Watching two hours of 60 Minutes tonight reminds me how far journalism declined: it is a news program that is nothing but pure advertorial for various interests. Slopping an academic study or two as a visual is no substitute for actual research. They no longer can question anything in a STEM-based field. They never question academic institutions. They defer to authority. They always position their own nation as morally superior to anyone else's.
There is no difference between 60 Minutes and a late-night informercial. Vince Offer might as well be a correspondent.
Which brings us to the travails of the Denver Post and the misleading article about their woes in Politico.
I covered the newspaper industry over a decade ago. The game hasn't changed. The ignorance of those in the industry hasn't changed.
Newspaper circulation has been going down for decades. The article ignores this -- and the fact that ad revenues have been also in a free fall. If fewer people are reading and fewer advertisers are using newspapers to sell their products -- then the newspaper isn't profitable.
Unless you squeeze the assets of the newspaper -- which is what is happening.
The Politico piece completely ignores how modern-day newspaper owners are making money -- not with the actual product -- but by dismantling it piece by piece. It is a smash and grab method -- and there is not much more room left.
So what does it mean to squeeze assets?
You may notice how many newspapers have moved from their once large and prime locations to smaller venues -- selling the building and the land is an example of asset squeezing. In Canada, the Globe and Mail once had a large and prime sprawling building -- which no longer exists -- the condo market is far more lucrative, and the parent company made a profit -- not with the newspaper, but by squeezing an asset.
The problem is now there isn't much more assets left. Once you hit the physical building, it is the end of the road.
Newspapers are profitable only by squeezing assets -- so the Politico piece paints a very deceptive picture. It makes it seem as if there was life or hope left in the product -- but it is the opposite: if assets weren't being squeezed, there would be no profits. That's why vulture companies buy several newspapers, squeeze assets, and then sell them to the lower-tiered vulture company.
But the article is a perfect example of why journalism got destroyed: it chose narratives over reality. All you have to do is look at the bottom line of how companies are actually making a profit, and the reality is asset squeezing has been the method for as long as I have been studying journalism -- and longer.
But narratives are a form of dishonesty, meaning people are being given lies over truth.
Had journalism dealt with reality and truth, they wouldn't be throwing self-righteous temper tantrums.
They wouldn't be cheerleaders for businesses. They wouldn't be demonizing their owners because they would understand why their property was acquired in the first place.
The narrative did the profession in -- and it was a demise so richly earned...