Comment: What relative cost did to newsgathering (Score 1) 153
You'd think that cutting down the reproduction and stocking costs of a book would free up money for other tasks, but in fact what happens is that editing, design and promotion become an opportunity for cutting what is now a more significant proportion of expenses.
Right. That's what happened to newspapers. Newspaper production used to require a huge labor force. Look at all those people. 67 linotypes! A room full of proofreaders to catch typesetting errors. Hundreds of people moving paper around, making printing plates, loading them onto presses, running the presses, handling the printed newspapers. Compared to the army needed to print the papers, the reporting staff was tiny, a small expense. The reporting and editing staff, the composing room, and the printing plant were all in the same building. Any separation would slow things down, and the competition would "scoop" them.
Now compare a modern large newspaper plant. There are people around, but not many. There's essentially no direct labor. All paper and plate handling is mechanized. The files to be printed are created elsewhere and come in over a data connection. The printed newspapers leave in big trucks. Many different papers are printed in the same plant. The plant is far from the reporting and editorial staff, and is run by a separate corporation from the "newspaper".
So, to newspaper management, reporters are now the big labor cost, the first thing to cut.