80s TV ads show newspapers weren't always confused about their value proposition

One of the things David Simon (of Homicide and The Wire fame) cites as a reason for newspapers declining is poor reporting. He says that with year after year of cuts, the number of journalists become smaller and smaller.

Plus, with older reporters getting booted, newer reporters are without good sources and usually have to cover more ground. Meaning, whereas in the 1980s a newspaper may have had one reporter for neighborhood X, one for Y, and another for Z; there is now just one reporter covering all 3. So the depth and expertise declines.

He cited a good recent case, where some police officers were involved in a shooting that may have been police brutality. In the past, the newspaper would have sent a reporter over to cover the hearing. But at that hearing, there were no reporters or 'citizen'-journalist bloggers. So without proper coverage, there is a risk that police misdeeds may go unchecked/under reported.

The coming death of the newspaper began in the 1980s. I worked in a consultancy specializing in the online world (Prestel, NAPLPS, videotex, et al). And one of the execs saw back then that classifieds -- the heart of paper revenues -- would be stolen away from them. Of course, what happened when the Internet came along was totally unexpected, a true Black Swan event, one guy stealing away all that business with Craigslist. Don't separate money from the issue.

Newspapers' role in cheering on, validating, and accelerating the Trillion Dollar Housing Bubble helped seal their death warrant. In addition (especially in this case), many "reporters" functioned merely as stenographers for interested parties ("Home prices remain fundamentally strong, according to the National Association of Realtors).

It was especially obvious when I found well-informed Web sites blogs that would intelligently dissect and contradict the bad "reporting" on the subject.