Decline In US Newspaper Readership Accelerates 420
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that US newspaper circulation has hit its lowest level in seven decades, as papers across the country lost 10.6 percent of their paying readers from April through September, compared with a year earlier. Online, newspapers are still a success — but only in readership, not in profit. Ads on newspaper Internet sites sell for pennies on the dollar compared with ads in their ink-on-paper cousins. 'Newspapers have ceased to be a mass medium by any stretch of the imagination,' says Alan D. Mutter, a former journalist and cable television executive who now consults and writes a blog called Reflections of a Newsosaur. According to Mutter only 13 percent of Americans, or about 39 million, now buy a daily newspaper, down from 31 percent in 1940. 'Publishers who think their businesses are going to live or die according to the number of bellybuttons they can deliver probably will see their businesses die,' writes Mutter. 'The smart ones will get busy on Plan B, assuming there is a Plan B and it's not already too late.' Almost without exception, the papers that lost the least readers or even gained readership are the nation's smallest daily newspapers which tend to focus almost all of their limited resources on highly local news that is not covered by larger outside organizations and have a lock on local ad markets."
Possible causes (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how this trend compares with non-internet related events, such as:
Re:Evolve or die..... (Score:5, Interesting)
They went into the sending money business. (And yet, they never saw Paypal coming).
Any alternatives? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Evolve or die..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Are you surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually the buggy whip companies aren't all gone:
http://yp.bellsouth.com.wvproxy.com/sites/buggywhips/page3.html?wvsessionid=ebd943fc8586457288938663beb3c962 [wvproxy.com]
I'm sure it's a pretty niche market these days though :D.
Weakest Link (Score:3, Interesting)
Why are ads so much cheaper online though? (Score:3, Interesting)
Every time I see a story like this I ask the same question to myself, and have yet to hear an appropriate answer.
Why can a newspapers and magazines charge 100 times more for an ad on ink, that reaches a tiny fraction of the people that an online ad reaches? The economics of it make no sense to me. Is there some research that shows people are more likely yo pay attention to print ads than online ads? Because I have never paid attention to a print ad in my life.
Why don't newspaper websites (which are very popular) just charge more for online ads, comperable rates to what they charge for print ads?
What happens when the newspapers and magazines have such low subscribership that they can't justify their high ad prices anymore - will then THEN feel justified to charge more for their online ads?
It's their own fault (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't really intend this to be politically controversial, though that is probably inevitable. Of course newspapers have been challenged by the Internet, but this is not the first competition they've had. TV has been competing with newspapers for decades and they survived just fine. It isn't that newspapers have lost a competitive edge; they've lost a monopoloistic edge. It used to be they were the only game in town. A rare city had two newspapers. If you wanted to sell your car or post a job, the Classifieds was your only choice. Ever tried to sell a car through the Classifieds lately? Yowzaa! $100 easy just for an ad too tiny to read! But put it on cars.com for $24.95 with a bunch of pictures, and whaddya know, it sells. Happened to me anyway two years ago.
The second issue is that newspapers once stood for something. They were either avowedly and unabashedly partisan in their outlook, or they proclaimed journalistic objectivity. I think that no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, the Internet has allowed you to broaden your horizons, and THAT has lead to a realization that 'journalistic objectivity' is an oxymoron. It's not so much that newspapers lean one direction or another--though my local one never seems to like a Republican candidate, even for innocuous posts, but that you can see "sins of ommission." The real power of a newspaper is in what they choose to publish. They get a tremendous amount of information 'over the wire' and then they choose which stories to print, ignoring the stories they don't wish to print.
When you suddenly have the Net and a tremendous number of news sources to choose from, you can see this. You can see what the newspapers have been leaving out, so the newspaper becomes less relevant to your 'news needs' and you drop it. I dropped my paper because they couldn't seem to get it in the box. After continual complaints of poor service I finally decided I really didn't need it. I don't miss it.
Re:Evolve or die..... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is, newspapers isn't being replaced by anything superior. I really don't see blogs and sites like digg and slashdot taking over journalism. They are great for commentary but don't produce original news, unless if there is an agenda.
I look forward to the edifying spectacle... (Score:5, Interesting)
...of hordes of ./ readers taking time out from flaming one another and bitching about the poor quality of editor control on the site and the dubious submissions which make it through to the front page to sanctimoniously celebrate the death of "old" media.
Question: would Wired and the Huffington Post have broken the Watergate scandal? Do they even have the resources? Would they have survived the commercial and political pressure resulting from pursuing the story (the Post nearly didn't)?
Newspapers have failed to adapt, but they do have a number of useful features which IMHO the web has so far failed to replicate, such as strong editorial structures, proper investigative journalism (not just "in today's blog blog, we blog about a blog about something which someone wrong somewhere else"), accountability (once it's printed, it's printed), a selection of content which does not automatically conform to every pre-defined interest and prejudice of the reader, and a delivery method which involves passivity from the recipient rather than requiring the recipient to go out and proactively seek the information they want.
Does all of this mean they deserve to prosper in their current form? No. But I am scared if the Drudge Report is what is going to replace the Washington Post. On one level the issues facing newspapers seem to me to be facing society more generally: how do we manage our apparent addiction to short, semi-meaningless factoids now that we have a series of electronic systems for delivering them faster and more meaninglessly than ever before?
Re:Why are ads so much cheaper online though? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Any alternatives? (Score:4, Interesting)
Moreover, the internet has the Tron Guy [tronguy.net]...the newspapers/journalists don't stand much of a chance.
Re:Possible causes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Any alternatives? (Score:3, Interesting)
At least we'll still have BBC news.
Re:Evolve or die..... (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is, newspapers isn't being replaced by anything superior.
In six months you will.
Apple is set to release their new iTablet (or Slate, depending on what leaked name you want to believe).
They have been in negotiations with newspapers all over, and will be doing for the news print business what iTunes did for the music distribution business.
Your newspaper will await you when you pick up the device, silently downloaded and updated in the background over 3G/wifi without the need for a carrier contract.
Apple is building a huge data center on the east coast to handle the load, the subscription services, and the actual distribution.
Expect others to jump into this market, maybe even Google, but Apple will be the firstest withe the mostest.
If successful, this model will be the first remake of print news media since it first appeared and may arrive just in time.
Re:Bay area (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in the bay area and the only big newspaper around here is the Mercury News.
Which is funny, because growing up in the Bay Area I never even considered San Jose to be part of it! (It's the South Bay, which we always saw as synonymous with Silicon Valley, while the Bay proper stopped at around Palo Alto.)
No joke about the Mercury News, though. Believe it or not, I once interviewed for a gig writing about technology for the business desk of the San Francisco Chronicle. I was expecting somebody to ask me something along the lines of, "What do you consider to be the most important local companies if you're covering technology?" Nobody did. So I brought it up myself: "How do you guys focus on companies like Oracle, Google, and Sun? I assume you talk about new developments mostly in terms of market opportunities, rather than technology?" I was told that they don't bother, because the Mercury mostly handles that stuff. "Business technology news" at the Chronicle was going to be stuff like reviews of the latest iPod accessories, phone tips, and gaming consoles.
These days, the Chronicle's business coverage can be found on the back pages of the sports section.
Re:It's their own fault (Score:2, Interesting)
Now thats funny, I use the internet because it is possible to find dissenting opinions which isn't possible in a newspaper. I dont really understand why people think newspapers are biased--they seem rather bland to me, maybe I am just blind. But I understand that a newspaper only gives you one side of a story and the internet gives you two. It has almost got to the point where an article without comments is by its very nature under suspicion of being propaganda.
Re:Evolve or die..... (Score:2, Interesting)
"Effective 2006-01-27, Western Union will discontinue all Telegram and Commercial Messaging services. We regret any inconvenience this may cause you, and we thank you for your loyal patronage. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact a customer service representative."
I think the telex system is still running though, so it sorta still exists...
But since the late 60's, i think they just use normal phone lines & bell-103 modems, so i guess that's evolving.
There are working alternatives already (Score:5, Interesting)
Question: would Wired and the Huffington Post have broken the Watergate scandal?
Big Government [biggovernment.com] broke the ACORN scandal, and the stuff around the NEA pushing a government message through art funding. That's at roughly the same level in that it's national news that had an impact on congress (they voted to shut of funding for ACORN).
Newspapers have failed to adapt, but they do have a number of useful features which IMHO the web has so far failed to replicate, such as strong editorial structures, proper investigative journalism (not just "in today's blog blog, we blog about a blog about something which someone wrong somewhere else"), accountability
Newspapers are an absolute joke for accountability. At best you may get a retraction so small and buried no-one will ever see it. At worst they simply ignore the fact they incorrectly reported on something and carry on as if what they said was the truth.
The blog standard is far superior, where usually the incorrect section is stricken through (but left readable) with a statement right below saying what they got wrong. The key is that the correction is attached to the original media, far stronger a correction.
And there are real investigative journalists today. Look at people like Micheal Totten and Micheal Yon [michaelyon-online.com] for excellent independent and pragmatic war coverage of all the major theaters. We'll see more of that as newspapers continue to falter, and more people look for oversight of the government.
Re:Where are the ads? (Score:5, Interesting)
That may be a goal... but I suspect it more effective (and definitely more polite) to display a "please don't block my ads, bro" message.
I run ad-block and have seen such messages from time to time. Basically, above the news or whatever it'll say "Hey, we noticed you're running ad-block. We can't stop you, but would you consider turning it off to support our sponsors or signing up for a subscription to our site, where you'll see no such adds displayed?"
Based on the tone, I've certainly paused block on certain sites I frequent every day, such as Slashdot. I trust them not to run shitty ads that will annoy me, and I help throw a few pennies their way. Granted, Slashdot doesn't nag you to turn ad-block off, but I do it anyways.
Re:Where are the ads? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm surprised that web developers haven't copped on to the fact that ads hosted on their own server don't get blocked.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Evolve or die..... (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt I will buy one either, at least not from Apple. They can be way too controlling.
Wait till competition drives the price down is my take. In a year there will be 5 or 6 and the price of the device will fall under $200, and subscription prices will fall as well.
You can get the entire paper for a buck, so I can't see paying much more for the digital version.
Re:Dereliction Of Journalistic Duty, Reap what u s (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's their own fault (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, maybe both.
Yes I probably wouldn't enjoy being on a site that went on and on about "Windows Rocks/Linux Sucks" (as much as this site does the reverse, anyway).
But that kind of rhetoric is not really why I read this site. As an example, I found the (apparently) 1st-person accounts about air traffic and ATC procedures yesterday to be one of the most informative and entertaining bits I've read in awhile.
Slashdot has (more than?) its fair share of trolls, and troll articles, but there is (sometimes) a depth here that I haven't really found anywhere else yet; and that includes your local newspaper.
Re:I look forward to the edifying spectacle... (Score:3, Interesting)
"So your argument is what? Better never than late? Was anyone else even close to revealing it?"
In the case of warrantless wire tapping all indications are the NY Times had the story in 2004 prior to the election and Bill Keller sat on it until December 2005. Would it have made a differences in the 2004 election, probably not, but you never know. I sure wish it had because it would have saved us another four years of abuse, Constitution shredding and incompetence. It was certainly something the American people had a right to know before they reelected the Bush administration and for whatever reason the Times sat on it until a time when revealing it had little effect. I wager they were afraid of and intimated by the Bush administration in 2004 when Bush was riding high in power and popularity, so they waited until after Katrina and Bush popularity had already started to plummet. If so it was pretty spineless.
It also wasn't really NY Times reporting that uncovered it. It was apparently due to whistleblower at the Justice Department, Thomas Tamm. It took some serious guts on his part to risk his career and prison to expose it to the Times and they did nothing with the information for nearly two years.
This is simply not a case for why newspaper journalism shined. It makes a case for why we need whistleblower protection and a reliable avenue for whistleblowers to expose illegal activity in the halls of power. It tends to suggest the NY Times wasn't a very reliable avenue for this.
I'd have to research the other stories to comment, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were also exposed by whistleblowers in the Bush administration fed up with their law breaking more than New York Times reporting. The one really good thing about big newspapers like the Times is they do have lawyers and the ability to fight the government in court to protect whistleblower's identities.
Re:I look forward to the edifying spectacle... (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought that people at the Times have outright stated that was the case.
I certainly wish they had run with the story before the election, though I'm not sure it would have made any difference. IIRC the news about the "torture memos" surfaced in about August of 2004 (the story was broken by either the Washington Post for the NYT, I'm fairly certain) and people barely seemed to notice. As far as the reasons, they claim it was due to grave warnings by the administration about damage to national security. This seems quite plausible to me. They had to accept the fact that people in the administration knew many things they did not, and there could be some very real danger. I'm not sure they made the right decision, but it does seem like it would have been an extraordinarily hard one. Also, by the end of the summer of '04 Bush's approval ratings were down around 50%, so they weren't especially high.
It suggests that the NYT was a much less than ideal avenue, but again I'm not sure what is the reasonable alternative. While better whistleblower protection is certainly a desirable thing, the idea of relying on a government structure to protect whistleblowers exposing government malfeasance seems fundamentally flawed. One needs some other large, public organization with the legal resources and self-interested motive to bring these things to light. Newspapers serve this purpose, and I don't see a viable replacement at this juncture.
It also does not follow that just because a whistleblower came to them that no investigation was involved. I thought there was quite a lot of investigation to corroborate the claims, which would require a significant network of trusted sources within the government.