for the league.
Goodell was in Boston attending an owner’s meeting when the letter arrived and will respond to it upon his return, league spokesman Greg Aiello, but frankly, I don’t understand why he would take the time to respond.
There have also been several former and current NFL players speaking out against Limbaugh, many saying that they would refuse to play for a team that Limbaugh owned. Roman Oben, a retired NFL player had this to say, “The biggest fear that I share, and a lot of people share with me, is that you just don’t want a guy with these extreme views, who has made a living off those views, getting in the ear of upper management and ownership to create some of these policies.”
What policies? What policies are speaking about, Mr. Oben? The NFL already has a code of conduct and holds their players to high standards, so what policies are you talking about that Limbaugh’s political views could possibly affect?
Also, those players that say they would refuse to play for a team that Limbaugh owned are full of crap. Their job is to play football, if Limbaugh was offering you more money than another owner, you’re telling me that you wouldn’t go to his team? NO. You would.
And as far as politics goes and other league owners, the majority of the owners are conservative, like Limbaugh, and we don’t know them like we know Limbaugh, but if we did, I’m sure there would be some secrets revealed that would be less than pleasing, because people in their position don’t get there without stepping on some people along the way.
My biggest problem with this article, though, is the fact that Sharpton is writing a letter to Goodell and requesting a meeting with him. Why should Goodell even take into consideration what Sharpton has to say? And Sharpton says that Limbaugh will be bad for the league, but we don’t even know who most of the league’s owners are, because they really don’t have that much of an effect on the league. They sign the checks.
It just really bothers me that Sharpton is speaking out against Limbaugh. It’s a free country, Limbaugh has worked himself to a position where he can buy an NFL team, if he wants to, he should at least be fairly considered. What pull does Sharpton have with the NFL? Because I don’t think he should have any.
Sharpton sent a letter to NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, urging him to reject Limbaugh’s bid, he also asked for a meeting with Goodell. The letter basically said that the NFL should reject the bid because Limbaugh would be bad for the league.
Goodell was in Boston attending an owner’s meeting when the letter arrived and will respond to it upon his return, league spokesman Greg Aiello, but frankly, I don’t understand why he would take the time to respond.
There have also been several former and current NFL players speaking out against Limbaugh, many saying that they would refuse to play for a team that Limbaugh owned. Roman Oben, a retired NFL player had this to say, “The biggest fear that I share, and a lot of people share with me, is that you just don’t want a guy with these extreme views, who has made a living off those views, getting in the ear of upper management and ownership to create some of these policies.”
What policies? What policies are speaking about, Mr. Oben? The NFL already has a code of conduct and holds their players to high standards, so what policies are you talking about that Limbaugh’s political views could possibly affect?
Also, those players that say they would refuse to play for a team that Limbaugh owned are full of crap. Their job is to play football, if Limbaugh was offering you more money than another owner, you’re telling me that you wouldn’t go to his team? NO. You would.
And as far as politics goes and other league owners, the majority of the owners are conservative, like Limbaugh, and we don’t know them like we know Limbaugh, but if we did, I’m sure there would be some secrets revealed that would be less than pleasing, because people in their position don’t get there without stepping on some people along the way.
My biggest problem with this article, though, is the fact that Sharpton is writing a letter to Goodell and requesting a meeting with him. Why should Goodell even take into consideration what Sharpton has to say? And Sharpton says that Limbaugh will be bad for the league, but we don’t even know who most of the league’s owners are, because they really don’t have that much of an effect on the league. They sign the checks.
It just really bothers me that Sharpton is speaking out against Limbaugh. It’s a free country, Limbaugh has worked himself to a position where he can buy an NFL team, if he wants to, he should at least be fairly considered. What pull does Sharpton have with the NFL? Because I don’t think he should have any.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
News
I know, creative title, right? I have trouble finding an article to blog about, and I have probably read nearly 35 articles in the past hour and a half trying to find something that I feel I can write about, and one topic that has come up repeatedly is the state of journalism and what the future holds for it. Well, as my eyes have gotten incredibly heavy and I feel I no longer possess the energy required to read a new article, I have settled (yes, just settled, so don’t expect much) on an article addressing the question that so many others have pondered.
Alexandra Fenwick’s article about Alex Jones’ new book, “Losing the News; The Future of the News that Feeds Democracy” puts journalism and the turmoil surrounding it in terms that pretty much anyone can understand, probably because Jones’ book is aimed not at journalists, but at people concerned about journalism but uninformed about what has happened to it and why it’s so important. Nevertheless, it was interesting.
First off, I found Jones’ explanation of what he means by the ‘news’ quite insightful:
“Imagine a sphere of pitted iron, grey and imperfect like a large cannonball. Think of this dense, heavy ball as the total mass of each day’s serious reported news, the iron core of information that is at the center of a functioning democracy. This iron core is big and unwieldy, reflecting each day’s combined output of all the professional journalism done by news organizations—newspapers, radio and television news, news services such as the Associated Press and Reuters, and a few magazines. Some of its contents is now created by new media, nonprofits and even, occasionally, the supermarket tabloids, but the overwhelming majority still comes from the traditional news media.”
I think we are not supposed to include long quotes in our blogs, but I found this the most suitable way of sharing with you Jones’ metaphor. Jones used this visualization because it was representative of the news in that, it’s not always pretty, but it’s got weight, it’s important. He also used the erosion, the loss of weight, and rusting on the outside of the cannonball to represent everything that is happening to the news.
Jones also spoke about his belief that newspapers are worth fighting for, saying that they provide the bulk of the weight in the cannonballs (or the bulk of the news), and so they must survive. But, he believes, they also must survive because many of the non-profit journalism and small news start-ups that we have seen sprout more recently, won’t survive.
The article ended with a quote from Jones saying that he wants NEWS, “I. Want. News. I don’t want T-ball coverage, I want news. I don’t want Britney Spears, I want news. I don’t want just wire copy, I want news.”
I agree with him about the importance of news and papers and that we must sustain the condition of news and journalism and not let it slip into an oblivion of BLOGS (as I blog).
*Please know that I have absolutely no qualms with blogs and people that blog, I was simply trying to make this somewhat interesting to read!
Alexandra Fenwick’s article about Alex Jones’ new book, “Losing the News; The Future of the News that Feeds Democracy” puts journalism and the turmoil surrounding it in terms that pretty much anyone can understand, probably because Jones’ book is aimed not at journalists, but at people concerned about journalism but uninformed about what has happened to it and why it’s so important. Nevertheless, it was interesting.
First off, I found Jones’ explanation of what he means by the ‘news’ quite insightful:
“Imagine a sphere of pitted iron, grey and imperfect like a large cannonball. Think of this dense, heavy ball as the total mass of each day’s serious reported news, the iron core of information that is at the center of a functioning democracy. This iron core is big and unwieldy, reflecting each day’s combined output of all the professional journalism done by news organizations—newspapers, radio and television news, news services such as the Associated Press and Reuters, and a few magazines. Some of its contents is now created by new media, nonprofits and even, occasionally, the supermarket tabloids, but the overwhelming majority still comes from the traditional news media.”
I think we are not supposed to include long quotes in our blogs, but I found this the most suitable way of sharing with you Jones’ metaphor. Jones used this visualization because it was representative of the news in that, it’s not always pretty, but it’s got weight, it’s important. He also used the erosion, the loss of weight, and rusting on the outside of the cannonball to represent everything that is happening to the news.
Jones also spoke about his belief that newspapers are worth fighting for, saying that they provide the bulk of the weight in the cannonballs (or the bulk of the news), and so they must survive. But, he believes, they also must survive because many of the non-profit journalism and small news start-ups that we have seen sprout more recently, won’t survive.
The article ended with a quote from Jones saying that he wants NEWS, “I. Want. News. I don’t want T-ball coverage, I want news. I don’t want Britney Spears, I want news. I don’t want just wire copy, I want news.”
I agree with him about the importance of news and papers and that we must sustain the condition of news and journalism and not let it slip into an oblivion of BLOGS (as I blog).
*Please know that I have absolutely no qualms with blogs and people that blog, I was simply trying to make this somewhat interesting to read!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)