What does it say about the future of newspapers when even the New York Times metro desk has decided to axe its subscriptions to papers?
That’s the word according to this story on The New York Observer Web site. Here’s the memo, according to the Observer.
You all know how tight budgets have become. They are getting tighter. Because of that we have decided to cut all subscriptions to newspapers and magazines that come in from the news dealer. If you wish to read any of the tabloids or out of town papers, either purchase your own or share with co-workers who purchase them to read on their way to work.
Please note, too, that any subscriptions you have regularly purchased and expensed may not be reimbursed anymore. Please check with me before you pay for anything. Most periodicals, including the tabloids and other daily newspapers, are available online through Ebsco masterfile which you can get to through the Research Dept’s web page.
Sorry about this but the money we spent on these papers can be put to better use like paying freelancers. As always, thanks for your cooperation and understanding.
So, does this mean even newspapers are giving up on themselves? The NY Times, the beacon of journalism, can now not afford to buy the print products of its competitors. This sends out a mixed message to readers. Why should they be encouraged to buy the print product, or ads, if even the papers stop?
This move isn’t without merit. But it’s an odd cycles. The internet hurts paper sales. So papers’ have smaller budgets and desperately try to encourage readers to buy a print subscription, not cancel it. But then the papers’ don’t have enough dinero to buy the print product themselves.
Where does this leave papers now?