My name, cast in lead on a Linotype machine, and a 100-year-old “S.”
I began taking a short class on running a letterpress at Green Pea Press at Lowe Mill the week before Advance Publications announced it would be cutting print publication of four daily newspapers — including the paper I subscribe to now and the one I worked at for 10 years — to three days a week.
Working with such beautiful old printing machines while facing the demise of the printed newspaper was a little dizzying.
The husband’s not sure how I can possibly eat breakfast without a newspaper. I’m not either.
Although I left the newspaper industry more than five years ago because of its instability, I still feel like something huge has been yanked out of my life.
I loved that career. I loved that industry.
Most people my age will proudly admit that they don’t read a newspaper, so I will mourn this demise quietly. But in a few years, when the industry’s watchdog duties have been neglected, we will all realize what we have lost.
Entirely Adequate 
I finally subscribed to the local newspaper only to discover that publication would be reduced to three times a week. I’m one of the lucky ones, though — I only subscribed to the Sunday edition, and that’s one of the days they’ll continue to publish.
I’m not sad to see the demise of the paper but I’m not particularly happy about it either. I wonder how all the people who rely on their daily delivery of news will handle this paradigm shift. The technology gap is ever increasing, and as I age I find myself more concerned about those who don’t have access to the Internet in their homes; it’s not like everyone can afford to spend the gas money to head to the library every day to use the computers there. Even those that can afford it don’t always take to technology — and they shouldn’t be forced to. (My dad, for example, is an avid newspaper reader. He doesn’t enjoy reading news on the Internet, though, for a number of reasons.)
Here’s a question: What cost to society will result due to a lack of access to timely information? Will that cost be significant enough to warrant attention? Some may argue that printed newspapers aren’t timely enough already; others may argue that even once-a-week newspapers are enough to keep most communities as up-to-date on local news as they need to be. In a growing city like Huntsville, however, would once-a-week be good enough? Is thrice-a-week good enough?
(Aside: I wonder if newspapers have ever been subsidized…You know, like public radio? I’m not saying they should be; I’m just curious if they ever have been. Some may argue that the cost to local economies, etc. will necessitate the continued delivery of daily news to homes that cannot otherwise afford it.)
Newspapers lost the “timely information” battle years ago, and their mistake was to not concentrate on their remaining talent: depth of information. It’s ridiculous to try to battle the Internet and TV on getting out the news first, but papers have every chance to get out the news BETTER.
And I really wouldn’t mind the (near) end of print if Advance’s online product was any good, but have you looked at it lately? Part of a newspaper’s job is to let readers know what the important stories are. Al.com simply blurts everything out at once and you have to scroll through everything to find what’s important and/or what interests you. And again, that would be forgivable if other newspapers hadn’t figured out how to offer awesomely usable content (NY Times, anyone?).
As for the cost to society, I don’t think it’ll be apparent for a while. There’s simply not another group to take the place of good, seasoned newspaper reporters willing to show up for dull meetings and shuffle through box after box filled with government documents.
I don’t think newspapers have ever been subsidized.
It’s entirely possible I’m way off the mark here (the last time I subscribed to a newspaper was in college), but I haven’t felt like newspapers have served their watchdog role for a while. It seems like so many paper simply regurgitate AP articles and write puff pieces. Again, this is based on what I see online which is not necessarily a reflection of the true nature of the paper.
We stopped subscribing when we moved, but really the biggest strike against the paper was, well, the paper. I felt like we were constantly being snowed under by paper.
They certainly aren’t as active as they were in the past, but they still occasionally uncover things that otherwise would remain covered. That said, part of the reason that I left the industry was its move toward puff entertainment pieces. I couldn’t make a couple of key people understand that the “people in the news” column regurgitated information that everyone online had read three days before. And you’re right about the disconnect with the online product — at least our regional online product, which reads like a schizophrenic blog, with little rhyme or reason in regard to story importance.
Newspapers, even ours, until now, simply had more resources and more people with the ability to seek out and uncover things that folks didn’t want uncovered. Have they wasted a lot of this advantage? Yes, but it wasn’t completely gone. Now it pretty much is.