By Robyn Blumner
Tribune Media
Last week, I wrote about Are Men Necessary?; this week my topic is: Are Newspapers Necessary?
This might sound odd to those of you who are reading this while drinking your morning coffee, the same way you have consumed the news for years, if not decades. But the question is being asked inside the industry. No, not asked - studied, analyzed, crunched and turned upside down and shaken.
That's because the road ahead does not look rosy. Without a new economic model or a change of reading habits by thirtysomethings, local daily newspapers may soon become a relic of another era - a time when Americans had an inclination to understand the complexities of the world around them, as opposed to what Britney named her kid.
Flagging circulation is the biggest fret, because advertising rates are pegged to readership. There has been a 30-year decline in newspaper circulation that has sped up in recent years, and the readers that remain are decidedly older. Only 23 percent of people age 18 to 29 say they read a newspaper "yesterday," while 60 percent of people 65 and older say they had, according to the Annual Report on American Journalism. The only salvation is that the type of reader whom advertisers find attractive is still subscribing. Seventy-two percent of college graduates and 74 percent of families making more than $75,000 are regular readers.
Meanwhile, People magazine is thriving, ranking first in 2004 in advertising revenue among domestic magazines. That's 14 years straight.
Younger people are not abandoning newspapers entirely. They are turning to online sources. But unless those measly ad rates for online advertisers take a spike upward, there soon won't be any paid staff reporting the news to fill those online versions.
The squeeze is coming from all quarters. Google, the Internet search giant, has just announced that it's launching Google Base, a database for its users who are invited to submit anything they want, including classified ads. These ads are a newspaper's bread and butter, representing about 35 percent of annual revenue. Which 35 percent of the paper would you want to do without?
Wall Street has also taken a whack at the industry. Not satisfied with a 19 percent profit last year, the stockholders of the newspaper chain Knight Ridder want it sold. How are profits increased when ad revenues and circulation are lagging? By slicing a paper's news-gathering to the bone. The Miami Herald, one of Knight Ridder's flagships, is now a thin gruel compared to the hearty stew it was in the 1980s, before budget cuts to satisfy investors gutted its news staff. Corporate ownership doesn't direct the editorial content of newspapers as much as eviscerate it.
So newspapers are in trouble. I realize that other old-guard businesses are foundering as well. General Motors is teetering, as are a number of major airlines, but newspapers are distinct from other commodities. Newspapers have a vital role to play in informing citizens about what their government is up to and readying them for democratic responsibilities.
Of the importance of the Fourth Estate, Thomas Jefferson said: "The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and 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."
A recent study found that newspaper readers are less politically polarized than consumers of other media, because they receive more comprehensive and balanced coverage of issues.
Could broadcast and cable news offer the same breadth and depth? They could, but don't and won't. As Ted Koppel ended his run on "Nightline" last week, he bemoaned the way advertising was driving the content of news. "More emphasis is placed now on trying to tailor the news and tailor the stories we cover to the perceived interests of our favorite commercial customers," Koppel told NPR.
Why were stories on Laci Peterson and Natalee Holloway served up endlessly, when major issues such as our crushing deficit and private-sector pension defaults received little notice? Blame producers in search of female viewers age 18 to 39, the premier demographic for advertisers.
Fox News gives its audience what it wants, too. That's why, in 2003, a survey from the Program on International Policy Attitudes found that 67 percent of its loyal viewers believed the fallacy that Saddam Hussein was connected to al-Qaida, whereas only 40 percent of those who relied on print media were confused on that point.
Welcome to the "informed" electorate of a newspaper-free world. It's already starting to give us the government we deserve.
---------------------
Comments, gentle readers?
Does the slavish Godfreyite Standard-Examiner suck so hopelessly bad that we'd be better off without it entirely? Do thirty-somethings read only online pro-gondola articles? Will future generations read anything intelligent at all? Will manufacturers of stone-age implements be the successful entrepreneurs in a Brave New Neocon World?
So many questions -- so few answers.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
11 comments:
I grew up reading the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
Vermont Royster wrote the editorials for years and years.
His editorials enlightened and informed.
The highlight of my life was in 1976 when I climbed into the back seat of a cab in Kansas City and sat down by a funny little man with a name tag on that spelled Vermont Royster.
The Wall Street Journal has also changed over the years or maybe I have. I can no longer agree with their political views.
There is absolutely no reason to keep taking the Standard Examiner because the Salt Lake Tribune does a much better job of Ogden news coverage.
The Standard's editorials aren't in the running. Grohndal's cartoons are the only enticement to even open up that section of the paper.
And USA's crossword puzzles offer the most challenge of any daily newspaper.
I have observed that the average young family has no time to read a morning paper - nor an evening one.
So when those of us who grew up reading a newspaper have passed on my bet is that newspapers will pass on as well.
That is a very sad thought.
The paper formerly known as the Ogden Standard Examiner - now commonly called the SubStandard - is a perfect example of a once good newspaper going down the toilet.
It has been doing so every since the Suits of Sandusky bought it from the Hatch family. the Hatch's, as you may recall, inherited it from Abe Glasmann. Abe was one of the last great newspaper men in the country. Abe's daughter, Wilda Jean Hatch and her husband, did a pretty good job of maintaining the paper in good standing during their watch. But alas, it is now so thin and worthless that it isn't even good for the bottom of the bird cage.
Instead of transitioning into the cyber world successfully like some other papers, it continues to tweak the online version so stupidly that it too has become a joke and not worth tuning into.
And you're right Dorothy, the Tribune does a much better job of reporting the important stuff in Ogden, thanks to that intrepid reporter Kristen (Nelly Bly) Moulton.
Another round of more or less silly "scorched earth" advice about the SE. No, I'm not wild about the turn it has taken. Yes, its editorial independence has been compromised, perhaps beyond saving, by either the new owners or [more likely] the paper's business office. No, it has not been of late much of an investigative news journal.
But with all that said, it is still absolutely worth reading. In fact, for Ogden affairs, it is required reading. The idea that the SL Trib gives better coverage to things Ogden is nonsense. Perhaps on one or two high-profile stories that are of particular interest to regular posters here, but not beyond that. The SE is still a necessary read, yes, every day, for what is happening in Ogden across a wide range of topics. It seems to me pretty arrogant to assume that all Ogdenites should be interested only in the few high-profile stories the SL Trib covers and nothing else. Not everyone is a policy wonk, boys and girls.
The claim that the cartoons are the only reason to keep reading it is, forgive me, plain nonsense. Trentelman's column comes to mind as worth the price of admission as a rule, just for openers. And "Top of Utah Voices" occasionally prints interesting pieces.
With all its faults, which I agree are accellerating alarmingly in number and degree of late, it is still a necessary source for local Ogden news, day in and day out. Anyone interersted in civic affairs in this town who doesn't read it is making a serious mistake.
For people who claim the SE is a joke and not to be taken seriously in either its editorial or news columns, the posters on this site seem to refer to the paper an awful lot.
And as for young families not having the time to read a paper: that too is mostly nonsense, unless you can tell me those families have sold their TVs because they do not have time to watch "Survivor," "Fear Factor" and "American Idol" at night. We can, and probably should, discuss why they think it unimportant to read a newspaper regularly. But I suspect lack of time is not, in most cases, the reason.
Newspaper readers are declining nationwide, Ms. Littrell. Kind of hard to pin what is a long term national trend on what are [I hope] momentary failings of the Standard Examiner.
You mean people are choosing to not read the liberal, political correct B.S. propaganda spewed out by the likes of NY Times, USA Today, and even the Standard anymore?. Too bad so sad.
Yo Curmudgeon -
Trendelman, Grondahl and the new Wright kid.
Other than that the Standard aint worth a bucket of warm spit! (thanks to John Nance Garner)
God knows I agree with those who complain about the puerility and blandness of the 21st-century Standard-Examiner. When you stop to think that the first editor of the Ogden Standard was the amazing Frank Cannon, hailed by historian E. Tullidge as Utah's greatest journalist, to contemplate the paper's decline is all the more sickening.
If it's any consolation, lamentations over the death of the American newspaper have been erupting for over a century. And the same phenomenon is occurring in most U.S. cities. Major dailies are now handing out dumbed-down versions of themselves, gratis, at bus and subway stops as a means of survival and to fend off perceived competitive threats.
And even the N.Y. Times and New Yorker now believe it's OK to regularly split infinitives.
Trentelman is a gem; he makes the Mormons mad because in the hollow of their hearts they know he's right. The Standard only has Grondahl because of dumb luck, but long may he wave. Meanwhile, Rudi's blog here is picking up the slack. Uh-oh, when is the man going to start collecting his fee?
I always read the Standard online, but I have noticed lately that people will make references to articles they have read there that I have not seen, and when I go back to look for them, I still cannot find them. I am wondering if there is a difference between the hard copy and online edition.
The new digital edition needs tweaking, to say the least. At least the way to access it does. It tells me my browser is not supported, tells me it cannot find things and then does, tells me my regular log in won't work, and then tells me that after a free thirty day trial period, I must pay to use it. The fee is very low; however I am thinking that these things may be a ploy to get me to subscribe to the hard copy edition, which I am probably going to do, since I seem to be missing a lot, and as it says my browser is currently "unsupported," I may have problems with the new edition anyway.
A world without newspapers would not be good. Bloggers lately are becoming highly professional and oftentimes get news before the papers, but there are two reasons against relying solely on bloggers. The first is that there is no professional code of ethics, and the second is contacts. I have not seen bloggers able to interview public figures, for instance, and then quote directly from those interviews and mention the source. And we need to know what people themselves are saying.
Has anyone noticed, by the way, that John Wright is not listed on the Standard's online contacts page? Seems that all other reporters, etc., are there with telephone and e-mail. Am wondering if this is an oversight or intentional.
Dian:
"Has anyone noticed, by the way, that John Wright is not listed on the Standard's online contacts page? Seems that all other reporters, etc., are there with telephone and e-mail. Am wondering if this is an oversight or intentional."
It could be either. When the SubStandard is not being incompetent they are being insidious.
They have tweaked the online edition several times in the last year. Each time it makes the site more difficult to access and navigate. It is obvious that they couldn't give a damn less about their online readers.
Maybe they know that John Wright, being a competent reporter, will not stay long with a second rate organization like them? Maybe their incompetent IT staff can't figure out how to add his information? Maybe they don't want this subversive crowd on the net to be feeding Wright any ideas? Maybe they don't even know he is not listed?
They don't call it the SubStandard for nothing!
I confess to having a certain sympathy for the plight of our local newspaper, the Standard-Examiner.
They produce an analogue product in a digital world. Every hard-copy edition they put on the street is made of ink and paper, which costs serious money. Their "retro" printing/distribution network has significant costs attached. Vehicles, gas, and their physical plant cost them a bundle -- not to mention a great staff of reporters (yes they are many), who generally dig in and report "what's up."
To top it off, we're living in a "dumbed down world," where our youngest citizens simply don't read. Many of the "younger generation" would prefer to be "told what they think" from cable TeeVee, or internet rant sites, rather forcing themselves to digest raw facts and form their own opinions. Don't get me wrong. I'm not making a "ageism argument.
To add insult to injury, the Std-Ex "Suits in Sandusky insist on a clean "bottom line." I'll comment more about that later.
Subscribers who've formed the habit of reading newspapers have their obituaries published in the Std-Ex daily. The subscriber list dwindles daily; and the young'uns aint picking up the slack.
Dian hits the nail on the head when she notes that "traditional" print publishers conform to professional "ethical standards."
This is a tradition thayt needs to be preserved.
Indeed, that's the big difference between bloggers and "real newspapermen," at least in theory. Newspapermen operate under a code of ethics. We bloggers often don't.
I make no secret of the fact that I rely on the diligent, professional and competent reporting of people like Kathy McKittrick, Cheryl Buchta... and of course John Wright, to "springboard 90% of my articles.
I think the Std-Ex is at a crossroads. They can continue to reduce the size and quality of their newspaper, and as they've done so far.
On the other hand, I think they'e missing the boat by slavishly supporting the tin-pot psuedo emperor who lives up on the Muni-building ninth floor.
Methinks they'd sell a lot more newspapres by EXPOSING him.
A word about the Std-Ex "digital edition." I encourage you to subcribe to it. it's a friggin bargain.
Besides... I'd like to se the Std-Ex survive.
Ethics, huh? We could start with censorship.
It is absolutely vital for the print media to survive. Televised news is a watered down, capsulated version of the whole story with more emphasis put on the anchor than on the story.
I doubt ANY blogger would stand up to the pump and do time for not revealing his or her source. I also agree that there's a big difference bewteen bloggers and traditional newspapermen. Not many remain from that golden era.
But now, even Bob Woodward has somewhat compromised himself by sitting on his finding for what, 2 years? Raised a lot of eyebrows with that.
Dan Rather? Figures.
There's some high entertainment factors though....I read today's "lead" on the other blog and you'd think the writer thought he was working at the NY Times, as he was bringing up his "sources close to City Hall" as he spun his version of the greatness of Alan Hall and his new MarketStar venture. Cool, innovative to be sure, but Gee-zust, man, "sources close to City Hall?" Gimme a break.
Ogden has been fortunate to have had a well run newspaper for the many years that the Glasmann's owned and operated it. Joe Breeze was unparalleled as a General Manager; William Glasmann was one of the nation's finest Production Managers during his 50 year involvement and had the nation's lowest page cost; Grider, Ogan, Moler, Monson, all were real newspaper people. The "Suits," as they're called, they're from the Mid-west with bottom line the motivator.
Hopefully newspapers will be like mother earth: any time there's a real crisis, she takes care of herself, living on while the crisis disappears under her own action. As long as there are cigar smoking, ink on the hnads kind of guys running the show, we'll be delivered a good product. When they die out, cyberspace is ready to fill the void.
"Good night, and good luck!"
Have subscribed to the hard copy edition of the Standard Examiner. Sort of a good experience so far, really. I've been reading papers on the net for years, and had forgotten the nice experience of reading the paper in the morning. Also, believe it or not, you can go faster, not having to constantly click on this or that.
Plus, there is the LA Times crossword on Sundays. I do not think they give the answers, though. Am stuck in a few places.
Do not like the editorial slant all that much, I think because controversial things happen here and the paper seems to wish to avoid controversy. It is a good thing, therefore, that we have WCF, upon which we can attack these issues head on.
New comments are not allowed.