There was a depressing, if not surprising, report today that newspaper circulation continued to drop like a rock, with major daily papers, on average, experiencing a more than 10% decrease in the past year. The San Francisco Chronicle led the way with a 25.8% decline, but there were no real bright spots. In the few cases where there were small gains (Seattle and Denver) they came as a result of one paper folding in a formerly two-paper market, with the surviving paper picking up some of the dead paper’s subs – a net loss of readers. This is bad for consumers and bad for America.It’s bad for consumers for two big reasons. Clearly, getting news and information online or on a cell phone is irresistibly efficient for some people. You just tell Google or Yahoo the subjects that interest you and whenever there is a mention of those topics you will receive an email with a daily abstract on your selected topics. It requires no maintenance; it’s free, fast and reliable.
But does that make you well informed? Hardly. The system is predicated on asking, in advance, for what is important. So to get the right stuff every day you need a crystal ball and if you had one of those you wouldn’t need either the Daily News or Google.
And what about the stuff you didn’t know you wanted to know? There is a surprise with every turn of the broadsheet when you read a daily paper, and that’s how you expand your own horizons; a provocative headline, an engaging photo, or a well-selected pull quote and the next thing you know you’re reading about neuroscience, viticulture or the education system in rural China. A great opening sentence got me to read Bob Herbert’s column today and it was excellent.
The second reason the demise of newspapers would be bad for consumers is that the “free” news they are getting today, in many cases, originated in a newspaper or a magazine or some other “old” media source. Therefore it was paid for by the subscribers, but once they go away, so does the “free” online version that was along for the ride. Then you’ll be left with nothing but people sitting around in their underwear blogging away for free media, and trust me, it will not be nearly as good.
More importantly, no newspapers would be very bad for America. Newspapers and magazines are the only real counterbalance we have against powerful, moneyed interests. Those BVD-wearing bloggers aren’t going to take on politicians or the drug industry. To do that takes resources that go way beyond a home computer and a blogspot account. It takes teams of reporters, editors, and researchers, and very often, lawyers, to challenge the powerful. We need newspapers and magazines.
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” Thomas Jefferson
Posts
23 comments:
An article in Barron’s this weekend, “This Dying Medium Has Plenty of Life" was more bullish on the newspaper business. It pointed out that newspapers are still more profitable than other types of consumer media. Although profit margins have fallen from levels exceeding 30% to the mid-teens today -- this still exceeds margins for movies, music, and books which have often struggled to reach 10%.
I am hopeful that papers will pull out of this dive. I don't think an internet free for all will improve the dissemination of information. Newspapers still have a vital role even if the delivery changes from newsprint to internet. Above all else, we have to keep government out of newspapers. Talk of a bailout of papers is more scary than a demise of a major daily. Just look at how politics are impacting every sector where the government has injected funds.
Ones and zeros. The law of unintended consequences shuffles the deck. Change presents opportunities as well as sorrow. Perhaps the news services and papers will find a way to spin straw into gold. But that is not where the smart money is. When you think that networks like Fox et al have worked out a formula for success with big egos and small minds riding on Viagra promotion money and embedded journalists getting close and personal with dog food, you have to either believe that capitalism will find a way or feel comfortable with the ratcheting down of reality.
Oh, we get the Times delivered.
I am one of those people who like to hold a newspaper or a magazine in my hands to read. The only time I read an article on line is when someone sends me a link.
The point you may be overlooking here with the slow death of newspapers is they are printing stuff people don't want to read. The OP ED page now begins on page one and runs all through the paper.
My college degree is in journalism and I attended school after my time in the Navy and after Watergate. Bowling Green State was primarily a teachers college before the journalism school exploded with students. The number one reason why these students chose journalism is because they wanted to change the world. Edward R. Morrow was a thing of the past, Woodward and Bernstein were in.
My favorite thing to do on the weekends was to get up early with a pot of coffee and read the local paper, front to back. I finally gave it up because I could no longer take their slant on current events.
There is a reason why Fox News is so successful, and it's not because the viewers are small minded.
I enjoyed reading the blog and the comments...all were insightful and thoughtful.
Like the author I value newspapers and the vital role they play in the community. I buy them and read them for the exact reasons described - I might learn something about a new topic or idea or discovery.
My fear is that people in general are not as curious. Most people I run into nowadays are inundated with news or information...they are on overload. As a result they are numb to the news...save any horrific event or tragedy. It begins to play less of a role in the daily routine.
This disconnect will only get wider once people learn to live without it. It's kind of like TV, once you learn to live without it...you don't miss it. But it's different when you lose a newspaper reader. We lose the concerned citizen; the advocate. We've not only lost a newspaper buyer, but a group of people that we need. Thanks for posting this essay.
We have crossed the line where now the audience is in control of the content and can therefore select to read/watch/interact with whatever they choose...be it Fox or MSNBC or Twitter, or worse. The result is reconfirming your already staunchly held opinion rather than learning something that you didn't already know from an authoritative, unbiased and reliable source. When the media controlled the audience they (the media) were able to make a profit by providing reporting that actually added to the public's knowledge about current events and important issues. The media launched the civil rights movement, ended the Vietnam War, and inspired the women's movement. The reality, I'm afraid, is we have the media that we deserve. As George Carlin said, "Consider someone with average intelligence, and then realize that the half the people in the country are dumber than that!" Unless we can figure out a profitable way to disseminate worthwhile and informative content I remain a pessimist.
What is so sacred about print journalism? An online version is more efficient,eco-friendly,and less costly to produce. The consumer has unlimited access to newspapers from around the world in an online format. I do not see where it would have to impact negatively on investigative journalism. Newspapers and its readers will have to adjust. Whether you like it or not, the debate is already over.
Agree with Woody...it is not about print vs. digital, but it is about persuading the audience to gather their information from reliable sources. Wikipedia is currently the #1 source for science research among US university students...scary. The Atlantic cover story from earlier this year, "Does Google Make You Stoopid?"...not sure...but it certainly makes you lazier. Students in India, China, Korea, etc. are simply out working us. Just because its on the first page does not mean that the information you are consuming is accurate.
BB – You make a great point about too many people only being interested in confirming their current beliefs.
Woody – There’s nothing sacred about print. I do think it offers unique benefits as a consumer product, but that’s just my opinion. The issue is “who is going to pay for quality information?” Right now, print subscribers pay for it and online readers get a free ride. That formula can not be sustained.
I'm lucky I live in Washington and am able to get the Post every morning. However, over the past few years the size, look and coverage of this paper have changed dramatically. They have encouraged emplyoyees -- reporters, editors, etc. -- of a certain age to hit the road. The result is a paper the size of the Spartanburg, SC Herald Tribune. The look has changed about 4 times in the last three or so years. All this is a financial and stylistic response to shrinking subscription base. All these changes have the stink of consultant and they are annoying.
All that said, I think print media is incredibly important for many of the reasons D'Blank states in his blog entry. The most important is that they endeavor to keep politicians honest and expose them when they are not.
I subscribe to 4 or 5 medical journals. The yearly cost per journal is approximately 150-200 dollars. I can sign in to their website and read the journal, look up past articles and search the archive for articles that interest me(with links to other articles). I literally have the world's medical library at my fingertips. It is only a matter of time before all newspapers and magazines have similar arrangements. The best part is that I do not have to store the journals or carry them around with me.
"The issue is “who is going to pay for quality information?” "
Unlike the US government, news services cannot print money. Ecologically-friendly online or in print, if reporters are not paid, copy will be worthless. You might not agree with one paper or another but they are attempts at details of stories, plus editorials and opinions. Blogs are just talking heads dealing in the latter. They are responses to stories, not stories themselves.
Yes, we can live without quality news. But we will not prosper.
D now you are sounding like a retired midwesterner. Can't sell enough newspapers, can't listen to enough radio can't make enough calls from a land line. Niche market will all that will be left.Its too bad I too enjoyed speeding my brains out to Sunday morning coffee, getting that smuge of ink on my fingertips,Reading the the print from cover to cover I too dropped it. I really got tired of having my beliefs,pummeled and assaulted due to the Marxist,Lenninist, Engels slant by the press. It left left me saying "what a bunch of crap" I do subscribe to Healthcare journals and get in on the web site stuff.So, since I have such a large head and such a small mind, from watching Fox I guess I have plenty of room for expansion
Who is going to pay for investigative journalism? As ad revenues drop because more and more people read online, who is going to have the money to cover stories?
A friend in Baltimore dropped the Sun because most of the stories were AP and there was very little Sun reporters coverage.
He thought why should he pay for no unique coverage if he could read most of it for free online.
Reading actual newsprint versus online is not the issue. How can news gathering organizations disseminate the news in a way that will make a profit? Once someone determines the model for generating sizeable income online from the news then journalism will continue but without the ink.
My daughter, who is with NBC news in NYC, almost never has newsprint touch her hands but she is very aware of what goes on in the world.
I was told by a editor that online generates only 1/10th of what a newsprint ad would generate in the LATimes. It is hard to understand because more people will read online and you can target your ads online much better than in a newspaper.
He couldn't explain why the ad rates were so different. I will add that he is the former assistant bureau chief of the LA Times DC bureau. He now edits publications for LA's electric power company.
1/10 the revenue may even overstate the difference. BB and others with more direct experience may want to chime in on this but I believe the main reason is that there is basically an unlimited supply on online ad space. it costs nothing to run the incremental ad and advertisers know this. there is simply no way online can make up for losses in print unless consumers pay something.
The amount of unsold inventory on the internet is staggering. For most magazine or newspapers we're talking about 90% or so of unsold space. What many have done to fill that hole is to accept advertising from "ad networks" who assemble large blocks of inventory from the publishers and essentially peddle this unsold inventory for cents on the dollar and split the revenues with the publisher. A typical ad network deal will net the publisher one or two dollars per thousand (or less) when the revenue per thousand if it was sold directly could be $15 or more. Many publishers have dropped the networks and are using the unsold inventory for their own promotional purposes rather than give it away. Unlike magazines or newspapers who do not have to print unsold ad pages and therefore have some control on the supply. Internet ad space is pretty much a pure commodity. d'Blank is 100% right that we are going have to charge the audience for access to content, I think in much the same way as we have learned to pay for premium cable channels.
Children of the video game are in charge. Goodbye to anything slow &/or thought provoking. By giving our children everything we didnt have we forgot to give them much of what we did have. Creativity, only exists in the minds of the Artist & the Business major. The later runs the show. Get out, we'r doom.
How 'bout Buy A Time Inc. Magazine - 540 layoffs - cheesh!
yeah, that too. these are hard times in the content biz -- regardless of the format.
thedailyblank.blogspot.com is very informative. The article is very professionally written. I enjoy reading thedailyblank.blogspot.com every day.
quick loan payday
Dispenses use a excellent website decent Gives bless you for the working hard to support me essay help
It was a funny blog I have read, people nowadays I think they don't need newspaper mostly all are dependent on social media. Newspapers without a government well that may not be possible. Visit once addons list
Post a Comment