I frequently find myself in discussions about the death of newspapers. And I always offer the same response: Newspapers won’t disappear. The national dailies and large metros will suffer but most will survive. The small dailies and weeklies will do fine. The days of 40-percent profit margins have yielded to a 10-percent return for a good year. The content will change — breaking news and aggressive depth coverage will move to the Web. Page counts will drop and delivery days will lessen. I expect some “pay” papers to move to “free” distribution.
The tarnish on the “Golden Age of Newspapers” just gets thicker. But for America and its way of life and government, what does all this really mean?
Paul Starr offered his view in The New Republic back in March when he wrote “Goodbye to the Age of Newspapers (Hello to a New Era of Corruption): Why American politics and society are about to be changed for the worse.” He said: “We take newspapers for granted. They have been so integral a part of daily life in America, so central to politics and culture and business, and so powerful and profitable in their own right, that it is easy to forget what a remarkable historical invention they are.”
Starr makes these key points about the value newspapers provide:
- The latest data available, 2006, shows that metros run some 70 stories a day in just the national, local, and business sections. A 30-minute TV newscast runs 10-12.
- Local TV focuses on crime, fires and traffic tie-ups; newspapers provide most of the original coverage of public affairs.
- Online media outlets that do not represent traditional media “mirror sites” offer a lot of opinion, but not much reporting. “No online enterprise has yet generated a stream of revenue to support original reporting for the general public comparable to the revenue stream that newspapers have generated in print,” he wrote.
This points to a significant reduction in the watchdog role newspapers play and less chance for the public to use newspapers as a way to become civically active. “Our new technologies do not retire our old responsibilities,” Starr wrote about the news media.
Others say the demise of newspapers portends no change and that the Web, just as newspapers did, can carry the watchdog responsibility papers traditionally bore. Anyone with a camera phone and a computer can become a “citizen journalist,” and contribute to the coverage, they believe.
Meanwhile, Karen Dunlap, at the media think-tank Poynter Institute said during a DePauw University panel on the future of newspapers: “There is a difference between someone taking a picture with a camera phone and a journalist.”
What do you think about the role of newspapers, past, present and future?
Though I personally prefer electronic mass media as the main source of all info I need, I don't think printed media will ever disappear. In different countries people's attitudes to these kinds of media differ, because not everyone is able to use computers and has the Internet. And, of course, for these people it isn't out of question that newspapers stop existing. At the same time young people are too busy to have time for buying newspapers or magazines and then reading them. It's much more convenient to find the news on-line.
Thanks for the post. You make some good observations. Time and convenience have always been the enemy of newspaper circulation and now cost has been added to the pile. So when I talk with folks about "different," I focus on three areas: Content: News with depth and context that folks can read any time and when they have time. Research shows "time," meaning how long someone will read an article online (optimal word count 400-500 max) makes time an enemy for online readers, too. Page count: Put the pages in the paper on the days folks have time to read them. This means reduced distribution (Detroit model), loading pages into weekend editions and keeping the rest of the week thin, and more free distribution. Newspaper "youthful" days are gone. But they can and will age gracefully.
... yes, newspapers aren't dead, but they are sure being marginalized/sidelined by the web's capacity to get to where the 'content consumer' wants to get to ...
I see newspapers becoming the 'back up' to breaking stories.. Ideally they will continue to offer the indepth analysis and REFINE the choice of topic that is RELEVANT and of INTEREST to their readership. The greatest mistake newspapers make today is that they try to be all things to all people - with 'general' 'unbiased' news
It's becoming increasingly clear that ANY news is not 'unbiased', nor is news 'general', stories are very VERY specific, and that's really what Newspapers should continue to do - pursue the specifics/details of timely tales that both reflect and ricochet the emerging 'zeitgeist' (aka 'breaking stories'). They should NOT be revelling in the pools of publicity merchants campaigning out of Hollywood or Washington ... .
One of the best newspapers out there at the moment, in my opinion, is the Globe & Mail, out of Toronto. Their print edition is still better then their web-edition, but they ARE getting the hang of it and are catching up quick ...
Interesting article. Thanks.
I apologize for replying so late to your excellent post. But better late than never. My reply to the most recent post to this thread mirrors the astute observations you made. I too enjoy the Toronto paper when I can get it. And when I read news online, it is usually the International Herald Tribune site. U.S. papers do miserably with foreign coverage and how foreign reporters view U.S. issues helps give the issues a broader context. Thanks!
To hear Boone Pickens or Richard Heinberg or Matthew Simmons speak to Peaking Oil, one comes away convinced we are in the initial stages of epochal change in our way of doing things in the USA. Which US newspaper is following the Peaking Oil story, or brings us the monthly IEA (International Energy Agency) information, or has ever shown readers the “General Depletion Picture”?
The General Depletion Picture is a graphic depiction of world oil discovery & consumption thru the present time, and shows best information illustration of future volumes of production. Future Consumption is not shown, one can deduce consumption shall not exceed production!
Newspapers are seemingly bereft, across the board, of Editorial Boards with the nerve & skill to bring forward as sensitive an issue as Peaking oil, for fear of impacting auto & real estate advertising? This is the educated guess of James Howard Kunstler, author of “The Long Emergency”, a presdient look at energy’s relation to economic policy.
In fact, Kunstler refers to newspapers exhibiting “suicidal irrelevance” exactly because of their reluctance to inform the readers of the Peaking Oil phenomenon and give space to the expert discussion on the subject of oilfield depletion. Another book on the subject of energy policy imperatives is “ELECTRIC WATER”, by Christopher C. Swan (New Society Press, 2007). An important energy website, “theoildrum” is well endowed with running commentary including many graphs and articles by oilfield experts like Colin Campbell & Matthew Simmons.
Beyond ascertaining the gravity of this oil supply problem, the primary attendant issues are conservation & transport policy. If Heinberg & Boone Pickens & Simmons et al are correct, we shall soon need to look at massive expansion of the railway mains, rehab of dormant branchlines, and re-institute local warehousing with rail/trucking interface.
A quick miner’s canary look at oil supply is to search “Canterell”, Mexico’s premier oilfield. This offers significant insight because of the postion of US oil supply coming from Mexico. Which US newspaper is following the Mexican Oil story? The role of newspapers is to not overlook significant stories…
To gain back readership & relevance, newspapers must get hold of the Peaking Oil story, with full exposition of ramifications to transport & agriculture with all due haste..
Post new comment