Buffalo News in financial trouble

[ddaryl]

1 minute ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I suspect those two are protected by the union.

 

 

they could re-assign them then.... didn't know there was a journalists union

[Punching Bag]

4 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

I think you mean Phil Ranallo.

Very funny guy. Used to write the "What's up Harry" sports column.

His bet stuff was Monday mornings after any Bills game.

Delivered that paper for three years.

 

I did basic editing ("Editing assistant") for Courier Express in early 1980's and do not recall one mark on any of his columns for editor to look at it. Excellent writer.  Met him  once but not via work but via a relative who also served.

http://www.buffalosportshallfame.com/member/phil-ranallo/

https://www.wnypapers.com/news/article/featured/2015/12/28/123039/remembering-legendary-sportswriter-phil-ranallo

2 hours ago, sullim4 said:

Serious question - which of the following is a better source of Bills news: The Buffalo News or YoloInOhio and 26CornerBlitz?

 

That's your answer on why TBN is irrelevant.

 

That is hard to tell; Buffalo News does not hide sources via redirection URLs probably getting poster kickbacks.

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

I hate both guys but one clarification.  They're columnists, not reporters.    Their job is to stir the pot, attract eyeballs (which they do, much like the hosts at 'GR) and generally get people talking about them.   

 

If they are "columnists" not reporters then Buffalo Bills can deny them access to press briefings without consequence and should but I am sure they wear the "reporter hat" when they claim press access.

17 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

they could re-assign them then.... didn't know there was a journalists union

 

There are no openings in garbage reporting but since they are columnists the News could replace Ann Landers, etc with them and save money.

[Dr.Sack]

3 hours ago, Mike in Syracuse said:

Print media is a dying entity.   It is destined to go the same way as the pager and the walkman.    Trying to keep it alive because of some nostalgic draw is as foolish and trying to maintain steam powered transportation.

 

So what you are saying is the idea of making people pay for online content is not working. I’m wondering why people don’t want to pay for Sullivan & Bucky?

[Kelly the Dog]

5 minutes ago, Dr.Sack said:

 

So what you are saying is the idea of making people pay for online content is not working. I’m wondering why people don’t want to pay for Sullivan & Bucky?

So don't pay for Sullivan and Bucky. Pay for the few dozen other writers there, the cost of one crappy beer per month. Do it for your health!

[PromoTheRobot]

Just so I'm clear, I worry deeply by the decline of news reporting. But in regard on the Buffalo News, I can't abide those two columnists. 

[Punching Bag]

It would be worth it to declare bankruptcy just to get rid of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Doe. Companies do to get rid of buildings so why not leaches?

[HOUSE]

There goes the Kitty litter mat

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

 

The Guild (union) contract locks that in, unfortunately.    Buyouts or retirements are the only way to trim the deadwood.   I expect to see a few on the sports desk in this latest round of cost cutting...

Pergament supposedly retired, then a year later was (and is) back as a part timer, IIRC.  Is he still part of the Guild?  Thankfully Donn with two Ns retired and stayed there, so Buffalonians don't have to read his lectures on how to be hip, culturally aware, and a double talking s*** disturber. 

 

1 minute ago, THE SLAMMER said:

There goes the Kitty litter mat

Try the Toronto Sun.  That's all that rag is fit for, litter mats and birdcage liners.

[Kelly the Dog]

Does anyone here not read the Wall Street Journal, NYT, Washington Post, National Review, ESPN, or any website just because they don't like two of the numerous columnists and writers? I'm sure there are examples but it seems like a great number of you single out two guys who write 1% of the content each month and get 1% of the pay as a reason to not subscribe. 

[mileena]

4 hours ago, Ifartalot said:

 

 

With constant Trump bashing by Zremski, Turner & Zyglis. 

 

Trump bashing is good. Why would anyone support such a loser??????? #notmypresident

Edited May 16, 2018 by mileena

[Malazan]

I was told that paywalls solve everything though

[Punching Bag]

28 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Does anyone here not read the Wall Street Journal, NYT, Washington Post, National Review, ESPN, or any website just because they don't like two of the numerous columnists and writers? I'm sure there are examples but it seems like a great number of you single out two guys who write 1% of the content each month and get 1% of the pay as a reason to not subscribe. 

 

Read or pay?  If there is someone I vomitly disagree with I would ignore on a website but it that person is so bad I would NEVER, EVER pay to read any of it. When you are paying you are paying for everyone unless as some want with cable you can pick and choose.  As an example I read blogs on Patreon and I contribute to those whose publications I like.

 

I will not fund Jerry and Sulky for you.  This seems to be your goal.

[MJS]

Goodbye.

[Kelly the Dog]

12 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Read or pay?  If there is someone I vomitly disagree with I would ignore on a website but it that person is so bad I would NEVER, EVER pay to read any of it. When you are paying you are paying for everyone unless as some want with cable you can pick and choose.  As an example I read blogs on Patreon and I contribute to those whose publications I like.

 

I will not fund Jerry and Sulky for you.  This seems to be your goal.

Not my goal at all. You are exactly right when you say you are paying for everyone, that was my goal, to point that out to you. And if Jerry and Sully are 1% of the content that means you pay for the 99% as well as the 1%, but those two are still 1%.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Kelly the Dog

[Misterbluesky]

17 hours ago, Captain_Quint said:

I can't believe that they still list 16 pages of TV listings for the week. That's insanity in 2018. 

 

They were catering to the older generation,I know many seniors who don't have cable or the internet.

[BillsFan4]

Just now, mileena said:

Trump bashing is good. Why would anyone support such a loser??????? #notmypresident

Much of what I've seen from Jerry Zremski is him just reporting the actual details of a story and/or facts. 

 

I guess thats considered "bashing" these days?  lol 

Edited May 16, 2018 by BillsFan4

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Just so I'm clear, I worry deeply by the decline of news reporting. But in regard on the Buffalo News, I can't abide those two columnists. 

I subscribe to the online NYTimes mostly for the editorial section. There are columnists that I like and read; and there are columnists that I don't like and don't read. Almost all newspapers are struggling with the challenging economics of the business. I don't know why these two columnists should bother you so much that you would not support a paper that in general you support, especially when you have the prerogative of not reading their columns. 

 

Sometimes I will read a columnist that in general I don't agree with or even like just for the sake of getting a different opinion and perspective. I can understand why a sector of the readers don't like Sullivan, Bucky or whoever. However, sometimes you broaden your view by listening to someone you don't agree with. If you find that so intolerable to do then just ignore that section of the paper. 

[Kelly the Dog]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

I subscribe to the online NYTimes mostly for the editorial section. There are columnists that I like and read; and there are columnists that I don't like and don't read. Almost all newspapers are struggling with the challenging economics of the business. I don't know why these two columnists should bother you so much that you would not support a paper that in general you support, especially when you have the prerogative of not reading their columns. 

 

Sometimes I will read a columnist that in general I don't agree with or even like just for the sake of getting a different opinion and perspective. I can understand why a sector of the readers don't like Sullivan, Bucky or whoever. However, sometimes you broaden your view by listening to someone you don't agree with. If you find that so intolerable to do then just ignore that section of the paper. 

It seems so simple and obvious. Well put. One of the most important thing one can do to understand the world better, or anything better, is to read people who don't agree with you, or present the other side to your belief or argument. 

[Fan in San Diego]

I subscribe to the online version. I'm doing my part.

[May Day 10]

Its a shame.  I like a lot of what the Buffalo News has to offer.... but I agree with what someone said on the first page.

 

They have awful, old, inept, nepotistic management who have failed and continue to fail to adapt to modern times.  

[JohnC]

18 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

It seems so simple and obvious. Well put. One of the most important thing one can do to understand the world better, or anything better, is to read people who don't agree with you, or present the other side to your belief or argument. 

We have become a world of tribes. It's gotten to the point that if you engage with the other tribe you are committing an act of betrayal to your tribe. What is lost in this self-imposed segregation is that the other tribe isn't so much different from your own tribe. Sure there are differences but the reality is there is more commonality than one would have expected. When all is said and done by limiting oneself you are not expanding oneself. There's just not much growth in restricting one's contacts. Interacting out of your comfort zone won't contaminate you. It's the opposite. Sometimes one's beliefs are strengthened when challenged with opposing beliefs and sometimes one's beliefs are re-examined and altered when exposed to  different beliefs. And that is a good thing. 

Edited May 16, 2018 by JohnC

[Kelly the Dog]

18 minutes ago, JohnC said:

We have become a world of tribes. It's gotten to the point that if you engage with the other tribe you are committing an act of betrayal to your tribe. What is lost in this self-imposed segregation is that the other tribe isn't so much different from your own tribe. Sure there are differences but the reality is there is more commonality than one would have expected. When all is said and done by limiting oneself you are not expanding oneself. There's just not much growth in restricting one's contacts. Interacting out of your comfort zone won't contaminate you. It's the opposite. Sometimes one's beliefs are strengthened when challenged with opposing beliefs and sometimes one's beliefs are re-examined and altered when exposed to  different beliefs. And that is a good thing. 

Yup. And even if you don't subscribe to that sound reasoning, whatever happened to good ol' "know thine enemy?!" 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Kelly the Dog

[JohnC]

56 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Yup. And even if you don't subscribe to that sound reasoning, whatever happened to good ol' "know thine enemy?!" 

What's the saying? Ignorance is bliss. 

[ColoradoBills]

1 hour ago, Fan in San Diego said:

I subscribe to the online version. I'm doing my part.

 

I read the online version a few times a week out here in Colorado.

I don't get my sports news from it but it is good to read about the old home town.

I don't subscribe but all their warnings about so many articles left never locks me out.

 

The BN isn't great but it's miles ahead of the Colorado Springs Gazette. 

[PromoTheRobot]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

I subscribe to the online NYTimes mostly for the editorial section. There are columnists that I like and read; and there are columnists that I don't like and don't read. Almost all newspapers are struggling with the challenging economics of the business. I don't know why these two columnists should bother you so much that you would not support a paper that in general you support, especially when you have the prerogative of not reading their columns. 

 

Sometimes I will read a columnist that in general I don't agree with or even like just for the sake of getting a different opinion and perspective. I can understand why a sector of the readers don't like Sullivan, Bucky or whoever. However, sometimes you broaden your view by listening to someone you don't agree with. If you find that so intolerable to do then just ignore that section of the paper. 

 

I subscribe to the Times online, as well as The Guardian. British paper but excellent coverage of US issues.

[GunnerBill]

Get some people who can write. Jerry Sullivan can't.

 

 

18 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

I subscribe to the Times online, as well as The Guardian. British paper but excellent coverage of US issues.

 

Sadly the Guardian is also under severe financial pressure. It is an excellent newspaper. 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

I subscribe to the Times online, as well as The Guardian. British paper but excellent coverage of US issues.

Do any of those esteemed papers discuss the qb situation for the Bills or which goalie is going to be in the net  for the upcoming game? Or do any of those world renowned media outlets let you know where you can get the best Friday fish deals in western NY? ?

[ExiledInIllinois]

17 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Do any of those esteemed papers discuss the qb situation for the Bills or which goalie is going to be in the net  for the upcoming game? Or do any of those world renowned media outlets let you know where you can get the best Friday fish deals in western NY? ?

And this is necessary?

 

It's gratuitous.

Edited May 17, 2018 by ExiledInIllinois

[Kelly the Dog]

21 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

And this is necessary?

 

It's gratuitous.

You mean a tip?

[Ol Dirty B]

22 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I thankfully do not live where the Buffalo News in the main source of information. When I visit family-which is basically a few weeks every year- I find it pathetic. Sullivan basically reruns the same columns each year with new names but same bashing. The rest of news is always with the same slant and never only facts. If you are going to go the route of sensationalist then you need to know you will shrink your audience when the intelligent people realize it. Most of Buffalo is intelligent and has decided that they want a different choice which is now readily available.

 

It's a sports section man.... I get people don't like a lot of the columnists,  but is your main source of information determined around how they treat the Bills?

 

I don't care about their sports section, or any sports section in a news paper for the most part, I'm more interested in local news and events not related to what 3rd string RB the Bills signed at the beginning of May.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just now, Kelly the Dog said:

You mean a tip?

No.  Unnecessary 

[Ol Dirty B]

2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

I subscribe to the Times online, as well as The Guardian. British paper but excellent coverage of US issues.

 

I like the Guardian also... I'd like to get a Times subscription, but I just can't get myself to pony up. I was debating scamming them because I attended two undergraduate programs and I think I'm still a matriculated student their from like 2 years ago.

[Kelly the Dog]

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

No.  Unnecessary 

Why? He was making a specific point, and a decent one. That the papers he was saying he was willing to pay for do not provide news on Buffalo, which we could be in danger of losing.

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Why? He was making a specific point, and a decent one. That the papers he was saying he was willing to pay for do not provide news on Buffalo, which we could be in danger of losing.

Fish fry, goalie and Qb is not newsworthy... Or worth paying more than what you pay your ISP.

[Kelly the Dog]

1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Fish fry, goalie and Qb is not newsworthy... Or worth paying more than what you pay your ISP.

He's talking about getting Bills and Sabres news for your $2.99. It's sportsnewsworthy, and directly applicable to the conversation.

[PromoTheRobot]

16 hours ago, JohnC said:

Do any of those esteemed papers discuss the qb situation for the Bills or which goalie is going to be in the net  for the upcoming game? Or do any of those world renowned media outlets let you know where you can get the best Friday fish deals in western NY? ?

 

Someone made a good point earlier, one I've thought of as well if I only knew how to develop apps. There needs to be a "EZpass" for web content. I can't afford to have 50 different subscriptions but I'd be willing to pay for content ala carte.

Edited May 17, 2018 by PromoTheRobot

[Ol Dirty B]

3 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

I read the online version a few times a week out here in Colorado.

I don't get my sports news from it but it is good to read about the old home town.

I don't subscribe but all their warnings about so many articles left never locks me out.

 

The BN isn't great but it's miles ahead of the Colorado Springs Gazette. 

 

This is how I view it. All outlets have their faults, but by national standards the BN isn't that bad, and is useful for local non-sports related news.

Personally, I think a lot of these papers would be fine by getting rid of the sports section. That job is dated, you have national outlets and guys will do it for free or as a side hustle and create their own median. Paying someone 6 figures to cover the Bills or Sabres just doesn't make sense, websites like this and Buffalo Rumblings kind of show that.

 

The guy Cover 1 on twitter shows that. People will do this stuff as a hobby, we don't need people with journalism degrees to do that. The nature of the content simply doesn't warrant the credentials in my opinion. I'd rather they focus all those resources towards doing more in depth pieces on local news. That's where, in my opinion, the true value of a paper and what it can bring lays.

 

A guy, just like you, or me, with no real discernible difference in talent when it comes to evaluating what is in front of us is useless. When that hole in coverage exists, someone will fill it, and probably profitably. The BN just might not be the place to do it. However, I could be completely wrong on this as I'm sure plenty of people, perhaps most of the people who buy the paper do it for the sole reason I'm advocating to get rid of it. The Sports section. I'm not really familiar with any statistics on this topic, so I could be way off. The more I think about it, I probably am.

3 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Someone me a good point earlier, one I've thought of as well if I only knew how to develop apps. There needs to be a "EZpass" for web content. I can't afford to have 50 different subscriptions but I'd be willing to pay for content ala carte.

 

That is a good idea, however, I think it kind of already exists with things like bleacher report, the ESPN App, the AP wire, even Yahoo updates me on specific topics. And they're free.

 

They just don't provide the kind of in depth journalistic coverage you'd get from outlets that require payment like a NY Times. However, when it comes to sports they get the job done.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[ColoradoBills]

13 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

This is how I view it. All outlets have their faults, but by national standards the BN isn't that bad, and is useful for local non-sports related news.

Personally, I think a lot of these papers would be fine by getting rid of the sports section. That job is dated, you have national outlets and guys will do it for free or as a side hustle and create their own median. Paying someone 6 figures to cover the Bills or Sabres just doesn't make sense, websites like this and Buffalo Rumblings kind of show that.

 

The guy Cover 1 on twitter shows that. People will do this stuff as a hobby, we don't need people with journalism degrees to do that. The nature of the content simply doesn't warrant the credentials in my opinion. I'd rather they focus all those resources towards doing more in depth pieces on local news. That's where, in my opinion, the true value of a paper and what it can bring lays.

 

A guy, just like you, or me, with no real discernible difference in talent when it comes to evaluating what is in front of us is useless. When that hole in coverage exists, someone will fill it, and probably profitably. The BN just might not be the place to do it. However, I could be completely wrong on this as I'm sure plenty of people, perhaps most of the people who buy the paper do it for the sole reason I'm advocating to get rid of it. The Sports section. I'm not really familiar with any statistics on this topic, so I could be way off. The more I think about it, I probably am.

 

You're right.  The days of the local Sports Journalist are done.  To tell you truth the main reason I look at the BN Sports is for the local

High School scores.  It's fun to keep up with my nephew and niece (both play HS sports) and my old school.

 

When people at work would see me reading the BN online they were amazed how much cool local stuff they have.

My friends especially like the "catch of the week" pictures of fisherman and hunters.

 

I hope the BN stays in business with the web page.............it's a lifeline to us who want to know what's going on in Western NY.

[sullim4]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Someone me a good point earlier, one I've thought of as well if I only knew how to develop apps. There needs to be a "EZpass" for web content. I can't afford to have 50 different subscriptions but I'd be willing to pay for content ala carte.

 

I've mentioned it a few times.  The actual tech side of it is the easy part - you just need auth and billing info.  The hard part is getting media outlets to buy into the idea.  You'd need to line up contracts with the conglomerates like Hearst, Gannett, NYT, etc.  The tech companies (Apple, Amazon, Google) would be well positioned to set this up, and could even suggest articles based on previous purchases or interests.

 

The only paper I have seen that has tried micropayments is the Winnipeg Free Press.  It's 27 cents CAD per article with a money back guarantee if you read the article and don't think it was worth the money.

 

You will recall 20 years ago that piracy of music was a huge problem.  Micropayments have largely eliminated that problem since most people would rather pay $.99 for a song rather than go through the trouble to get an illegal copy.  I don't see why the same thing couldn't work for the news.  People generally dislike recurring subscription-based services but have fewer issues with pay-as-you-go.

[PromoTheRobot]

18 minutes ago, sullim4 said:

 

I've mentioned it a few times.  The actual tech side of it is the easy part - you just need auth and billing info.  The hard part is getting media outlets to buy into the idea.  You'd need to line up contracts with the conglomerates like Hearst, Gannett, NYT, etc.  The tech companies (Apple, Amazon, Google) would be well positioned to set this up, and could even suggest articles based on previous purchases or interests.

 

The only paper I have seen that has tried micropayments is the Winnipeg Free Press.  It's 27 cents CAD per article with a money back guarantee if you read the article and don't think it was worth the money.

 

You will recall 20 years ago that piracy of music was a huge problem.  Micropayments have largely eliminated that problem since most people would rather pay $.99 for a song rather than go through the trouble to get an illegal copy.  I don't see why the same thing couldn't work for the news.  People generally dislike recurring subscription-based services but have fewer issues with pay-as-you-go.

 

That technology could affect all kinds of websites. Turn the internet into a toll road. Maybe that's not such a good idea.