Why is Boulder, CO's main newspaper, the Daily Camera, so terrible?

The parent publishing company is operated by right-wingers. That explains not only the shabby content but also the crazy number of typos and general sloppiness.

Organic Ding-Dong Addict wrote:

The parent publishing company is operated by right-wingers. That explains not only the shabby content but also the crazy number of typos and general sloppiness.

Newspapers have been killed by the internet, sales and advertising declines mean they lose money, so they cut their workforce and overwork and under pay the remaining employees, people leave and don't get replaced so there's a downward spiral in the amount and quality of local news.

I think one of its writers complained on Twitter about being underpaid

Also, they started to charge for subscriptions now. So you can only read the stories for free if you click on them through a Facebook link.

Nothing to dispute here so far, by the way they sold off their physical plant at the west end of Pearl Street Mall years ago and it's already been razed and the site rebuilt upon too. Some of the vitriol that you might see on Facebook refers to the architectural tastes of the guy who designed the new structure there. Especially two years ago.

More recently the Denver Post started trying to enforce a paywall , the move was announced by some millennial assclown with no better command of the English language than what a typical six year old brought to the table in my day. "We are so over working for free," was actually submitted as the headline as THEY were closing down their own established newsroom location and dramatically reducing headcount.

(Just wait until he soon finds out about NOT working for free?)

Anyway I can attest that the Camera was a halfway decent print publication up until about 2003 or thereabouts.

If LR instituted a monthly subscription fee -- say $9 a month like the Daily Camera -- would you pay it?

This is the big problem with media today. Everyone wants tons of high-quality content but very few are willing to pay for it. So outlets like the Daily Camera are stuck with the paltry revenue that online ads bring in and have to cut their staffs deeper to make budget every year. The decimated crew of editors, photographers and writers are told to create content for print and online stories on a neverending 24-hour news cycle.

But if you're a runner and you read the Daily Camera you can at least rejoice in having Mike Sandrock as your local running reporter. His stuff is better than 99 percent of the writing on LR, and it's properly edited to boot.

C0l0rado wrote:

If LR instituted a monthly subscription fee -- say $9 a month like the Daily Camera -- would you pay it?

This is the big problem with media today. Everyone wants tons of high-quality content but very few are willing to pay for it. So outlets like the Daily Camera are stuck with the paltry revenue that online ads bring in and have to cut their staffs deeper to make budget every year. The decimated crew of editors, photographers and writers are told to create content for print and online stories on a neverending 24-hour news cycle.

But if you're a runner and you read the Daily Camera you can at least rejoice in having Mike Sandrock as your local running reporter. His stuff is better than 99 percent of the writing on LR, and it's properly edited to boot.

Agreed. You sound like you worked in the biz.

C0l0rado wrote:

But if you're a runner and you read the Daily Camera you can at least rejoice in having Mike Sandrock as your local running reporter. His stuff is better than 99 percent of the writing on LR, and it's properly edited to boot.

Mr. Sandrock is about the only good thing about the D.C.

The rest of it usually features arrestees for hit and runs/DUIs/crimes/sexoffenses-thepredator list, controversial building developments/affordable housing linkage fees, "transients" (generally looking down upon this group as well as the millennial in general), the "soda tax," business turnover on Pearl St due to the high rents, and any other (usually negative) clutter they can come up with. The paper endorsed a lot of the pro-growth, pro-development, candidates for City Council in the last election. Thankfully, all of these candidates lost and the only candidates who won were the slower growth candidates.