Newspaper readership has dropped steadily since the early 1990's. To some degree, it's a fiscal matter. With the current economy, the increasing costs of publishing and distribution have certainly hurt the industry. However, newspapers survived (even flourished) through the tough economy of the mid-1970's. Rather than money issues, the death knell for newspapers was the advent of the internet age.
Newspaper circulation has incrementally diminished each year as internet access has increased. The Newspaper Association of America has compiled circulation data dating back to 1940. The data shows that circulation peaked in the early 90s and has dropped each year since 1993. Why? The internet provides information in ways that appeal to the average citizen. With newspapers, readers must choose one source and wait until it lands on their doorsteps to be informed. Whereas the internet offers a variety of sources and news is made available within hours or even as it happens. Easy access to news as it happens surely accounts for the trend. It seems inevitable that the newspaper industry as we know it will cease to exist altogether.
The Washington Post reported last month that it's the nation's largest newspapers that are suffering the most significant losses of readership. The smaller daily publications still control the market for local news and offer the best venue for local advertisers. The sword of Damocles.com is dangling over their heads, too. As hometown businesses begin to realize the benefits of online advertising, local newspapers will become less attractive. In response, newspapers have no choice but to offer their services online.
Most major news outlets, including newspapers, now offer services online. Many include "premium" service for a fee, but the majority provide news for free. They have to rely entirely on advertising instead of subscription dollars. For the consumer, there is a simple question: Why would I pay for a newspaper when it's available online at no cost? Newspapers have yet to answer that question and circulation will only continue to decline until they do. What does it all mean to the American public? Why should we care?
This is an era when people stare into an LED screen to access news. Bookshelves are empty as people load their libraries onto a Kindle. Instead of the hassle of a playground, kids turn to the Wii in the comfort of their family rooms. The clackity impact of the typewriter? Forget about it. We have abandoned the tactile experiences. There is something to be said for ink blackened fingers; for the 6:00 AM thump of the Sunday Times on your porch. Can one really enjoy a cup of coffee in front of a laptop? The imminent death of printed news is not progress. Newspapers, like books and baseball bats, should be held in your hands. It's another symptom of our increasingly numb culture. We don't "feel" anymore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You’re right; we don’t “feel” anymore. We don’t have to get our news by holding a paper in our hands and reading it. We can flip open a laptop, phone, or any number of devices and have the most up to date information in front of us. We can find out sports scores as they are happening, instead of waiting to read about it the next day. Online news readers can get the results of an election immediately with all the details, instead of waiting until 6 a.m. when the newspaper arrives. We can even find a retraction of a news story, or a corrected version, instantly, instead of waiting for the hard copy newspaper.
ReplyDeleteBut my question is, whose fault is it? Is it the readers’ fault for saving money by reading the news online? Or is it the fault of the Internet for making it so readily available? Stovall gives five qualities that make the Web unique: immediacy, flexibility, permanency, capacity and interactivity. The process of printing a newspaper is long and cannot be avoided. “With the Web, once information is available in some form, it can be loaded onto a Web site with a few seconds.” (Stovall 169) Could the cost savings on the staff used to man the printing presses, photocopiers and printers be driving the newspapers themselves to take a shot at news on the Web?
I don’t think readers can be blamed for not wanting to buy something they can get for free, and from many different sources. But if newspapers want to maintain their relevancy, fact is, they will need to change with the times. The problem many newspapers have is the unwillingness to invest in high quality web sites that may draw in more readers and allow them to charge subscription fees. Bill Wyman suggests the reason newspapers are not able to succeed online is “the sites don’t even try to present information to visitors effectively.” (http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/five-key-reasons-why-newspapers-are-failing-pt-2) While this may not help the newspaper companies to gain more subscribers, advertisers will be more likely to pay to be displayed on a high-quality website, which will help the newspaper to live on.
As the times change, companies must follow the trends. While it may be inevitable newspapers will become extinct, one thing is for sure; news will never die. Society will always want to know what is happening and media must seek to reach the members in any way possible.
This is a well-constructed argument, I agree with it in a lot of ways. There is a certain intangible something that is lost with reading the news online instead of from a paper. The numbers would seem to indicate the death of the newspaper, as all the numbers cited by everyone in the class also affirm. The real question of importance here, in this whole series of events, is whether or not the benefits of using the Internet as a source of news outweigh the negatives of it. I don’t see that point addressed directly in your post, but I would understand from the tone of it that you support the continuance of the newspaper form of news distribution for what I would characterize as somewhat ethereal reasons.
ReplyDeleteI agree that our culture continues to insulate itself; we habitually shut ourselves off from the world, and from feeling anything. I also agree that the Internet is a huge part of that problem, and will be until the next major breakthrough in human communication happens. But losing newspapers might not be the tragic scenario you envision, and I certainly don’t believe that it’s worth sacrificing a vastly superior information stream to maintain the status quo. Clinging to the past, traditions, and nostalgia only slows human progress. Newspapers have a lot to offer, but if their contribution to society can be matched and exceeded by the Internet is it worth hanging onto them? That question has a different answer for different people, but it looks as though the public is siding with the Internet.
While leafing through our readings from this semester I was trying to find something applicable to your somewhat unconventional opinion. Most (including I) look at this as a problem of credibility, you appeal more to a sense of duty towards newspapers, they are necessary, though imperfect. Silverblatt looks at this problem near the end of the “Media Communicator” reading. He says, “One advantage still held by the newspaper over fast-paced outlets such as radio, TV, and the Internet is that a majority of people find it relaxing to read the newspaper.” The newspaper will never die, because of this reason. Though the Internet provides news as fast as is possible, typically as it happens, so the newspaper can become no more obsolete than it already is. Relatively, the newspaper is still a quick medium, and is still very accurate. I cannot imagine that newspapers will fall forever, but sooner rather than later their readership will level off as those who want to read newspapers for their news continue reading, while those who want their news as quickly as possible move on to newer, bigger, and better things.
I find the best way to phrase this concept was put forth by Richard Silkos of CNNMoney.com: “The best analogy, to my mind, is not one of progress from one form of media to another (say, radio to TV), but rather the evolution from passenger liner and rail travel to commercial aviation in the jet age. Sure, you can still take the Queen Mary from New York to Southampton or enjoy the Orient Express. But the masses are opting for inexpensive and efficient modes of travel.”
CNN Link:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/31/news/companies/newspapers.fortune/index.htm