Newsweek ending print edition, job cuts expected

AP

NEW YORK - The U.S. news magazine Newsweek plans to end its print publication after 80 years and will shift to an all-digital format starting in early 2013. Job cuts are expected.

Newsweek's last U.S. print edition will be its Dec. 31 issue.

With more and more consumers on the go and using their cell phones and tablets to receive the news, media organizations have had to increasingly shift more of their emphasis online. Aside from Newsweek, SmartMoney announced in June that it was shuttering its print publication in favor of a digital format. Dow Jones & Co., a unit of News Corp., said at the time that 25 positions at SmartMoney would be eliminated.

Newsweek's decision does not come as a complete surprise. Barry Diller, the head of the company that owns Newsweek, announced in July that the publication was examining its future as a weekly print magazine. Diller said then that the brand was good around the world, but that producing a weekly news magazine in print form wasn't easy.

The announcement of the change was made by Tina Brown, editor-in-chief and founder of The Newsweek Daily Beast Co., on The Daily Beast website Thursday.

Brown said staff cuts are expected, but didn't give a specific figure.

Brown said that the online publication will be called Newsweek Global and will be a single, worldwide edition that requires a paid subscription. It will be available for tablets and online reading, with certain content available on The Daily Beast website.

[Jaylah54200]

I know that digital is the future now.

Still, it's sad to see such an icon close down. Kinda like when "Life" magazine stopped printing regular issues.

[skeezix06]

Another dying American institution.

[Bkuryakin]

I'm not surprised. I stopped reading Newsweek more than ten years ago because it was extremely biased toward liberal issues. Except for George Will, the rest of the columnists were way out there in left field. Besides, print media is obsolete. Anyone younger than 35 is on a smartphone all day and probably hasn't read anything longer than one sentence since high school. Converting to online will not work in society today because no one has the concentration power to read and comprehend real news. But, as for Newsweek, not sorry to see it go.

[Jaylah54200]

For today's TeaBaggers, anything that isn't waayyyyyy out in right-field is "left."

[fastdraw2]

I kind of figured things were going to hell in a hand basket when a recent issue featured a cover and story about some doctor asserting he knew for sure there was an after life because he visited it while in a coma with his brain was disconnected.

You would think there were more important things going on in the world to report about.

I guess disconnected brains is contagious in the news business.

[matt6052]

I refuse to believe that a publication with paid subscriber base of 1.5 million cannot be made profitable.

They do not want to right-size Newsweek. Why? Because to right-size Newsweek would reveal that current industry dynamics require news organizations to reduce newsroom staffs by about 85%.

Newsweek in print could succeed without the expensive, tired opinion-writers. Just replace every costly, unoriginal, column with pictures.

The cost differential between images and text is substantial. A picture used to be worth a thousand words, but at the price Newsweek is paying its writers, a page of pictures costs about what they pay a columnist for 20 words. People like pictures better and the paper and print runs are already image-quality. Overpaying a columnist and then running text where the product will allow for images -- now that's a losing strategy.

And there's no shortage of public officials who like seeing themselves in print. In Russia, Putin stages all types of visuals to stay relevant to his nation's non-readers and light readers. He even flew an ultralight airwing to lead an endangered-species crane onto its right migratory path. American politicians would do the same type of thing, but they just can't get the media coverage.

Time and Newsweek can't both survive on the coffee table, but Time and newsporn absolutely can.

[hypnotoad72]

"right-size"? More Orwelleanspeak...

In our continually contracting economy, more and more entities make cuts - regardless of how much "value" is being provided.

I dare say most of us on these forums don't even have a single subscription to any publication, and get our materials online.

It's about cutting costs and shifting to the web exclusively. And that aspect isn't being discussed.

BTW: With peoples' expectations of "free", they will balk as more online entities charge, and for more and more "products"...

[matt6052]

It's only "Orwellian" because anything you don't like is "Orwellian." In fact, if revenues do not cover all expenses, then the organization's size is wrong and must be adjusted to its right size.

Imagine how good it would be to have Time magazine there when you had an hour or so, and Newsweek there will dazzling photographs of the week's events when you don't have time to read. Which would reach for first in the dentist's office?

1.5 paid subscribers deserve an alternative to nothing, and if the change causes subscriptions to drop, then keep with it until the demand/supply thing sorts itself out. They can also shift to a bi-monthly or monthly publication schedule. I know the name says "week" but they update the web site daily as it is, so that requirement is long gone.

I can't believe they're going to walk away from a 1.5 million subscriber base.

[askagain]

There is still a huge audience for publications in print. Newspappers and magazines have spent fortunes trying to develop online publications. Most have not achieved success. Perhaps, publications would be better served to look at their content and who is reading their publication and making their publications more relevant to their readers. In recent years, most newspapers, for example, subscibe to news services such as the Associated press. Practically every publication uses the same articles rather than doing their own research and writing. Using canned material certainly isn't being innovative or creative.