@Nolarchy: Newspapers were "instant" news in the past, not leisurely reading. That's what news magazines were for.

In an age where news changes in 20 minutes while newspapers are at best twice per day, they lose both in cost and quality versus online versions.

Small papers may well be more capable of switching to online versions because they have smaller staff, especially independents which usually have a wider view than corporate owned papers, and that's definitely a good thing.

The only downside to the end of print papers is a permanent printed record for research. But since most older papers are converted to microfiche anyway, storing them digitally isn't a problem except for the risk of people rewriting history, altering past news stories.

@Jeremy Wentworth: Gee, if I didn't know any better, you sound like James Lileks ;-)

I live in San Diego, where the local paper uncovered a fairly major bribery scheme with a local congressman a few years ago. Are the local news stations going to put any money into that kind of investigation? Or the local radio news? Blogs? 24-hour networks?

Internet based news doesn't cut it. People are all too willing to use ad blocking software, and subscription models don't work. Good journalism is an enormously important factor in daily life - the more people that get their news from Fox, or MSNBC, or various blogs are getting an insanely polarized view of what's going on as to make it useless.

How much is $400/year, really? You probably pay at least ten times that in taxes.

People still collect the paper for big/larger than life events. I admit I haven't bought or read a paper in years (do it all online) but during the election and inauguration people DID buy the the papers to save and reflect on later in life.

Here's a perfect example. The morning after 9/11 i grabbed eight copies of the Rocky Mountain News. They've been under my bed since then. don't know what i'll ever do with them - - perhaps pass along to my niece. But when I move I look through them and am still amazed at the power and work that went into the newspaper of 9/12/01.

[www.futuregringo.com]

Yes, newspapers have been less than unbiased sources of news and information, but I suggest that that has happened in large part because the public has grown tired of thinking so newspapers are giving them the pap they desire. Business is business after all.

Who is going to break the Madoff stories? Watergate? Who is going to reveal the goings on in Washington that cost the public billions and put millions into the pockets of our representatives? Who will dig out the dirt on local politicians?

These are important responsibilities and I fear what will happen if newspapers go away. BTW, where do you think Google and Yahoo and all those Web sources GET THEIR NEWS? That's right, newspaper journalists.

Except for maybe TV is more biased. And I believe lately there has been some troubled ratings for network news stations. (all liberal) while Fox news ratings are through the roof.

And bias is fine. As long as you give both sides of the story. There doesn't have to be some monotone guy on the news reading the absolutely facts only.

If you're a news source, give the news. If your an opinion source, state that, and give you're opinion. Don't marry the two. Everyone knows O'reilly, hannity, larry king, etc are all opinion shows. That's fine. If you don't agree, tune out. And if they fail, we know why.

But if you're claiming to be NEWS, give the damn news. And they haven't been. And you cant trust the news. We all know that.

Anyways. I should debate you more and provide citations for my beliefs, but I'm not going to put in the time. I jsut want you to know I disagree and I feel my reasons are justified.

Whats sad is you probably believe that.

...okay, maybe one."

I read my local paper online because I hate dealing with "For rest of article see page XY". Though without the interwebs I do read the paper when it's in public view at the local donut place.

This kind of bucks alot of predictions by Sci-Fi that thought people would still read the newspaper even in the future. Except maybe Star Trek, which really never mentioned news media... though it's been a while since I've watched the first six movies.

It's almost like the parent paper has a deathwish... they're probably going that way because it worked at another (much more rural) weekly, so of course going without a sportswriter will work in a much more competitive market. The sad thing is it might almost work.

this is especially ironic given craigslist's attempt at altruism

Sad to say, but newspapers were good when there was no mass media, radio, TV, the interwebs ETC.

They are a relic of quainter times.

No wait, I only cared about Calvin and Hobbes, and Watterson fought the syndicate.

Nevermind; won't miss newspapers.

Craig is hated in the alternative newspaper world (where I used to work). He took the major money maker (escort ads and personal ads) and gives them away. Sex always sells.

A TV anchor in a neighboring city was busted for trafficing Cocaine. Think the TV News carried the story? Not on your life. But the Newspaper did. Did very well.

Another TV anchor was busted for soliciting young boys. Did the TV News carry the story? Not on your life. But the Newspaper did. Did very well.

A local city official was accused of bribing the city planning commissioner. His brother was a senior editor of the newspaper. Did the Newspaper carry the story? Of course not. Not going to happen.

We need more than one local source of news. Sometimes the reporters are at fault or will participate in the cover up.

The last newspaper that I read on a daily basis was the Christian Science Monitor, and that was while in college. I've lived in the Seattle area my entire life and I've bought maybe 5 issues of the P.I. Good paper and all, but I've been getting the majority of my news online since 1996.

Technology giveth and it taketh away. Let's face it: The printing press has been usurped.

Internet advertising is another nail in the coffin of these newspapers.

If newspapers were able to produce better results many companies including mine wouldn't have pulled out of them. My company stopped all print advertising because it was cheaper, easier to track, and more effective to do online marketing.

I was wondering when the wing nuts would invade this thread and Bladefist, once again, plays this role nicely.

Newspapers are the victim of a perfect storm.

To begin with, some purposely ran themselves into the ground to facilitate a JOA (take a bow, Detroit News).

Then, a lot of them were bought by chains who in turn went public.

When those chains went public, the accountants took over. There is a great article about what this did to the ProJo a few years ago in the Columbia Journalism Review.

When the accountants took over, they cut staff. Since newsprint, ink, and delivery people are somewhat of a fixed cost, they started chopping heads in newsrooms, combining and cancelling beats, relying more on wire services, and cutting investigative reporting staffs (who, let's face it, are expensive, earning a salary not producing consistent content).

At the same time, the internet came online. Unable to figure a way to make money off of said content, most newspapers started to give away portions of their content for free.

Then, the real killer, craigslist and eBay. Why put an ad in the paper when you can sell the item online for less (or nothing in the case of craigslist)?

The ascent of wingnuttery sites and television news channels doesn't help. What the media consumer wants to some extent is an outlet that proves their confirmation bias is correct. (Predicted in a great article on the subject in the lamented Media Studies Journal in 1999). Some newspapers do that, others don't. It's easy to walk away from a paper that endorses a candidate you don't like, because there are other news sources that will endorse those who do.

Finally, demographically we don't stay in one place as long as we used to. DO I live in one metro area? Yes. But I don't really have a vested interest in the local paper, it's one of six I browse, online, every morning. I'd never pay for it, though because I have no real connection to the town in which I live.

The only reason we keep hearing about the "death of the newspaper" is because, well, journalists work for newspapers! They own the podium, and of course they are going to be vocal about things that affect their own profession. But the fact that they're in a position to tell us about it doesn't make their plight more newsworthy than that of any other declining profession.

Long before I was around, every elevator had a dedicated employee to operate it. They were gradually phased out by automation, and those folks simply found other jobs. The fact is, compared to online media, newspapers require massive infrastructure with concurrently high operating costs--all to reach fewer people. Why would I pay to subscribe to my local rag and limit myself to one source of news when I can read the local rag from London, San Diego, or Fargo--all free and instantly updated as the news happens?

Print media will simply have to find a new niche--or perhaps go back to the old one. Most small-town newspapers offer little more than the standard, homogenized AP feed which has no local insight and can be found for free online. I would love to read some local investigative journalism, but it simply isn't done in most places on any scale.

It's official: advertisers still want to reach those people, people who have money to spend.

It's official: most newspapers - but not those in two-newspaper towns - made money last year and will make money this year.

It's official: newspapers aren't dying.

The chains, however, are between a rock and a hard place, so once many of the papers are returned to local control things will be measurably better.

So get over it. Geez.

I have a good friend that has worked for the Sentinel Record in Hot Springs for several years as a reporter and he says that the one of the biggest issues with local papers is that local newspapers don't give a crap about the local news. Reprints of AP and other wire releases make up 95% of that particular paper. In other words, they have ignored their true market to please their corporate owners. Btw, Wehco is owned by Scripps.

@oneandone: Though I'm not saying that local journalism = local newspapers. There's TV news also. But I think that written press generally tends to have more in-depth investigation than tv news (there are quite a few exceptions, but I think it's generally true).

From a professional standpoint, these closures are two less outlets for me to pitch stories to. Combined with recent closures of a number of other print-based publications, I worry about the print editorial business simply disappearing entirely.

Also: hurray for the return of the reply function!

In the case of my college town of 15K, our local newspaper - student paper, too - doesn't put any additional content online that's not already in the hard copy. But what about papers in cities the size of, say, Savannah? I have a friend who works there, and he says there's an increasing focus on pointing people to the website. They also have a lot of video on their site.

I don't know how good a strategy that is, to be honest. I rarely ever watch any news stories in video format online. In fact, it annoys me when that's the only medium available for a story, a la CNN.com, though, to be fair, CNN's forte is video.

I wonder if these trappings of the cutting edge of the Internet just turn people off. I'm in my mid-20s, so I grew up with the Internet in my teen years, but maybe I'm old fashioned and just prefer the text with accompanying pics.

@adamczar: Same here. I've also noticed a lot more investigative reports on issues that are too local to get national, CNN-like attention, but are very important - like the PA judges getting kickbacks from detention centers ([consumerist.com]). Without local journalists, who will investigate these things? How will people find out about them?

Obi-Wan could have been talking about Scripps (and all newspaper corporations) when he said, "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum, and villainy."

The same way they did in "Minority Report" - check it:
[www.technovelgy.com]

I believe you're mis-remembering it.

Janine (Anne Potts) was flirting with Egon when she said that she thought he was smart and that he read many things. He responded, "Print is dead."

As is typical, what he said went in one ear and out the other as she responded, "Oh, that's very fascinating to me. I read a lot myself." Later she asked him if he had any hobbies, to which he responded, "I collect spores, molds, and fungus."

Classic stuff.

@Etoiles:

If we could tell the difference between what is news and what is fraud in the NY or LA Times, etc.

They lost that battel by publishing fraud in an effort to sway public opinion and government policy.

The mainstream media is now run by the likes of Joseph Goebbels.

Really, they have about a half-dozen "reporters" that barely write enough local stories to fill a single broadsheet. It's so pathetic, I believe there's more zoning and by-law change notices in the average issue than there are local stories.

I'll be glad when they're dead, because then the city will no longer have the excuse of "We published it in the paper" when they bust people for fresh by-law changes. Stuff like that should be mailed to citizens. You could easily do it all in one mailing a year for major changes.

My local newspaper (Floriduh Today, Melbourne Florida)ceased news-gathering ages ago and switched to the cheaper mode of just reprinting stories from AP, etc. That I can get on line.

Then they stopped reporting facts which would enable readers to make up their own minds on issues and became a spokesperson for the crypto-fascists who have taken over Washington. I can read that online also.

Then, in an attempt to get younger readers, it began an online version where prominently displayed on the first page is a slide show section which usually conceits of 1)scantily clad young girls at the beach playing volleyball and 2) scantily clad, half drunk girls at bars doing the whole pseudo-lesbian make out routine like you see on MTV, etc. While I enjoy all pseudo-lesbian like activity in young attractive college aged tramp-stamped girls, that too I can get online.

That leaves grocery store coupons and bird cage liners as the only use for the newspaper.

Am I missing anything here?

Unfortunately, more and more "local" newspapers are like "local" radio stations - owned by the same owners as many other papers. And almost all of the content comes from some national source, with a skeleton crew of local reporters who do a sports story or interview a lady who makes dog costumes.

Blogs and news/political websites, from a technical standpoint, should be able to fill the void left behind by vanishing newspapers. But so far, they haven't. Instead of investigating the news, blogs and political sites still rely on the newspaper/TV media to have uncovered the story first.

i am so glad that i was able to read the part of the script for the ghost busters scene in question... it just made the funny post that much better.

geesh!

it just doesnt make sense from the actions of this post.

bias isn't killing papers. imho, corporate ownership is killing papers, just like its killing radio. hedge fund managers are trying to squeeze every last drop of profit out of these mediums & guess what? it's not working. the quality of my local papers (which actually have a pretty solid subscription base) has noticeably dropped. most noticeable is the seeming lack of competent proofreading/editing staff. they certainly have enough salespeople to have different people call me 3x/week for an ad, though!

i'm actually a little glad this is starting to happen. new papers will rise to fill the void - hopefully ones that are locally instead of nationally owned. communities need newspapers. tv, radio & internet news don't serve local markets; they serve regional markets. where else does one receive public notices, read obituaries, or read community announcements?

papers will survive so long as they recognize & appeal to their market. when that ends, goodbye newspaper.

Actually Craigslist and Google ads are probably more responsible for killing ad revenue than 1 or two conservatives belly aching about the self perceived and vague media conspiracy bias speculation.

The classified sections attract only 10% of what it used to earn before free and immediate classifieds of Craigslist.

I think one of the problems (aside from corporations buying up papers) is that a lot of companies are looking to do more with less - and that doesn't always work. There is really something to be said for people who have skill and talent for the written word.

Papers need to stop cramming square pegs into round holes and work to change their way of doing things, or work to really support the people they hire with more on-the-job training and experience.

I personally love a good local paper, as long as they focusing on reporting local stories and digging deep. The problem is that a lot of local papers are owned by the same douchebags, who don't see the value in reporting local news and instead want to put pictures of puppies on every page.

Here in Orlando those douchebags run the Orlando Sentinel, and the paper has gone to this ugly new format that I absolutely hate.

The issue isn't the paper medium itself. It's the ownership and general attitude.

I work for a paper (as a web developer) and the entire operation has shifted focus from the paper to the website. Our site has a very active social networking component, up to the moment news, video...etc. The big thing that I think will keep it going is the LOCAL ownership and LOCAL focus (It's the big newspaper congloms that are getting killed the worst). Why compete with the NYT or AP, instead focus on what you can provide better than anyone else. TV journalism is dead (some would say it was stillborn) but Paper journalism lives on via the internet. The newspapers that survive will be the ones that realize that the medium is dying but the need is still there and are quick to jump on and embrace the new mediums (Websites, mobile sites, Iphone Apps, Blackberry Apps, Kindle Publishing, etc). They also need to be quick to embrace the new social aspect to media (blogs and comments are nice but groups and friends are better). These will provide the new revenue streams (from ads) that will keep the company around.

I would miss newspapers primarily because that's my main source of information. I read the paper on the subway to work in the morning. I generally don't get as much local news over the internet, but perhaps that's because my local paper's webpage is not very 'friendly' (takes me forever to remember what series of links will lead me to the comics section, for example). Even if I perused the internet while on the subway, that's on a tiny little screen, much harder to read than my much larger newspaper. Also can't do the jumble and sudoko on as easily.

If I had to read the whole newspaper on a regular computer screen, not sure when I'd find the time. I guess it would be to the expense of other websites I look at during my lunch hour, like The Consumerist. :p

Even though half the paper I've already read online during the week!

At any rate, this shit was bound to happen. Corporations bought up family-owned papers in the '80s, and started cutting jobs to get further into the black. But competent, meaningful news coverage suffered because there was more work dumped on fewer and fewer people, so communities became less and less loyal to their papers. And then with the Internet, nobody could figure out how to make money off of it. I hope they do get affairs in order so that the big papers survive and continue to deliver good content to the nation, like the NY Times. On the other hand, really small local papers are doing okay these days, so maybe some of those will expand after this recession is over.

The SF Chronicle and Examiner have been handing out free copies all over the city for the past two weeks. I don't know if they are trying to promote the papers or just handing them out because no one is buying them.

How about a paper drive? :)

I think this is really unfortunate for several reasons. I live in a town of 50,000. The opinion section with the letters to the editor have been an important way to provide a forum for community discussions.

Secondly, my father-in-law worked for a company for many many years that designed printing presses. Now he is retired but works on contract for a company that fixes them. He hasn't had a call from them in a long time.

The trickle down effects are going to hurt.

On the one hand there is something in a newspaper that no other medium has managed: Deep investigation.

The soundbites on TV and the race to be "first" on blogs and "new media" has not done Democracy or Society really a favour.

Having said this: Even the Newspapers stopped doing that quite a while ago, so what you see now is essentially what should have probably happened 20 years ago, when Newspapers (and the press as a whole) went from 4th Power to being Entertainment.

It is quite a bad time to be jobless, but the downfall of newspapers has been imminent since long before the beginning of this recession. People apparently don't read enough papers, and ad revenues have fallen tremendously, viciously reinforcing this. I hope that the New York Times, Financial Times, and Wall Street Journal at least survive online. While journalists differ significantly from other professions in that they are not licensed and do not require special education, the cream of the crop journalists at the New York Times and Washington Post are often very well-educated, articulate, with many holding advanced degrees.

The argument can be made that this is good, that the newspapers are finally losing their monopoly to the "little guy," and now, finally, bloggers can pick it up. I love so many blogs, I'm on Google Reader hours a day reading them, but they can't get it all. NYT and WSJ quality reporting often requires considerable resources and knowledge.

Online advertising not paying off? Maybe that's because it gives advertisers real ROI numbers, not fuzzy math made up by the ad salesmen who quotes how many people the paper goes to.

Still though, online newspaper ftw :)

One of the best examples of newspapers failure.
I handled advertizing for a new car dealership, and spent a considerable amount each month, when I noticed subscription numbers and the size of the paper dropping, I asked for a small discount since we were reaching less people. I was told that my rates would in fact go up, due to the rising cost of publication, and decreased revenue. After I stopped laughing at my sales rep, I realized she wasnt joking. That was the day I stopped wasting money on print ads. I hope her next job works out a little better.

I can't understand how the Dallas Morning News stays in business. For several years they were kicked out of the circulation audit bureau or whatever it is because they blatently and fraudulently inflated their circulation numbers. They were sued by every big advertiser in town. They constantly make people mad by throwing a weekly free edition in everyone's yard with no way to opt out. They're doing everything they can to fail but they won't die for some reason.

Perhaps if a Republican is elected into the Presidency in four years, newspapers will have a resurgance. I liked having a powerful entity watching over the government's activities and I think this is what our founders envisioned. However, we weren't going to see that over the next four years anyway.

But now what am I gonna use to line the snake enclosures? :(

It turns out, you're simply wrong. What has killed newspapers is simply that people have stopped reading them in favor of watching television (which is even MORE biased, not less). They were hanging on by a thread, because they still had a relatively loyal group of readers. Then the Internet came along, and took another (smaller) chunk out of them, and that's been enough to take many of them out.

Also, the main bias of most news in this country is pro-corporate, not pro-any-one-political-party, just so we're clear.

The real tragedy of the disappearance of newspapers is not "what will I read on the subway or in the waiting room" but who will keep an eye on those in power. Nixon would probably never have resigned if it hadn't been for a couple of newspaper reporters.

The Tribune Company, for instance, owner of The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times and other papers, filed for bankruptcy in December, largely because of its debt load. The reality is that even though the economic climate is hard for newspapers, without their debt payments the publishers in bankruptcy would still make money, as do most newspapers around the country."

So, a bunch of slicksters, buying up papers like Monopoly pieces - at odds with what activist-types were saying was both bad policy and bad business - are what killed many of these papers. Grrrrr...

@conquestofbread: I tried to find a link but I couldn't. We had a laminated copy at my last workplace. It was a very sad story, a man lost his home in a forest fire, but the picture was priceless. Bonus points to anyone who can locate the cover

The biggest problem is that the internet isn't making enough money to support a staff to investigate local news...and that's a problem because people like me who make a living off the news and its viability find it even more difficult to get a job or make a living because the internet model of news distribution still isn't making as much money as the print side, as far as ad revenues go.

Instead of educating America on the direction of the country, they made their own America agenda and pushed it.

This was a business decision that failed.

THAT is the real issue. It's that TELEVISION is what has replaced newspapers, not the Internet. And TV is a lot less in-depth than most good newspapers. TV is also ideally suited as a propaganda platform for people who want to manipulate public opinion in various ways (not just political, but also pro-corporate) - it's both visual and auditory, it encourages oversimplificiation of issues, and it's very centrally controlled (unlike the Internet or newspapers). Thus, it's easier to buy off/coerce the small number of influential TV producers than it would be to do the same to a large number of independent newspapers. Anyone remember how the TV networks were such shameless cheerleaders for the Iraq war, while newspapers actually exposed a lot of the lies about the case for war BEFORE the war actually started? Because the TV people had such a larger audience, they were basically able to shout down the few responsible newspaper agencies/chains.

I think that newspapers may eventually be replaced by some sort of online equivalent, but until that happens I don't like that people are becoming more dependent on TV for news.

They flew into my state in 2002 with a checkbook, bought out SEVEN profit-churning newspapers in the state, then immediately started laying off staff and 'downsizing' in the name of stockholders, leaving all seven papers (from different corners of the state) sharing reporting staff, printing presses, drivers, etc.

Trust me, their plans went well.

People dropped subscriptions like hotcakes, and this was right at the dawn of the online paper and right before the blogosphere explosion.

No quality=no readers.

It's not the 'net or the blogs that killed the papers in my state... it's corporate greed.

:) I know the script says "Print is dead" but that doesn't make sense from the actions Egon was performing in the movie.

Egon was busy fixing the printer, and, upset, exclaims "Printer's dead!", which Janine _interprets_ as "Print is dead" and goes on a spiel about it.

The fact that Egon doesn't recapitulate the topic only makes it more obvious he didn't intend to discuss it. And he'd deadpan enough to not mention the mistake. Also, up 'til then Egon hasn't had any *reason* to pay attention to Janine.

Or, that's how I feel it was. It's more funny that way and it fits the characters and the movie quite well.

Bladefist: Yes, there's bias everywhere. So we strive to push and pull it back toward the center to be fair, or we support newspapers which hold onto our views. It's the point we're at now...

Journalism and news is still the right medium to tell a story with immediacy. Why would you want online papers to fail? Where do you think you would go for any kind of news at all? Bloggers can't do it all, and there's a significant amount of skill involved to understanding government, industries, and being able to navigate them to churn out an article.

In fact, maybe the big newspapers should restructure as nonprofits while they can. Because we need that level of reporting -- god knows, we don't get it from the TV, and no-one holds Internet sources properly accountable -- but yeah, their current state is doomed.

No one trusts news papers anymore. Some will say this is due to the internet, or the recession, blah blah. It's due to newspapers not filling their national responsibility in covering what our government is doing.

The separation between Government and media no longer exists. I say, RIP. And I can't wait for the online news papers to fall as well.

The TV and radio stations largely cull their news from the daily papers. Weekly magazines do too. So do most blogs and internet news sources. Without a daily paper's newsroom doing all the footwork to get the first reporting, we will see a massive decline in reporting -- the ramifications of losing newspapers will impact ALL news media in the market, and quality will fall across the board, INCLUDING on the internet.

The internet won't pay for news, so an internet-only model will not be able to support the expense of newsgathering.

I live in a small city with an EXCELLENT blogging/citizen journalist network that does seriously top-notch investigative and in-depth reporting. Those bloggers still depend on the newspaper for their research, for reporting that kicks their investigations off, etc. Cuts in the staff at our local paper have led to a decline in the quality of local investigative blogging, because it's simply harder to do without the newspaper. And, of course, those bloggers work free, so their time is limited.

@edwardso:

That is some serious journalism. Seriously awesome!

But I don't think newspapers should shut down completely though. Local news is still very relevant. I think newspapers should just scale back on the printed format and focus more on electronic distribution.

@corinthos: More subscribers = more ad money. The cost fo the paper probably just covers delivery expenses and maybe the cost of the paper itself. The real money is in ads which make less money as fewer people subscribe.

For that reason, I'm going to support newspapers to the very end.

@cmkennedy: My grandkids will ask "what's a newspaper?" just like my kids will ask "what's an encyclopedia?"

@cmkennedy: When you need to put a classifieds ad in the newspaper... WHO YOU GUNNA CALL?!? Sorry I couldn't help myself.

This is only until 2012, when the "Newspaper as blankets" industry will come back into roaring style.

I'd be upset but, save Joe Posnanski, the KC Star is garbage.

But the internet doesn't pay for news, and newsgathering is expensive.

I'll miss the Rocky, the paper of my childhood, which once put a photo of a man in short shorts with his scrotum hanging out on the front page

If my local paper would go back to reporting local news I might still be buying it. 80% of the paper is AP/Reuters news feeds which I can look-up online thank-you without spending $1.00 every day.

Until the Singularity happens and humankind is forced to re-create offline communication modes so that we can resist enslavement by our MechaOverlords, I'm fine with print media going bye-bye (just sad for all those folks losing their jobs).

Noo! Not my PI!
I think it's time to start raising money for the papers, old-school style. Anyone up for a bake sale, or car wash? :D

Its always sad when something thats been around forever isnt there anymore, and I think older people that dont use computers will miss it the most, but with internet news sites able to do what the paper is able to do, and is current in real time, why would you wait until tomorrow to get todays news? I think some form of local paper will continue on for local news, even if it is in an online format. I guess we can add these guys to the growing list of jobless.

I'll miss the PI. The Seattle Times is nice, but was never as good of a read as the PI.

Egon Spengler was dead-on in 1984...

Print is dead.

Say goodbye to antiquated press mediums.