What are your main sources for news and information?
I can tell you now that you and I are not typical in our preferences. The fact that you are reading this means you are one of about 13 million Americans who read blogs. And I’ll wager that you also get a lot of your straight news from sources on the internet as well.
But what of the rest of America? The most recent Pew survey finds that fully one third of us get most of our news online. This is actually a decline from their last survey done in 2004. The rest of America gets some of their news online but still rely on newspapers (40%) and broadcast TV to become informed with the old “Big Three” nets of ABC, CBS, and NBC still able to gather 28% of us in front of the tube on any given night.
The Pew Survey linked above gives a graphic and shocking picture of the changing information gathering habits of Americans over the last decade and a half. Perhaps most troubling is that nearly 20% of us apparently don’t bother to inform ourselves at all. Broken down by age group, it boggles the mind to think that 27% of 18-29 year olds don’t find it important enough – despite the dizzying number of news sources available – to watch or read hardly any news at all.
Should we worry about this? Every generation I’m aware of has looked at the generation coming behind it and wailed about how the republic will go to hell and a handbasket when the goofballs are old enough to run things. In the end, the goofballs grow up and things continue as they always have – somewhere between crisis and disaster. The world ain’t peaches and cream now and to posit the notion that it will get much better or much worse based on what somebody is like in their late teens or early 20’s usually comes a cropper of reality. The kids fall in love, marry, have kids of their own, and by sheer force of necessity, become responsible (or nearly so) citizens of the American republic. Some of them even remain liberal Democrats and the country survives although most become rabid Republicans after receiving their first paycheck and seeing how much the government takes out in taxes.
So the lack of interest by the current generation in the world around them should not be taken to heart. Times change, no more so than for the media business. After 50 years of concentration, a gigantic revolution is underway that presages a period where massive changes in not only the way we get our news but in the kinds of companies that deliver the news product will alter lifetsyles as well as our lives.
It is newspapers that are suffering the most in this revolutionary period. And, as this piece in the New York Times about the demise of news giant Knight Ridder makes clear, the reason is the same thing that killed the dinosaurs; utter and complete befuddlement as to what is killing them:
Today, many people in the newspaper industry are still scratching their heads over how and why a company with relatively high profit margins and a trophy case of 85 Pulitzer Prizes allowed itself to be wiped off the media landscape.“Could anyone imagine 10 years ago saying that in 10 years, Knight Ridder would not exist?†asked Jay T. Harris, a former publisher for Knight Ridder at The San Jose Mercury News who quit in 2001 rather than make cuts that the company sought. “It was one of the strongest newspaper companies in America. How could you have a hand like that and play it in such a way that you would end up losing everything?â€
The dismantling of Knight Ridder is a study of the hurdles facing publicly traded newspaper companies in a time of seismic change in the industry. The migration of readers and advertisers to the Internet, as well as rising costs and falling revenue, are threatening the financial well-being — even the very existence — of some of the industry’s most storied brand names.
Jeff Jarvis has been singing this song longer than almost anyone. His analysis – so simple yet so devastating – makes one wonder if there is any hope at all for “dead tree” publications who continue to lumber toward their own apocalypse:
1. Value: You have to provide value or, obviously, you’re worthless. And today in news and media, value is redefined. Value no longer includes delivering the commodity news everyone already told me. But value does now include listening to me and helping me create media alongside you. And value always equates to credibility.
2. Customers: In most media, you will still have two customer bases: the people and the advertisers. You have to serve a public large enough to serve to advertisers and you have to give advertisers a competitive return on investment and the means means to measure and prove that you did. Only now, you have more competitors — unless you chose to turn them into partners in a network — and some of those competitors are working for free.
3. Efficiency: There is no rule of journalism that says newsrooms and newspapers should operate as they always have. As I’ve said often, they must shed inefficiencies and resources put to commodities and ego and must find their true value. Return to No. 1.
It’s all about eyeballs. Wherever enough of them gather, the hucksters aren’t far behind. But as Jarvis points out, the eyeballs are not only getting harder to count, they’re also becoming rather demanding and selective in where they wander to. They want more than “news everyone already told me.” The value of the news is now shared between the actual information imparted and the way in which it is delivered. Is it easy to access? Do I have to wait 15 minutes until the network news sees fit to tell me about the Jon Benet story? Or can I just search and click to satisfy my aching eyeballs?
And what of a medium where customers are as important as advertisers? Who woulda thunk it? And just because you have the latest gew gaws and gizmos in the newsroom, does that mean that you’ve “modernized” and made “efficiencies?”
Knight Ridder just didn’t get it. In fact, the very process of their destruction reveals that not only didn’t they get it, it was depressing them that they didn’t even know what questions to ask:
When the sale was announced in March, Mr. Ridder said that Mr. Sherman had backed him into a corner. He said he was “upset†and “depressed,†and when the sale became final in June, he pronounced the day a sad one.Nearly three dozen potential buyers were contacted when Knight Ridder went on the block, and 21 responded. All but two took a pass. (In addition to McClatchy, a consortium of private-equity firms stepped forward but never made a final offer.)
Analysts concluded that the paucity of bidders suggested there was no longer a market for big newspaper groups as a whole. But McClatchy’s ability to sell a dozen of the Knight Ridder papers after the sale indicated that individual newspapers had value. “No one would have anticipated that a year ago,†said Lauren Rich Fine, an analyst at Merrill Lynch. “A year ago there was a presumption that Gannett and Tribune were still buyers of groups of newspapers and that private equity would be very interested, too.â€
I personally haven’t read a Chicago Tribune or Sun Times since last October when I bought a copy of both papers the day after the Sox won the World Series. I didn’t buy them to read but to save as historical curiosities. I had long since gotten most of the information on the game that I wanted to from on line sources. I had long since digested the replays over and over again on Sportscenter. I had already read the celebratory columns appearing in the newspapers in their on line editions.
Is this the future of newspapers? I certainly hope not. I know I am missing a lot by not buying the dead tree editions of both of those estimable news sources. And I hope that after this current shakedown in the business is done, what emerges will be a more consumer oriented, reliable, and yes less biased source for information.
The nation needs newspapers – in whatever form they take. Let’s hope that we can save something of this tradition so that the kind of in-depth look at issues and people we have come to expect on a daily basis from journalists will have an outlet that is as widely available as it is today.
10:39 am
We subscribe to the Houston Chronicle as we have no choice in the nation’s 4th largest city. One newspaper. It’s crap but all we have. The liberal bias is breathtaking on a regular basis, to the point that if both sides of a story are presented then I am pleasantly surprised. I find myself mostly skimming it for local interests. As a conservative I sure don’t feel very welcome in Chronicle land. I’m a news junkie so I have on the cable news shows to keep up with what’s going on during the day. Subscriptions are down at the Chronicle but the message is not being received.
12:12 pm
Karen,
We are fortunate to live just outside of Pittsburgh and subscribe to the daily Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (pghtrib.com). This is a Libertarian newspaper, however, the stupid Liberals can’t tell the difference between a Libertarian and a Conservative so they repeatedly slam the Trib.
Unfortunately, we are surrounded by Democrats as they are the majority party here in Western Pennsylvania. These Dems are unique, however, and will vote Republican when the issue is lowering taxes and national security. We all know that most Dems LOVE more taxes and are WEAK on national security and crime.
The other daily newspaper here in Pittsburgh makes the N. Y. Times look like the National Review. The Post-Gazette manipulates and slants the news using lessons learned from Pravda. It is just a den of slimy, Liberals, Socialists, Bolsheviks and fellow travelers.
The Trib website is above and I recommend the editorial and opinion page. After all, if so many Dems and scummy Liberals hate it you know it can’t be all bad.
2:51 pm
My only source of news is the RightWingNuthouse. If it’s not here, it doesn’t exist.
4:38 pm
Local newspapers can only offer one thing that is relatively unique: in-depth coverage of local events and using resources to do in-depth investigative stories. My local left leaning rag, the Kansas City Star, recently had a multi-part investigative series on, of all things, the temperature of fuel at the gas pumps. Fuel is supposed to be metered out at 60 degrees F to meet standards of volume purchased. Most fuel is a lot hotter, leading to not getting the amount paid for. Some states are looking into how to deal with the issue because of the story. Local television cannot invest the time needed to present such stories. It is something almost unique to papers that gives them meaning in today’s world.
4:41 pm
The problem with current news reporting, in whatever medium, is that it needs to appeal to a population with the attention span of my pug (whose attention span, while long for a pug, is short for a sentient being). Look at the newspapers in the 5 largest metropolitan markets and there may be one or two I will sit and read regardless of editorial content. USA Today? TIME? SI? All have the same problem. Most choose not to challenge readers by trying to explain issues in detail. The result is that people that run newspapers try to find more and more ways to make the publication appealing to the eye. Usually, that means catchy headlines, stupid pictures, silly and short stories, and color. I have taken the Mpls paper for the better part of 33 years, and we are pretty sure we will cancel our subscription after the elections in November. I am tired of hunting for the news.
But the timing of our decision illustrates the problem: for most people, news is LOCAL. Yes, I can go to the online edition, but annoying ads and reading the newspaper on a screen is irritating and not comfortable—I can’t put my feet up, have the baseball game on, and have a drink.
Blogs aren’t the answer. I prefer my news less varnished and more than half baked. While I find blogs interesting, I don’f find them informative.
The real answer, as it has always been, is to go to many sources and try to distill the “truth” from various voices. That’s why major cities always had two papers (The Chicago Tribune and The Chicago Daily News, when we were growing up) with different editorial views. So what happens now? Those various voices scream so loud at each other that I can’t stand listening.
I fear for the future of the Republic.
6:02 pm
I’ll trade you the Houston Chronicle for my hometown paper, the Richmond-Times Disgrace, a right-wing rag whose editorial page should be printed on a roll. It makes RWNH here look absolutely liberal as Hades by comparison.
But ain’t that the problem? We’re always looking for sources to tell us what we want to hear?
What I find dangerous isn’t the much whined about msm. NewsBusters’ site whines they’re liberal and data mines some examples. MediaMatter’s site whines they’re conservative and data mines some examples. Both only pick on a small fraction of the news released on a daily basis.
What really bothers me is the growing trend of people seeking out biased sources. Political/news blogs are an outlet for personal outrage and opinion. It’s people imitating the talk radio phenomena which is pure spin.
I believe in freedom speech. I hail blogs. I run one with a buddy. But anyone who looks to them as a key source of information needs a brain scan.
6:13 pm
That’s some pug you got there – a lovely pup I’m sure. But it isn’t just attention span. It is the complexity of the modern world that has people throwing up their hands and giving up trying to understand.
That and a cynicism about the point of view of the information overlords who are now being challenged. Not necessarily by blogs (and I agree. If anyone dared call me a journalist I’d whop ‘em upside the head). But the information is out there if you are willing to spend a little time looking for it. This is where the net is changing all media – and it’s only going to get easier to find things of interest as the technology explodes in the coming years.
Dead tree publications will have to adapt. How, no one knows. But as long as there is money to be made with straight news, I suspect someone will try.
6:25 pm
I think your point is a good one…many people today don’t read or find out the facts about what they think they believe…because in many cases the facts do not verefy what they think may be true, be they conservative or stupid liberials. Thus, they don’t want to hear the facts. So how do opposite opinions reconcile what is fact or incorrect when both sides think the other is stupid? I would think a common ground based on definitions of “words”, both sides can not manipulate, would be a start.
As an example…one might say their advocation is a “Libertine” blogger when ,perhaps, they really mean “Libertarian”. So…whats the difference? Well…alot. A “Libertine” (accourding to Webster) is “a dissolute or licentious person” in other words a “pervert”...whereas a “Libertarian” is one who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state”. Stuff
happens…but, if one sets themself up to be an expert at certain matters, they really ought to know the definition of what they claim to be…or what it is. Perhaps if thinking people, conservative and liberal alike (contrary to popular belief…both do exist) paid more attention to the above , there would be less invective and
more solutions to those problems that vex us all today.
today.