Thoughts On The Newspaper Industry ('State of Play' Inspired)‏

[Chief Rum]

I have been thinking of posting something about this since I came back from seeing State of Play the other night.

I'm not intending to review the film (which I will probably do in the Last Movie You Watched thread), but more to talk a little about the state of the newspaper industry, and also to see if anyone else here has any of the same kinds of nostalgic moments that I have about something that was once a big part of my life (print journalism and the hunt for "the story").

First of all, I will say I enjoyed the movie. A little President's Men-ish, not as great as that, of course, but a functionally solid conspiratorial drama that was well-acted. I am sure there are tons of plot holes people could point out (there always are in complicated movies like these), but for the most part, I thought they handled the material well.

What brings me to start this thread is the "impending doom" hinted at often in the film of the print industry, and somewhat even of the concept of straight journalism itself. As we all know, the media and its role in society is currently in flux, and the old standard of black and white print journalism has become dated and staid, as the Internet provides us with an immediacy of information print newspapers can't compete against (and even broadcast programs are struggling to keep up--really, how many of us first learn of major news on TV anymore?). What stands out to me is that news has moved not only from "next day" to "immediately" but also from "just the facts" to "our opinion...sensationalistic yellow journalism...media entertainment". In other words, in a very complicated and over-stimulated information world, companies are more and more bypassing legitamite newsgathering and straightforward passing of the news to become entertainment centers to generate traffic and ratings and hits and just plain ole money.

In college, I was your typical journalism brat. I didn't want to write to sell newspapers or ads for those papers. I wanted to tell the story. To me (and to most reporters before me for the entire life of the industry to that point, I would guess), finding and telling that story wasn't a job, but a mission. There was a need to supply the public with knowledge they had a right to (the unspoken reverse consequence of freedom of press), to protect the people from ignorance and the immorality/abuses of the powerful. I remember feeling that way (and I often still do--I haven't really changed, the industry has, though, and I think there are less people in it now who feel as I do than there once were).

I'm not sure what I can compare chasing a good story to, to people without a journalism background. There's a thrill to it. So many "needs" satisfied. The need to "know". The need to play an important societal role. The need for excitement. The thrill of the "hunt", as it were. The sense that what you're doing is right and correct, that seeking out publishing important facts and information is the way things should be.

So watching State of Play, which is entirely about this process, brought back a lot of the old feelings, and reminded me how passionate I once felt about that sort of thing. Which brought me full circle to what I am looking to speak of now, and that's the possibility that the entertainment focus of media now continues to clamp down on the straight journalist's ability to focus on his "just the facts" job. Nowadays, there might be important information in an article, but if it isn't couched in some sensationalistic piece or have some hook to it to draw people in, it's deemed not worth running.

So I guess you could say this is me wondering if there is anyone else who feels as I do, a little sad at the fall of newspapers and perhaps the standards of true journalism with them.

P.S. BTW, for anyone who does have a newspaper background, the final credits of State of Play is fantastic fun to watch (and even for those who don't, I think it will be interesting). My old adviser in college used to say that putting out a daily paper was one of the most amazing things done with regularity every day. An entire book of new material is essentially reported, researched, written, edited, printed and delivered in a day. And then the process starts all over again the next day. Really amazing when you think about the sort of organizational ability it takes to run something like that.

[Karlifornia]

As if this is the first beloved thing to become obsolete.


I read the San Jose Mercury news every day from when I was about 5 years old to when I was about 23. At one point, I wanted to be a newspaper columnist. The Metro will outlast the printed copy of the Merc, I think.

It's nothing but convenience. We can get the news from services we pay for to get other things. If you pay for the internet and cable television, and you can get the news you want when you want it, why subscribe to a rag that may be outdated by the time its rubber band-curled mass smacks against your front door?

Another argument could be the columnists. Well, I won't argue that many dinosaur writers are sticking with newspapers, because that's where their bread was first buttered. They'll be dead by the time sticking to their guns would have been a fiscal problem, so no worries.

Newspapers are dying because there are better alternatives.

You may cry "New media is unchecked trash reporting, with no accountability."

Yeah, it's out there. Sure. But if you have a gift called "critical thinking", you can discern the credible stories from incredible stories. The phrase "Don't believe everything that you read" didn't start at the dawn of the internet.

All of that being said, I guarantee I will be bitching to my kids (If I am ever unlucky enough to have any) about "the innocence of the IPod days"

[rowech]

1. The media has taken up sides. Now perhaps that's not the journalists fault, more the owners of the various outlets but every paper, tv station, website has some sort of agenda. The idea that the media just present a story is gone. At one time, the editorial section had a purpose different from that in the rest of the paper. No longer. If you want to get the true story, you have to read both and find the middle. This is important because people have lost TRUST in the media.

2. I've always felt the media thinks a little too highly of themselves. Journalists were extremely important at one time and a single good journalist could carry your newspaper. People understood how important good journalists were and treated them as such. Somewhere along the line journalists got way too big of a head.

3. Print newspapers will be gone within 10 years. There is simply no point anymore. They cannot and will not ever be able to compete. This scares me because of how easy it is to spread false information on the internet.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wire_(season_5) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wire_%28season_5%29)

Pretty good take on all the themes you're talking about.

[Marc Vaughan]

Out of interest is there anything in America like 'The Metro' and other similar free newspapers in England?

These are literally given away in train stations to commuters and are profitable via. adverts as far as I understand it, the quality of reporting isn't 'great' - but its no worse than your average tabloid really.

(just my tuppence worth to say that yes times are changing but I don't think Newspapers are 'done' yet - I fully expect them to move to digital distribution - re: Kindle etc. at some point, but then I expect that will happen for magazines, books etc. as well)

[Philliesfan980]

Out of interest is there anything in America like 'The Metro' and other similar free newspapers in England?


Yes, we have 'The Metro' (it's even the same name) here in Philly. Like yours in England, it's mainly distributed at train stations. I would imagine there's a Metro in most major metropolitan areas here in America.

As for the general decline of newspapers, I would agree that it's inevitable, but at the same time, I always think there's going to be some segment of the population who wants to have that paper in their hands. The problem is, that segment of the population is going to grow smaller by the year, and it will no longer be profitable to distribute printed newspapers to that small segment.

It's a shame too. I love being able to sit outside and read the newspaper on a lazy weekend morning. Definitely one of the simple pleasures of life. Until laptops/portable readers really come up with an effective anti-glare screen, I don't see myself using an electronic reader to read outside anytime soon.

[JonInMiddleGA]

While I certainly understand the impulse to feel nostalgic about this industry (or quite a few others), I think it's hard to overlook the presence & influence of agendas that have been part & parcel of the newspaper (or any news medium) from the outset.

The desire to "tell the story" has typically been more a desire to "tell the story we want to tell", with the biggest difference being perhaps that the public is more conscious of that now than ever. Which in turn, maybe, led to there being less effort spent on trying to obscure those agendas.

I feel like it bears noting here that I still have more years gathering & writing news -- mostly for radio, but also several years freelance for print -- than I have involved directly with advertising. I think I have to point that out since I'm better known here for looking at the pragmatic side of the industry, less known is just how well I understand the thrill of the chase that CR is talking about. That thrill he mentions, God do I know what he means. Finding that source, noticing that one line in 40 pages of dry documents that goes from "hmm" to "a-ha", whatever it is the leads to that one moment where you know (or at least believe) you just put it all together ... it's when the hours are worthwhile, the daily frustration just melts away and your fingers cannot get it all out of your head fast enough. It's hard not to hyperventilate, and I'd virtually guarantee that CR and any of our others who've been there can relate to that description as well as 20 others more colorful or with better turned phrasing.

But I'm a lot more cynical about it now than I was in my youth (which lasted longer psychological than chronologically). I could easily go into a pretty strong diatribe about the reasons for that cynicism, I'll try to spare everyone at least for now. Suffice to say that, just as I said in another thread, I've come to believe that media/news is a lot like government with regard to the public generally getting what the sort they deserve.

[OldGiants]

1. The media has taken up sides. Now perhaps that's not the journalists fault, more the owners of the various outlets but every paper, tv station, website has some sort of agenda. The idea that the media just present a story is gone. At one time, the editorial section had a purpose different from that in the rest of the paper. No longer. If you want to get the true story, you have to read both and find the middle. This is important because people have lost TRUST in the media.

I think this is only a recent development in the US. We've had Republican papers and Democrat papers, of course, but a two party means, essentially, two newspapers in each city. In Europe, there have been more parties, and more papers. Plus the papers were clearly affiliated with the parties and everyone knew they'd hew to the party line. Read about Europe in the 1930's and you'll see what I mean.

Print simply doesn't get the job done anymore. I've always said USA Today is really USA Yesterday. Local papers can live if they stick to local issues. Unfortunately, most of us have less than a compelling interest in local affairs. Local sports are being crowded out by ESPN national coverage.

I grew up listening to Jean Shepherd on the radio at night. No one gets to do that anymore. Radio isn't what it was 50 years ago. TV is changing. I'm switching from a newspaper/radio kind of person to an online/TV person. I do read books, but I see them going away in the future. Old books will always be around, but video formats -- even if only pictures of words -- will crowd out paper every where.

There's more data out there. We will need to process faster and more expertly to discern what is truly information. When I watch my daughter and her friends interact, I can see a true change in how they get information and communicate. And I now see them attaining positions of power and influence, so I think this is the way the world is going.

[JW]

One thing a newspaper does is provide you in one package a lot of local information that you can't get in one package anywhere else. I glance through the A section of my local Sunday paper and in 30 seconds get the following info:
1 - outdoor children's opera at the local museum next week
2 - local cajun restaurant has crawfish enchilada special
3 - notice, local neurosurgery practice closing next month
4 - farm equipment auction may 2
5 - regional social studies fair winners by name, huge list
6 - auditions for local dinner theater murder mystery coming up
7 - women's health fair at local hospital
That's alongside a mix of local, regional, and national news.

Now here is my problem with the demise of the newspaper. Where am I going to go to find all that local info in 30 seconds? It took me longer to type it out than to scan through it. Sure, I can get the news online, and I can find a lot of the information I listed above, if I look, and if I happen to know to look. But it will take a lot of time. If i find it at all. And if it is not something I'm looking for, I probably won't find it. Like #4, the auction. I probably am not looking for that. But maybe I see that ad and see something I'm interested in.

That is one neat thing about the format of newspaper compared to internet sites. It is so much more user friendly. I've always wished the local newspaper could be put online in pdf format, so you could look at it page by page and see all the little things like I listed above. But I seem to be about the only person in the world who would like that.

I agree that the big newspapers are becoming dinosaurs. I also think that if local papers want to survive, they will have to go local, as said above, and become sources for local information that you can't find anywhere else.

I don't know if even that will keep them alive. I'm just wondering how the internet will be able to give me in one package all that information I could find so quickly in one quick scan of the A section of my newspapaper. Right now the internet can't do that.

[Shkspr]

I can find a lot of the information I listed above, if I look, and if I happen to know to look. But it will take a lot of time. If i find it at all. And if it is not something I'm looking for, I probably won't find it.

I think this change will prove to be the most pervasive unintended consequence of the transition to digital media. You already see it in television - there's an entire channel that plays nothing but NCIS and House reruns every day, and once my wife TiVos all those, she hasn't watched any new television whatsoever this year. We own them on DVD, and yet she still TiVos them and watches them every evening.

I can see it coming in books - Amazon's strengths as a retailer are in the blockbuster book and the long tail, and I think in about five to ten years their weaknesses as a retailer are going to force midlist titles into one end or the other - almost all of them into the tail.

I grew up with newspapers reading them cover to cover (with the exception of the death notices, classifieds, and want ads). News stories, sports, business, local, travel, home - there was a variety of stories every day. Now my local newspaper is so excrable that I read USA Today every day at lunch. And frankly, it's inexcusable that reading USA Today should render me the most news-savvy person I know (off the net).

[Solecismic]

It's really the same problem that every other intellectual property producer faces.

It's cheaper to distribute intellectual property on the internet.

The crux is how do you get people used to paying for the intellectual property they now download for free?

Some industries are evolving more-or-less successfully. The music industry has invested heavily in new technology and fighting piracy. It's been one hell of a battle, but they've made significant progress.

The newspaper industry is being dragged into the internet age, kicking and screaming. It's not surprising that newspapers are beginning to disappear.

Second, the reaction of the newspaper industry has been to reduce the value of its content. Smaller papers, fewer reporters, lazy editors who have lost sight of ethical goals, pride in Luddite-like attitudes toward technology.

This has acted as a double-whammy. Not only are the newspapers slower to move forward, they are robbing themselves of exactly what made them news-worthy in the first place.

[RainMaker]

I guess what is negative about losing the newspapers is the investigative reporting. They were the people who broke a lot of stories and dug deep. I think of Watergate and other major events that were told though these avenues. Much of the new media seems to be focused on weaker journalism standards and leaching off each other.

[flounder]

What I don't understand about this debate is why everyone thinks investigative reporting is going to go away if newspapers die off. It seems to me that the investigative reporting on blogs is as good as, if not better than, the vast majority of newspapers out there.

Just look at the work of Radley Balko (www.theagitator.com). He's done tremendous work without being associated with a newspaper.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Out of interest is there anything in America like 'The Metro' and other similar free newspapers in England?

Media Life Magazine - Freebie fall: Metro exiting U.S. market (http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Newspapers_24/Freebie_fall_Metro_exiting_U_S_market.asp)

The freebie craze just never caught on in the United States like it did in Europe, and now one of its major backers, Metro International, is bidding “adjo” to America.

The Swedish newspaper group has sold its three U.S. papers to Seabay Media, the group headed by former Metro International CEO Pelle Tornberg, after trying to unload them for more than a year.

The deal includes the papers in Boston, New York and Philadelphia, though the exact terms of the agreement weren’t released. The three dailies combine for a circulation of 590,000.

The papers, part of Metro’s international freebie empire, never performed as well as the parent company had hoped. Last year they combined for a loss of $6 million, according to reports, and that was before the global financial slowdown had begun in earnest.

The launch of freebies in major cities like London and Copenhagen shook up the European newspaper market over the past few years, as paid dailies found themselves competing with the free papers for advertising and the attention of time-pressed commuters.

But the model never really took in the United States. Just months ago the free Examiner chain closed its Baltimore edition amid advertising woes, and plans by Iceland’s Dagsbrun Media to launch a series of new free sheets stalled out just before the economic flatlined.

Even Metro International is hurting. The publisher of 69 papers across nearly two-dozen countries, Metro shuttered its Spanish operations last year and defaulted on several loans.

[Samdari]

I think this is only a recent development in the US. We've had Republican papers and Democrat papers, of course, but a two party means, essentially, two newspapers in each city. In Europe, there have been more parties, and more papers. Plus the papers were clearly affiliated with the parties and everyone knew they'd hew to the party line. Read about Europe in the 1930's and you'll see what I mean.


Huh? Newspapers started in this country for exactly the reasons John suggests - to tell the story the publisher wanted told. They were political propaganda tools more than they were anything else. They have rarely been as up front and open about that as they were in their infancy.

[Warhammer]

Huh? Newspapers started in this country for exactly the reasons John suggests - to tell the story the publisher wanted told. They were political propaganda tools more than they were anything else. They have rarely been as up front and open about that as they were in their infancy.

I think they might do better if they actually went back to openly displaying bias, rather than trying to make it seem as if they are unbiased.

[Passacaglia]

Out of interest is there anything in America like 'The Metro' and other similar free newspapers in England?

These are literally given away in train stations to commuters and are profitable via. adverts as far as I understand it, the quality of reporting isn't 'great' - but its no worse than your average tabloid really.

(just my tuppence worth to say that yes times are changing but I don't think Newspapers are 'done' yet - I fully expect them to move to digital distribution - re: Kindle etc. at some point, but then I expect that will happen for magazines, books etc. as well)

The Chicago Tribune has a daily paper called the RedEye that has been pretty popular around here.

[flere-imsaho]

Does anyone have any idea how much some of the big newspapers (NYT, WaPo, LaTimes) make off of their websites? I know I visit the NYT online each day, sometimes multiple times, and think it's laid out very well and has tools to promote new writing on the front page.

Compared to some newspaper websites (Chicago Tribune for instance), it's very well done, but I'd be interested to see how much it adds or detracts from their bottom line. If a news site as good as the one they've put together can't make its own way, financially, then probably no non-aggregator news website can.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Compared to some newspaper websites (Chicago Tribune for instance), it's very well done, but I'd be interested to see how much it adds or detracts from their bottom line.

While all of them could come up with a figure attributed to, say, "internet revenue" how much it actually adds is going to be difficult to get a realistic handle on.

I know that the majority I've ever spent for a client on newspaper websites was taken directly out of money that would have gone to the print side otherwise. It helps them compete against other webvertising for dollars but their biggest competition is still most likely themselves, which means a lot of it is simply moving money from the left pocket to the right pocket.

[lordscarlet]

There are two free dailys in DC. The Washington Examiner, owned by.. someone.. I forget. And The Express, owned by the WaPo.

[Fighter of Foo]

But if you have a gift called "critical thinking", you can discern the credible stories from incredible stories. The phrase "Don't believe everything that you read" didn't start at the dawn of the internet.

Most people do not have this skill. If they did, our country/world would not be as fucked up as it is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Short story from yesterday, not really worth it's own thread but I thought I'd share it & figured this thread was as good a candidate as any.

Working on a new client who still likes to use some local newspaper in their campaigns, my task yesterday was to quickly pull rates from about a dozen papers so we could figure out who will fit into the budget for a short project in Nov & Dec.

I'm calling into a top 30 sized market, with the name & number of their existing sales rep provided to me by the client. Let's see how this attempt to give them money they didn't expect worked out shall we?

-- I call the number I was given, hit a "this number is out of service or has been disconnected, please check the number or try again". Got that message twice, figured (as is often the case) the rep no longer worked there
-- Call the main number listed for the sales department, start to explain to the very young sounding man who answered, says the rep I'm looking for is no longer with the company, he puts me on hold to "go check on something" ... and I'm disconnected about 30 seconds later
-- Dial that number back again, can't get anything except this guy's voice mail on two tries but I notice in his msg that he's in classified ... well that don't work, I need display advertising
-- Call the main switchboard, briefly explain that I can't reach my rep, ask for the display ad dept. She transfers me to, yep you guessed it, the same guy in classifieds.
-- Call the main switchboard again, explain the distinction more clearly, give her the name of the last known contact, she tells me that X no longer works there but that she can see where her accounts have been reassigned to Y so she'll transfer my call there
-- Y's voice mail picks up and explains that she's on maternity leave until Dec 1st and will not be checking voice mail or email until she returns. Anyone needed help should contact her assistant at blah blah blah
-- I call the assistant, kind of chuckle about the confusion but I'm happy to land with the right person finally. I start into my spiel & she realizes that I'm talking about display ads for print ... but her maternity leave boss is online only. And by the way, original rep X very much still works here, just saw her in the hall about two hours ago in fact. "Oh don't worry, that happens all the time. I probably have to explain that I'm still here at least three times a week. But since you're on such a tight turnaround & I'm pretty sure she's out of the office let me give you to her assistant so you can get started"
-- Get transferred to the next sales assistant ... and get her voice mail & she's out for the rest of the day.

It's now a little past 10am, I'm still waiting to hear from anyone at this major daily newspaper. Sad part is that this sequence, while longer than usual, really isn't odd for trying to buy print and hasn't been out of the ordinary for a number of years. Earlier this month, tried to reach the Washington Post online sales dept with relatively substantial cash in hand for another client, only took 9 days to get a call back from them. No wonder that so many buyers would about as soon run naked through a minefield in the dark wearing clown shoes than try to buy print.

[flere-imsaho]

That's amazingly ridiculous.

[SportsDino]

If any business, let alone an increasingly obsolete one, makes you work that hard to give them money, they deserve a gruesome death.

[Dutch]

Wow.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And I forgot to mention that you can't dump out of any of their automated systems & get to an attendant, you have to hang up & redial.

3 more tries later I actually just hung with someone who at least had the remotest of clues: he gave me the (hopefully) correct direct & cell numbers for the (alleged) rep as well as her assistant ... course that's the same ass't who hasn't bothered to return my VM from yesterday yet.

[JPhillips]

There's a lot of things I'll miss without a newspaper industry, but not much of anything I'll miss without any individual paper.

I have a similar story related to a book publisher and securing rights for a play. I never understand why businesses make it difficult for people to give them money.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Almost as funny semi-conclusion to this.

I called the original rep's newly provided correct cell number, rejoiced at discovering she was still employed & wasn't a figment of someone's imagination. That excitement was quickly tempered when she explained that she hadn't been assigned to this particular account since June.

Guess who the account belongs to ... yep, the allegedly online-only rep that's out on maternity leave. The same rep whose assistant (that's actually been solely in charge of that person's accounts for about a month) told me very specifically that her boss was online-only & that someone else had to
handle print.

Kind of makes you wonder how much business that one situation has cost this paper since the baby was born.

[lcjjdnh]

This will probably be a bit fragmented, but I'm writing it quickly:

The thing about newspapers is that they never made their money from selling content to readers--they made it selling a delivery system to advertisers. Putting you ad in the local paper was an effective way to reach a large audience of people.

You can't really sell that advertising product in the same quality or quantity on the Internet. The local car dealer doesn't need the same two-page spread he needed in the paper, because now he has his own website; he only needs a small link for customers to get there.

The Wal-Mart-ization of the country killed newspapers, too. Why would Wal-Mart spend money telling people about their sales every day (like Macy's might) when customers know that Wal-Mart always has low prices?

So instead of selling the delivery of advertising, newspapers now need to find out how to make money through the delivery of content. Some people bought the newspaper for TV listings, others for comics, others for news, etc. Given the ease which with anyone can find this sort of stuff on the Internet, locate it all on the Internet in one package for Bay Area residents, for instance. The organization system of the old major metro newspapers seems extraordinarily outdated when it comes to the Internet. People in Atlanta, let's say, have all sort of different views and interest. It made sense to give these people all the same product when you were delivering newspapers filled with ads; it doesn't make sense when you're delivering content on the Internet.

In terms of content, I think one of the biggest problems newspapers have is they believe readers understand journalism conventions that readers don't necessarily understand. Do people understand the so-called Chinese wall between the newspapers news and opinion sections? Probably not. And even if they do, they don't believe it exists (but I assure you, it does).

Also, I don't really think most journalists go in within an agenda into writing a story other than they want to present the reader with something interesting. The problem is the conventions of modern journalism that just make certain stories easier to write. For instance, many conservatives might call a journalist liberal for writing a story about how much welfare program X is helping a certain group of people. The problem is not necessarily that the journalist thinks program X is the greatest thing in the world and wants to push his political agenda. Rather, it's that writing a heartwarming story about how this program has helped these people is much easier (and the journalist believes interesting) than having a story that has a bunch of social scientists go back and forth debating the merits of the program. I'm certainly not saying that the journalist is right for doing this. Rather, I'm arguing that it has more to do with the conventions of the job than any desire to push a political viewpoint.

Similarly, people often forget that journalists are just people. They make mistakes not because they want to libel someone, push a view, etc., but simply because people make mistakes. Sometimes they write a story one way instead of another, because source X rather than source Y called them back. Sometimes, it's simply that people important to a story don't call them back. They don't have magical powers to get every bit of information they need. They can't force people to return their phone calls. Certainly, given their power, we should hold them to higher standards. But, on the other hand, we need to remember they're just doing a job like the rest of us and often they're trying to do it as best they can.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Little addendum to my nightmare story ... got a late email from the not-the-rep-anymore doublechecking to make sure I got everything I needed from the sales assistant who's covering the maternity leave rep.

My reply:
Thanks for checking in but no, no communication from Katie to me whatsoever today. I'll simply run them myself as best I can based off the linked rate card you kindly provided earlier & deal with the multiple problems I've encountered at some later date.

Thanks for your personal efforts on our behalf

Guess who WILL have a new rep if & when I ever actually place any business with these incompetent twits at any point in the future. That'd be a pretty unlikely scenario except for the fact that they're the primary ad vehicle for the client's most productive market in the country (and not by a narrow margin either, that market's conversion rate indexes at over 900 vs the DMA average)

I love my job, and I love how much help newspapers give me in doing that job, truly I do.

[fantom1979]

The story JiMG told is something I used to have to deal with at Home Depot. Completely different industry, but same kind of story. Customers would call to purchase a kitchen install ($10k+), and would get transfered around the store before I would finally get them (I was a manager).

The reasons why they were transfered around would vary (minor detail in their order was incorrect, they were transfered to the wrong dept, someone just didn't feel like doing their job today, etc). It used to drive me crazy.

My regular quote at the store was:
"They want to give us money, we want the money.... take the f*cking money"

[JonInMiddleGA]

While I enjoyed hanging newspapers in this thread, and rightfully so, there's not much difference in a lot of online outlets as I'm discovering this week :mad: