????哈里?謝瑞爾在《哥倫比亞新聞評論》（Columbia Journalism Review）的專欄中寫道，這種“蹩腳的決定”表明，先進(jìn)出版公司根本不了解新奧爾良的市場?！叭藗儾豢赡苷嬲诤踝约翰涣私獾臇|西。”謝瑞爾是一位政治諷刺作家、演員、電臺(tái)主持人，同時(shí)也是新奧爾良居民，他認(rèn)為，既然報(bào)紙享有美國憲法《第一修正案》（First Amendment）的保護(hù)，那么報(bào)紙的后臺(tái)老板們“也應(yīng)該有所舍棄——至少應(yīng)該平心靜氣接受比其他行業(yè)，比如汽車租賃行業(yè)，低一點(diǎn)的利潤率?！?/p>

????當(dāng)然，沒有人希望報(bào)紙賠錢?？蓡栴}在于，報(bào)紙對利潤的追逐超過什么樣的界限，就會(huì)對它所服務(wù)的社區(qū)造成嚴(yán)重的傷害？在許多城市，這一界限多年以前就已經(jīng)被打破。而對于這個(gè)因素，許多評論家同樣避而不談。有多少地方政府的丑聞沒有得到曝光？由于報(bào)社裁員，導(dǎo)致多少家長根本不清楚他們所在校區(qū)的狀況？（在上世紀(jì)70和80年代，絕對不可能出現(xiàn)這樣的情況。）而又有多少選民在不知情的情況下投出了選票，或者因?yàn)閷τ诟傔x人知之甚少而放棄了投票？簡單的一份收益表根本無法衡量這樣的損失。

????從理論上來說，報(bào)紙老板懷念過去大把撈錢的好日子也情有可原，畢竟，在二十多年前，報(bào)紙的利潤率通常在30%左右，有時(shí)甚至?xí)^40%。（即便在十年前，報(bào)紙平均利潤率也超過20%。）然而，往事已矣，出版商也早就應(yīng)該做好思想準(zhǔn)備。雖然對當(dāng)前報(bào)紙的利潤率估算存在差異，但大概范圍應(yīng)該在8%至15%之間。報(bào)紙投資的青黃不接（需要注意的是，這一現(xiàn)象在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)興起之前就已經(jīng)開始）最后都指向了一個(gè)結(jié)論：報(bào)紙老板不會(huì)投資于報(bào)紙的數(shù)字化誒來，只會(huì)通過盡可能削減成本，利用報(bào)紙圈錢，然后盡快脫身。而同時(shí)，他們又要面臨一個(gè)難題：雖然印刷廣告的收入在急劇減少，但在線廣告的收入仍遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)低于印刷廣告，而且在線廣告的收入同樣在迅速下降。這也是狂熱的數(shù)字支持者們在威嚇出版商向全數(shù)字媒體轉(zhuǎn)變時(shí)盡量掩蓋的另外一個(gè)事實(shí)。

????據(jù)報(bào)道，除了每周減少四期報(bào)紙外，先進(jìn)出版公司還計(jì)劃裁減約三分之一員工，包括編輯部員工（具體數(shù)字未知）。這表明他們只對一個(gè)衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)感興趣：現(xiàn)有資產(chǎn)未來收益的凈現(xiàn)值——而他們所關(guān)注的“未來”并沒有想象中那么長遠(yuǎn)。否則，他們應(yīng)該將減少出版期數(shù)節(jié)省的成本用于網(wǎng)絡(luò)運(yùn)營投資。比如，增加精通網(wǎng)絡(luò)的記者和編輯等。但他們并沒有這么做，反而背道而馳。

????沃倫?巴菲特在給新奧爾良市一位音樂家的回信中寫道：從長期來看，先進(jìn)出版公司的舉措是不可持續(xù)的。他表示，既然報(bào)紙有如此高的滲透率，“為什么發(fā)行日刊從經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)角度來看會(huì)行不通？這讓他很是費(fèi)解。當(dāng)然，沒有具體的數(shù)據(jù)，我也無法進(jìn)行具體分析?！?/p>

????By this "stumble-footed decision," Advance has revealed that it doesn't "understand the New Orleans market," writes Harry Shearer in a column for the Columbia Journalism Review. "You can't care about what you don't understand." Shearer, the political satirist, actor, radio host, and New Orleans resident, believes that since newspapers are unique in the First Amendment protections they enjoy, their owners "owe a little something back -- perhaps a calm acceptance of a lower profit margin than could be attained, say, in the car-leasing business."

????Of course, nobody wants newspapers to lose money. The question is, at what point does the pursuit of profit begin to do serious harm to the communities served by newspapers? In many cities, that point was reached years ago. This is another factor that often goes unaddressed in such discussions. How many local-government scandals have gone unreported? How many parents, who would have been well-informed in the '70s and '80s, are ignorant as to what's going on in their school districts because of cutbacks in reporting staffs? How many voters make uninformed decisions, or just decide not to show up at the polls, because they have little idea about what's going on in their state capitals? These things can't be measured by an income statement.

????Theoretically, newspaper owners might be forgiven for their nostalgic yearning for the profit margins of the past, which a couple of decades ago were often around 30% and sometimes went north of 40%. (Just a decade ago, the average was more than 20 percent). But those days are gone, and publishers have known it for years. Estimates vary widely, but margins now tend to average somewhere between 8% and 15%. The continued disinvestment in newspapers (which, it must be noted, began well before the Web came along) points to only one conclusion: owners, rather than investing in the digital future, are trying to wring as much money out of newspapers as they can by cutting costs as much as they can get away with. In the meantime, they're faced with a conundrum: although revenues from print ads are falling fast, online ads still draw far less, and rates for online ads are falling fast, too. Which is another fact that rabid digital enthusiasts tend to gloss over when they hector publishers to convert to all-digital publication.

????Along with cutting out four print editions per week, Advance is also reportedly planning to cut as much as a third of the staff, including some newsroom employees (specifics aren't known yet). This shows that they are interested in only one metric: the net present value of future returns on existing assets -- and not all that far into the future. Otherwise, they'd be taking the cost savings from the print cutback and investing them in the Web operation. By adding some Web-savvy reporters and editors to the staff, say. But they aren't. They're doing the opposite.

????Advance's move is "unsustainable over the longer term," wrote Warren Buffett in answer to a letter from a New Orleans musician. He said that, given the high penetration rate, he was "puzzled as to why the economics don't work on a seven-day basis. But I would have to have the detailed figures to make an analysis."