The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Prints Final Newspaper, Shifts To All-Digital Format (cbsnews.com) 31
CBS News: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has printed its final newspaper, marking the end of a 157-year chapter in Georgia history and officially transitioning the longtime publication into a fully digital news outlet.
The front-page story of the final print edition asks a fitting question: "What is the future of local media in Atlanta?" The historic last issue is also being sold for $8, a significant increase from the typical $2.00 price.
Wednesday, Dec. 31, marks the last day The AJC will be delivered to driveways across metro Atlanta. Starting Jan. 1, 2026, the newspaper will exist exclusively online, a move its leadership says reflects how readers now consume news and ensures the organization's future.
AJC President and Publisher Andrew Morse said the decision was not made lightly, especially given how deeply the paper is woven into daily life for generations of readers. The move makes Atlanta the only major U.S. city without a daily printed newspaper.
The front-page story of the final print edition asks a fitting question: "What is the future of local media in Atlanta?" The historic last issue is also being sold for $8, a significant increase from the typical $2.00 price.
Wednesday, Dec. 31, marks the last day The AJC will be delivered to driveways across metro Atlanta. Starting Jan. 1, 2026, the newspaper will exist exclusively online, a move its leadership says reflects how readers now consume news and ensures the organization's future.
AJC President and Publisher Andrew Morse said the decision was not made lightly, especially given how deeply the paper is woven into daily life for generations of readers. The move makes Atlanta the only major U.S. city without a daily printed newspaper.
The first of many (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe the first major US city without a print paper, but won't be the last.
Just being honest, the newspaper print format is obsolete.
It's a day behind and requires an extensive manual infrastructure for proofing, printing, distributing, collections.
Online journalism has no requirement for quality, for proofing, for integrity or needs any of that manual infrastructure.
Basically rent space from AWS, publish whatever garbage you want to publish, collect the ad revenue. The more outlandish you write - the more eyeballs you get - the more ad revenue rolls in.
It's sad, of course, but I don't see a form of recovery for newsprint. It's just not going to happen.
Re:The first of many (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad, of course, but I don't see a form of recovery for newsprint. It's just not going to happen.
Not that there's any recovery for journalism, either. Journalism cannot be trusted, not since at least Hearst and Pulitzer's lies getting us into the Spanish-American War, not since Cronkite gave us the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Face it, we've never had, and never will have, clear concise unbiased journalism.
the best we can do is ensure each side has an equal (in numbers and in power) news org of their own.
That way you know if it's coming from CNN it's leftist news, and if it's Faux it's rightist news. Clarity comes from known both are bullshit peddlers.
Newspapers are the same. NYT panders to the "educated leftist elite" and NYP panders to what you fuckwits would call 'the deplorables."
No truth in Pravda, no news in Izvestia.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually agree - the old "Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see" applies. But even that is morphing - can't really believe anything you see, either.
Not sure where it all ends, but really can't trust any source of information... not only is it too easy to manipulate (always has been) - but the difference is that now it's easy to find an echo chamber and amplify. Used to be that real fringe stuff would peter out naturally; now it grows unabated.
(Though I have to ask - "you fuckwits"
Re: (Score:3)
(Though I have to ask - "you fuckwits"? What did I say to earn that? Don't think I'm leaning any direction here, except maybe the path straight down to hell.)
Not you personally. But, you must admit, there's a large contingent of /. readers that fall into the "fuckwit" category. They've been silent in this thread so far, but I figure as they go about their day they'll get to it to chime in with their ridiculous comments.
They know who they are. Any regular knows who they are.
Demographics (Score:2)
The last generation in large numbers to read a daily newspaper was the baby boomer generation, who have mostly aged out of the workforce, aged out of political leadership, government, nonprofits, think tanks, academia and other positions of influence.
Late in their career, and favoring the status quo has been the trend for 25 years. It has led to stagnation, news which has little or no new facts, opinions or reporting.
It is easier to parrot the same old worn out talking points, aged out 'facts' and "new" re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The first of many (Score:2)
NYT panders to literal Nazis, which they have done since before WWII
Re: The first of many (Score:2)
Re:The first of many (Score:5, Interesting)
Just being honest, the newspaper print format is obsolete.
The daily format, yes. The Internet has killed that.
But I think there's still some room for print journalism under certain conditions, and profitably so as well, if done right.
Many moons ago, I used to get the Washington Post's Weekly Edition. I don't know if they do it anymore, but it was a newspaper, mailed to your home once a week, that had longer, more in-depth investigative stories and analysis on the issues of the day than you'd find in the daily papers, as well as an opinion and editorial section. I think something along these lines, combined with certain elements of the old Sunday paper format... cartoons, ads, local events and notices, arts coverage.... could sell as part of a larger digital subscription that gives you daily access.
Re: (Score:3)
You say that like ti's a bad thing.
Not all news needs to be known the second it happens. Sometimes a headline works, but the details can be worked out later.
Heck, many reputable online news sites are often late with their news because they want to make sure their reporting is accurate, so a day late means it had more time to be researched and all that.
Plenty of other sources also delay their reporting - John Oliver's Last Week Tonight is often a couple of weeks behind simply because it take
Something lost without paper (Score:4, Insightful)
As more and more information is moved to the digital realm, vast quantities of that information will be lost over time. Not the big stuff such as political or international news, or the passing of some well known person, but the middling every day things such as notices for events or local interest stories.
Without a physical paper product, time capsules become mmore difficult to create. Not that they can't be created, but it's always been a part of the process to include a newspaper with the capsule so in 100 years, people can read what took long ago.
With digital, how do you do that? People on here always talk about data degradation coupled with something to read the data. Stories are regularly posted on here about media with data on it in a format no longer used and the trials and tribulations to try and read the information.
With a newspaper, there is no such issue. You never need a fancy piece of equipment to read the information (aside from maybe glasses).
On top of which, while a newspaper does cost money to buy, it is easily transferrable to someone else. Finished reading? Here you go, stranger. Have at it. Find one in a bin? It's yours at no cost.
As always, paper information cannot be changed. Once it's on paper, it's set. Not so with digitial. Changing digital information is one of the easiest things to do and as we all know, is done on a regular basis. How do we know a year from now, when looking for an article you remember reading, it's the same article? Are you certain its wording hasn't been altered?
And finally, what about all the conspiracy wackos? Where will they get their newspapers to tear out articles, pin to the wall and run strings to each story to weave their delusions? Sure, they can print the article, but it's not the same effect as having torn sraps of newspaper to show off. Won't someone think of the conspiracy theorists!
Re: (Score:2)
And finally, what about all the conspiracy wackos? Where will they get their newspapers to tear out articles, pin to the wall and run strings to each story to weave their delusions? Sure, they can print the article, but it's not the same effect as having torn sraps of newspaper to show off. Won't someone think of the conspiracy theorists!
Just gave me a brilliant idea for an App!
"All the News That's NOT Fit to Print" (Score:2)
Fixed that.
90% of American Media is billionaire owned (Score:1, Troll)
Why in the name of fuck am I going to pay a dollar for propaganda I can get for free on the internet?
If I want journalism the only thing left is factual reporting from the associate press that I have to interpret myself, a handful of YouTubers who got kicked off of Twitter when muskrat bought it and the BBC and freaking Reddit posts. I am starting to see some of the old
Re:90% of American Media is billionaire owned (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you daft? Were Hearst and Puliter "real journalism?" They were Yellow Journalsim at best.
And muckraker? You must absolutely adore Bob Woodward.
GTFO, you're recalling an era that never existed.
Was Cronkite straight with the US when he lied about the action in Tonkin? No. He was lying for the government.
There's no real news, only propaganda.
Reading is fundamental (Score:2, Insightful)
They're simply isn't enough people willing to pay to see corruption exposed. Donald Trump has sold at least two or three billion dollars in pardons but you barely hear about it because nobody's interested in it to speak of.
In the past there would have been somebody writing stories about celebrity sex tapes to pay the bills and then during the day pounding the bea
Re:90% of American Media is billionaire owned (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's no real news how do you determine the facts or truth of anything? Do not answer with "common sense" because that is itself nonsensical.
IMO people are free to have that view, everything is propaganda, etc and that's fine. The issue is when those same people have strong opinions about specific topics and facts, they got them from somewhere. If you have no method to inform your opinions then simply you simply do not have opinions.
At some point we have to agree on some form of factual reality or nobody will get anywhere about anything.
Re: 90% of American Media is billionaire owned (Score:2)
Yeah that's the actual goal of the ultra conservative, ultra capitalist, ultra scum that's bought up all of the media. We are not meant to accomplish anything. We are meant to make room for our ostensible betters to rape the planet to death.
Dinosaur (Score:4, Informative)
I guess I'm a dinosaur because I still subscribe to a daily print newspaper (specifically, the The Globe and Mail [theglobeandmail.com].
I like sitting down to breakfast with my paper and reading it in a nice leisurely way. I find I concentrate better and read longer with print media than online media; it's easier on the eyes. And although the print subscription is expensive, I can afford it and I deliberately keep it going to support real journalism.
But yeah. I know I'm a dying breed.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'm a dinosaur because I still subscribe to a daily print newspaper
I used to get the print newspaper delivered to my residence, until the publisher could not seem to actually get drivers to deliver, so half the time the paper was missing (and while the publisher did refund that day's paper cost when I reported it, I still needed to get out and get the paper). I decided to stop reporting it, and just cancel the home delivery service.
But yeah. I know I'm a dying breed.
The only things certain in life are death and taxes.
Any news recommendations out there? (Score:2)
Any recommendations for unbiased news with professionals running the show? I'm not expecting free, just properly done.
Re: (Score:3)
No idea why parent was modded Troll. Trump really is trying to kill NPR and PBS [aclu.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I quite like The Globe and Mail [theglobeandmail.com], though it's Canadian.
Online, I find Deutsche Welle [dw.com] pretty good and also France 24 [france24.com].
Not sure about a US-based source. I keep seeing ads for Ground News [ground.news], but that's more of a meta-source that rates other sources for bias and accuracy. And of course, I have no idea how accurate or biased Ground News itself is.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "news" as in what you'd read daily but ProPublica does good work IMO.
There's always the big consortium agencies, AP and Reuters.
There really is no single answer, the answer today is not so much what and where the news comes from but how you read it, don;t just trust headlines, read the articles, interpret what theyre saying and check where they are getting their info from, so many outlets today have no people on the ground, they just copy and commentate.
Not just "news" papers (Score:3, Informative)
It's not just the papers that print news.
A friend of mine owned and operated a paper that printed free classified ads. The classified ads were free and he made his money by selling business display ads in the paper and by selling the printed paper itself.
After 26 years of operation, he just printed his last issue and closed up shop a couple of weeks ago. He said that the whole classified ad thing has moved online and there's just not enough demand left for what he was selling.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Remember local computer magazines? Those died out about 20 years ago. I used to write a monthly Linux column for our local magazine.