Using data from 395 daily U.S. newspapers the Audit Bureau of Circulations reported today a declined of 7.1% for October-March in daily newspaper circulation from the same six-month span in 2007-2008. It cited that The New York Times circulation fell 3.6 percent to 1,039,031, while the Los Angeles Times faded 6.6 percent to 723,181. (Read Story)
This decline in circulation has been a consistent theme and as we know the NY Times is on the brink of a financial meltdown. Why is this happening?
I have to admit it has been 8+ years since I was a subscriber to a newspaper. I barely read our local paper. I get all of my news online, on demand. It’s there waiting for me when I want it. I also can select what I wish to read and what not.
But my question is, Are newspaper sales plummeting because of the perception (and reality) that they are biased and do not report “the news”, but their own skewed take on it? Or are newspapers failing simply because of the Internet?
It’s a fair question and it relates to culturally what could be interpreted as a shift in American news consumption. From Cable and Television news stations to Newspapers, we associate them all with being a “liberal” or “conservative” media outlet. This was not always the case! Are Americans tired of media bias and the misrepresentation (from the right and left) in reporting? Are we flocking online because we can seek out news sources that we deem “fair”? Or is it the opposite, we can seek out “like minded” news sources? Is it a convenience issue? Laziness? Are we becoming more environmentally conscious?
I think it is worthy of study.
But that’s just me and sometimes I ain’t there… here I mean.
I worked in the newspaper business, as a reporter and a copy editor, for more than 10 years. There is no simple answer to the question, why are newspapers dying?
Readership has been declining. That’s a factor. Why readership is declining varies from place to place. In some places, the perception is that the writing has become weaker. In other places, there may be a perception of bias, although that generally seems to be applied to broadcast media, not print media. Certainly, there are former subscribers who feel, as you do, that the internet meets their news needs. And, in a bad economy, many subscribers may be deciding to halt their subscriptions as a way to save a little money.
I’ve never really bought the notion of media bias. Most newspapers do have editorial pages, where the writers are expected to express opinions. But, while every newspaper for which I have worked expressed very definite editorial opinions, the coverage of the news was balanced in its language and content. For that reason, I have always felt that too many people confused editorial opinion and news coverage.
There are many reasons why subscriptions are down, but that does not necessarily mean that fewer people are reading the paper — more may be reading someone else’s copy instead of purchasing their own.
But the revenue from issue sales has never been sufficient to pay all the bills and generate a profit for the publisher. The lifeblood of the newspaper business is advertising revenue. Advertisers are affected by the same economic concerns as everyone else, and they particularly want to get more bang for their bucks when the economy is poor. Advertisers don’t tend to make their decisions based on the quality of writing or, usually, editorial leanings. They are driven by the numbers, and falling circulation figures guide their decisions.
So it’s a vicious, downward cycle.
Unfortunately, many people won’t realize what they’ve had until the daily newspaper is mostly eliminated. By then, it will be too late. The online news sources do not appear to have much in the way of editorial handling. When a writer can post his/her thoughts directly online with no one to look it over first, it opens the door for all kinds of errors — of fact as well as spelling, punctuation and grammar — that will lead to all kinds of lawsuits for libel. Communications law will not change simply because the method of delivery does.
And reliable, local news coverage will become a thing of the past for most communities. There will be no one with the resources or a proven business model to fill that gap.
Chris,
Not exactly on point, but this recent Vanity Fair article on Pinch Sulzberger and the NYT suggests it’s more the internet and technology.
The article may underplay the role that the Times’ ideology has played in its march toward extinction. Certainly, the article ignores how repellent the paper has become. Still worth reading though (the article, not the paper).