The Capital Times to Stop Printing

[PeaveyFury]

The Capital Times is stopping it's daily newspaper, and will become and internet-only paper with a weekly insert in the WSJ after being in print since 1917:

 

http://www.channel3000.com/news/15244670/detail.html

[splitterpfj]

Trust me, the people who work in circulation for Madison Newspapers Inc, are about to throw a month-long party.

[Beerambassador]

Speaking as someone who works in the paper business in the Madison area - It's a shame and not totally unexpected. The Cap. Times have been battling major circulation issues for years (most of it due to them being an afternoon paper). Since they're part of a partnership with the State Journal, they were weighing down the State Journal. Also, they are for lack of a better term, a niche newspaper.

 

So few people read daily papers now, that you had to wonder how long a niche publication like that could keep going, even in a community that's geared towards that niche. I'm kind of saddened by it, I love how Madison supported two daily newspapers (unheard of for a small city nowadays). I also loved how you could read an editorial in the State Journal in the morning endorsing something, and then in the afternoon the Cap Times would endorse the opposite. The Editor, Dave Zweifel, is stepping down and he's lived that paper for the past 30-40 years. It's sad to see that happen.

[hawing]

I began anticipating this when the Cap Times added "Dane County's Progressive News Source" (emphasis mine) to the masthead some time ago. So I'm not all that surprised (though as an admitted member of their niche audience, I am disappointed).

[dadofandrew]

I can't believe they were still printing, as afternoon papers and extreme left papers both have faded fast and hard.

[burniebrewer]

I was never a fan of that paper.

 

I always wondered why Madison needed two dailies.

[samwise]

One of my friends has harped to me that print, as a medium, is dead. I am not willing to take it that far yet, but with the introduction of the wireless reading devices at amazon and other places it seems that it will not be long before newspapers, books, magazines, etc will all be electronic. At least the trees will be happy...

[TooLiveBrew]

It'll be a better world when we can cut down our use of paper as much as possible. This is sort of sad news, but also sort of not. I'd always felt the WSJ was the superior product, but never saw this coming.

[jason21nl]

I haven't read a newspaper in over 2 years. pretty sad actually

[hawing]

I'd always felt the WSJ was the superior product...

You might think differently if you'd seen the WSJ since its most recent redesign (in the last month). But that's another rant for another time.

[burniebrewer]

Yeah, the new look for the WSJ is interesting. I haven't quite accepted or figured it out yet.

 

I just hope there is always a place for newspapers as I read one every day and there is no way I'm doing a crossword puzzle online--I need to do it in ink!

[dadofandrew]

Growing up, we got the WSJ every day, and I was amazed how weak it was when I saw the Chicago Tribunes and the like as an adult.

[ttsather]

I don't mind this, as I never picked up the Cap Times in print. If it's entirely online, that represents more material that is more accessible to me on a daily basis. Also, I wonder if being online will allow the Cap Times to be a bit more progressive in its writing and op/ed, as internet sources are arguably less scrutinized and watered-down than hard-copy newspapers.

[TooLiveBrew]

You might think differently if you'd seen the WSJ since its most recent redesign (in the last month). But that's another rant for another time.

 

Interesting. I'll have to try & get a look at one when I'm back in WI.

[RU Rah Rah]

I'd always felt the WSJ was the superior product...

You might think differently if you'd seen the WSJ since its most recent redesign (in the last month). But that's another rant for another time.

I want to find an archive with the PR fluff that accompanied the launch of the new "Bang!" section. It was really hilarious. (Sad, but hilarious.)

 

[burniebrewer]

Growing up, we got the WSJ every day, and I was amazed how weak it was

 

The sports writing sure hasn't changed since then.

[hawing]

I want to find an archive with the PR fluff that accompanied the launch of the new "Bang!" section. It was really hilarious. (Sad, but hilarious.)

 

RU, your post inspired me to search the Capital Newspapers archives, and I am having a devil of a time finding much of anything relevant to the January WSJ redesign. And I daresay it's not like I lack online searching skills.

 

Edit: I found some, finally. (If Capital Newspapers really believes the internet is the future, they have to make their website easier to navigate.)

 

From WSJ editor Ellen Foley, around the time of the redesign debut:

! debuts Saturday. We also call this section [bang], a slang reference to the exclamation point in computer programming codes. The exclamation point has had many nicknames since the days of printers: screamer, startler, shriek, screech and pling. We liked the definitive [bang] as a nod to the people whose work dances across our screens on the Web and as an embrace of the explosive and high-energy life not often celebrated in local publications.

We also noted that in today's e-mail etiquette (and editors' opening sentences), users often use multiple explanation points as a way to emphasize news that's startling, surprising or just plain entertaining. That's what ! [bang] will offer with the latest trends, fashions and gotta-see-it events in our region.

If you happen to be in the "don't-gotta-have-it" group, this section will be a must-read so you can understand the younger set that came up with this section name.

 

And from the first [bang] section on January 12, three things to know about [bang]:

1. The name. In type, it's the symbol "!," which is easier to type than that thing Prince called himself for a while. In speech, we call it bang, which comes from computer program-ese.

2. The vibe. It's irreverent, fun, stylish, nerdy, goofy, hipster-groover, retro, mod, futuristic, fresh ... in other words, anything goes. (Well, almost anything; it's still a family newspaper.

3. The stuff. Here's where you'll find Ridley, doling out (unsolicited, of course) rules to live by; profiles of night spots around town; tips on what's cool and what's hot (so often the same thing, no?); stories about things that get people talking, and this, the three things.

Your turn: This is where you can sound off on, or extol the virtues of, whatever you want. Pick a topic, write three things about it, and you're halfway there. Send it to us at getpublished@madison.com, with "bang!" in the subject line and include your name, location and a phone number, and you could see your words in print. It's that easy.

 

It looks to me like the WSJ is striving to minimize the news/story-creating effort for its staff - whether it's running more and more stories from AP or other media services, or relying increasingly on reader input. Not that there should be no reader input, but when you begin posting people's weekend plans as newspaper content (as they now do on Fridays), how is that news? I assume cost-cutting is the prime objective, but I suspect the braintrust at WSJ thinks their new product achieves more than a better bottom line.

[1992casey]

We also noted that in today's e-mail etiquette (and editors' opening sentences), users often use multiple explanation points as a way to emphasize news that's startling, surprising or just plain entertaining.

And Brewerfan notes this:

Please refrain from excessive punctuation in your thread titles, such as '???' or '!!!'...

To each his own, I guess. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[RockCoCougars]

It's about time that rag has reached the end of the line. I won't get into their politics, but I've found the production value of that paper to be that of a high school newspaper - pretty much unreadable to me. Mostly it contained a rehash of the morning's news along with a ton of "syndicated" type fare. The sports and business pages in particular left a lot to be desired. The only people that I've personally known to subscribe to the Cap Times were quite elderly. Don't know anyone who subscribes to it anymore.