Joseph Epstein in Commentary:
“To begin with familiar facts, statistics on readership have been pointing downward, significantly downward, for some time now. Four-fifths of Americans once read newspapers; today, apparently fewer than half do. Among adults, in the decade 1990-2000, daily readership fell from 52.6 percent to 37.5 percent. Among the young, things are much worse: in one study, only 19 percent of those between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four reported consulting a daily paper, and only 9 percent trusted the information purveyed there; a mere 8 percent found newspapers helpful, while 4 percent thought them entertaining.
“From 1999 to 2004, according to the Newspaper Association of America, general circulation dropped by another 1.3 million. Reflecting both that fact and the ferocious competition for classified ads from free online bulletin boards like craigslist.org, advertising revenue has been stagnant at best, while printing and productions costs have gone remorselessly upward. As a result, the New York Times Company has cut some 700 jobs from its various papers. The Baltimore Sun, owned by the Chicago Tribune, is closing down its five international bureaus. Second papers in many cities have locked their doors.
“This bleeding phenomenon is not restricted to the United States, and no bets should be placed on the likely success of steps taken by papers to stanch the flow. The Wall Street Journal, in an effort to save money on production costs, is trimming the width of its pages, from 15 to 12 inches. In England, the once venerable Guardian, in a mad scramble to retain its older readers and find younger ones, has radically redesigned itself by becoming smaller. London’s Independent has gone tabloid, and so has the once revered Times, its publisher preferring the euphemism “compact.”
I agree, in principle, with Epstein’s solution:
“My own preference would be for a few serious newspapers to take the high road: to smarten up instead of dumbing down, to honor the principles of integrity and impartiality in their coverage, and to become institutions that even those who disagreed with them would have to respect for the reasoned cogency of their editorial positions. I imagine such papers directed by editors who could choose for me—as neither the Internet nor I on my own can do—the serious issues, questions, and problems of the day and, with the aid of intelligence born of concern, give each the emphasis it deserves.
“In all likelihood a newspaper taking this route would go under; but at least it would do so in a cloud of glory, guns blazing. And at least its loss would be a genuine subtraction. About our newspapers as they now stand, little more can be said in their favor than that they do not require batteries to operate, you can swat flies with them, and they can still be used to wrap fish.”
Read the entire article here >>
I’d like to see somebody drill down deeper and really explore the cause of this effect.
Let’s ask and answer “why” five times.
1) Why is circulation down? (He offers a good thought, “cost cutting due to stagnant advertising and competition from online want ads”).
But then he goes off on a tangent suggesting ways to create a quality paper in spite of cost cuts. Why doesn’t he ask and asnwer…
2) Why is advertising spending stagnant?
No one (that I can find) is looking deeply into the business part of the “journalism business.”
And considering that most of those addressing the issue are journalists (or professors) you have to wonder if they are capable at all of looking below the surface and jumping to conclusions. (In other words “being crummy journalists.”)
I’d like to see that thread of 4 more whys asked and answered. How about you?
Sorry that should have read: you have to wonder if they are capable at all of looking below the surface and “not” jumping to conclusions.