« Losing Friends | Main | Department of Bad Ideas »

Down She Goes

29 Apr 2008 12:44 pm

Circulation declines at most American newspapers. Clearly, technology and changing habits have a lot to do with this story. Still, to me it's always striking that when journalists talk about the slow-motion death of most of the nation's major newspapers the issue of quality rarely comes into it. And yet the decline is by no means uniform:

National newspapers like USA Today and the Journal have tended to hold their ground better, as have smaller-market dailies where competition from other media like the Internet isn't usually as intense.

Metropolitan dailies have suffered the worst declines, a trend that continued in the most recent reporting period, with the Dallas Morning News reporting a 10.6 percent drop to 368,313.

I think you see here that the issues of quality and competition from the internet are really interlinked. I've heard people worry to me about what will happen to local coverage in an internet-dominated world, and these people are correctly identifying a comparative weakness of current new media, but the answer is that the papers that specialize in covering local news seem to actually be doing okay.

The newspaper, as an institution, is an odd one -- an enormous bundle of disparate kinds of content whose rationale for existing has to do with the economics of printing and distributing cheap paper and ink on a daily basis. In an online world, the economics are different and argue in favor of specialization and niches. And this is also almost certainly better for editorial quality. It would be extremely odd for one person to be well-qualified to supervise coverage of all the different things The New York Times tries to cover. Why not get political news from a political news outlet, movie reviews from a place that specializes in movies, and local news from an organization that's really passionate about covering its community rather than viewing it as a JV form of journalism to be endured before moving on to something bigger? And in the future, we will.

Share This

Comments (25)

Why not get ... local news from an organization that's really passionate about covering its community ... ? And in the future, we will.

Well, sadly, not really. Local papers are increasingly owned by big chains who don't give a rat's nether part about local reporting. They cut reporting staff constantly and rely a lot on interns, who typically come from somewhere else. Those interns don't have any local knowledge and don't have the experience to find out quickly. They are paid poorly, and won't be around for long.

Increasingly, local papers are uninterested in reporting the substance of local news. They are interested only in pap and sensation.

The problems are really the same as with the national press. And the declining quality, along with migration of advertising, will probably result in a long, predictable death spiral.

The beauty of a good newspaper is that it gives me everything I need to know to be reasonably informed about the world in one place. I do not want to go to 47 different websites to get a read on every topic of interest. I subscribe to and read the print edition of the Los Angeles Times every day, and it is very rare that there is something "worth knowing about" that hasn't been reported there. Most of my friends and colleagues do not read a newspaper, and they are usually very uninformed about things "worth knowing about." I realize it's a highly subjective standard but, to give you an idea of where I draw that subjective line, most people I know will be very familiar with the Miley Cyrus/Vanity Fair story, but completely unaware that, say, there are food riots taking place around the world.

I love reading the newspaper. However, I loathe reading newspapers that put out the generally shite quality of the WaPo. But I would STILL subscribe IF ONLY the WaPo would drop Cohen, Krauthammer, Novak, Gersen, and Hiatt. Clean those has-been hacks out, bring in some folks who know how to write and who reflect the views of the majority of the public, and I will sign up ASAP.

I'd argue that the problem with the demise of metro papers is that there isn't a business model for providing local news online. A lot of people are trying things, but there's not a clear winner.
I mean, no sane person is going to go to utility boards and city council meetings for free, and it's not clear that people will pay, in some fashion, to get just reports about their local governments and institutions. Newspapers worked by bundling a bunch of stuff together, but I'm not sure the parts can stand on their own.
Now, I think alt-weekly style journalism will survive, and that provides a measure of local reporting, but without the depth or resources of a daily.

I'd like to create a publication that advertises used cars and yard sales, has a couple of funny cartoons, and publishes obituaries. I'll call it: The Newspaper of Tomorrow!

In an online world, the economics are different and argue in favor of specialization and niches. And this is also almost certainly better for editorial quality.

You've got to be kidding about this, right? The internet may have been an effective tool for replacing editorial pages, but in no way has reporting quality been improved by the morass of opinions available on the internet. This little half-bakery blogs have created is every bit the nightmarish reality of Habermas's most wet dreams.

You obviously have a stake in tagging this as an improvement, and perhaps a modest improvement in political campaign reporting has been effected, but the vast bulk of major news stories over the past few years have still been undertaken by these economic curiosities you're so blithe about. That the Op-Ed pages of the NYT et al suffer is unregrettable, but that the newsrooms they support suffer in the bloodletting as well, is beyond lamentable.

Does anyone actually buy USA Today, or just pick it up outside of their hotel room doors?

My question for all of these bloggers gloating about the demise of newspapers is this:

What will you opine upon without all of the news stories you link to?

Opinions are only worth the underlying topic they are opining on. Please try to blog only linking to stories in the USA Today Matt. I think you will see your traffic decline immensly.

"papers that specialize in covering local news seem to actually be doing okay."

That's abosultely false. 99% of the newspapers in American specialize in local coverage. Those are the papers that are bleeding money.

The reason is, competition for ad dollars. For decades, local newspapers have a had virtual monopoly on stuff like classified ads. That's not true anymore.

Too Many Steves:

I think Matt and you are both right:

Small local papers are holding up circulation wise. BUt they are still feeling the pain of the internet when it comes to ad revenues.

It is why I refuse to buy Matt's book or pay for an Atlantic subsription:

I can get his insights for free - why pay? I personally do not think anything the bloggers write or say are worth a cent. As long as it is free, I will read it. If they try to charge - see ya later.

It is the conundrum of intellectual property and ideas ~ in general, people are unwilling to pay for them.

Why not get political news from a political news outlet, movie reviews from a place that specializes in movies, and local news from an organization that's really passionate about covering its community rather than viewing it as a JV form of journalism to be endured before moving on to something bigger?

Because most people are too lazy/busy/etc. to engage in the effort to hunt down all these sites, and would actually prefer to do one stop-shopping?

Seconding AlanW, and reinforcing his idea that weeklies may the need for local reporting. I absolutely love that SLOG bloggers (for The Stranger, in Seattle) go to City Council meetings and tell us about them, and further that they read EIRs for local projects. I know more about local developments in Seattle than I do in my own city, because the SLOG does such a good job of reporting on those in between their interesting hobbyhorses and occasional smut.

Splintering our sources for different kinds of coverage might be very similar to splintering our sources for entertainment (through cable, etc.) -- we economists can make a good case for the efficiency of that kind of increased choice and un-bundling of offerings, but I think there's a nebulous negative externality that's been pointed out before: we get splintered as a society, too, with fewer shared reference points and a tendency to retreat into comfortable "echo chambers." I don't know how to analyze these effects, but I suspect we should be concerned about them.

the papers that specialize in covering local news seem to actually be doing okay.

True dat. And these same local papers are often the most popular websites in town too. While the point has been made that large, national corporations are buying up local news outlets and dumbing down the coverage, that may not be an entirely bad thing. A locally owned newspaper may not be able to stay afloat in the digital age, but the MSNBCs and Googles and McClatchys of the world have a vested interest in keeping local news relevant and easily accessible. As smartphones and wifi become more ubiquitous, getting eyeballs looking at ads on your network is becoming easier and more important. Its not hard to see the day where these companies might operate small market news outlets as loss leaders, simply because people want local news and the best provider of it will generate more clicks.


The best local newspapers have migrated their content to the web and are also the go to website for local news, arts, sports, etc.

The Boston Globe is a good example. Declining readership in print but they have migrated readers to boston.com, which provides all the local news, sports, weather, etc. you want. The problem is the pricing model for ads on the web hasn't been figured out yet - why an advertiser values an online reader less than a print reader is beyond me, but I believe it will get figured out. Advertisers will go to where the readers are.

"why an advertiser values an online reader less than a print reader is beyond me, but I believe it will get figured out"

Here's one reason: print readers are almost all local. If you're Harry's Department Store in Boston, and you buy an ad in the print Globe, almost all of the readers are potential customers. If you buy an ad on the Globe website, you're paying to reach people all over the world, many of whom will never buy your products.

Roboticghost, if you think local papers are doing OK, check out McClatchy's latest annual report.

The cost of gasoline is now an issue for newspapers. The Houston Chronicle has terminated our delivery here in west Austin due to the cost of gas. As a substitute they are offering an online subscription for the same price.

I'm a career print journalist (and work at a local business magazine). Here's my take:

The big metro daily that's everything to everyone is COMPLETELY DEAD. Stick a fork in it. It's gone, at least as a centralized print medium.

The reason: Today's media is all about gathering similar niches of the population. Why would I read the Boston Globe when I have nothing in common with its readers other than the fact that I live in Boston? (or Peoria, fwiw...)

The future is all about niches. There's no reason good journalism can't be delivered to much more narrow slices of the population, and done online with much less fixed overhead.

Something tells me USA Today is holding its own because it relies upon institutional rather than individual purchasers--the hotels from coast to coast that buy it in bulk and lay it outside your door, whether or not you want it. I'd be very interested to know what percentage of its dialy circulation is hotel-driven. Just extrapolating from the last place I stayed, it would have to be at least 10% of that 2,000,000 or whatever they're "selling" every day.

I agree that (in the Pacific Northwest, at least) the weeklies are doing a fine job picking up a lot of the slack in covering local politics and other news. Another great source (again, in the Pacific Northwest, at least) are the weekly newspapers put out by organizations for the homeless like Real Change. These folks do have talented members with the time to spend covering the meetings where so much real business gets done and with the ability to write up their major points clearly. In a lot of ways they're a throwback to older-school journalism, being completely willing to form and express judgments about what they're covering, along with presenting the facts well.

I dunno, Botswana. Isn't there a real danger of niche media outlets delivering niche news? Part of the job is tellng beople things they'r rather not know. Picture 75% of the population never even hearing about Abu Ghraib.

Or did that happen already?

"I mean, no sane person is going to go to utility boards and city council meetings for free, and it's not clear that people will pay, in some fashion, to get just reports about their local governments and institutions. Newspapers worked by bundling a bunch of stuff together, but I'm not sure the parts can stand on their own."

Why on earth can't websites bundle? Local sites in the UK combine news, sport, weather, traffic reports, entertainment listings, classifieds, job ads, property, message boards, online dating and loads of other things. Why shouldn't this be viable online when it was in print? If print is losing ad revenue to online, why not capture the online revenue as well?

I noticed no mention of the effects of unlimited immigration on newspapers. When in cities like Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, and even DC, there are large portion of the populations that do not use English at home, there is no reasons for any of those households to either purchase a newspaper or read the content on line.

Given that virtually all large city newspaper have supported open borders and unlimited immigration, those newspapers seem to be on the receiving end of some poetic justice.

"Here's one reason: print readers are almost all local. If you're Harry's Department Store in Boston, and you buy an ad in the print Globe, almost all of the readers are potential customers. If you buy an ad on the Globe website, you're paying to reach people all over the world, many of whom will never buy your products."

I think you can work around that. Even free websites require readers to register and put in the zip code or state where you live. It wouldn't be hard to the online Boston Globe to show potential advertisers what percent of registered readers live in the state or in New England or in a particular zip code and then base the rate card on reaching those readers.

It's all about producing unique, original, and relevent content to readers, regardless of the medium, and then use those loyal readers to sell to advertisers.

This is why Rupert Murdoch scored big time with the WSJ. He's now beefing up the political, cultural coverage to support the paper's outstanding business and financial market coverage to become a real "one stop shop" and take on the NYT as a national powerhouse. He's got a core subscriber/readership base that is truly national and also a high end demographic for advertisers.

While there have been some decreases in newspaper circulation not all of it can be called failure or a complete shift away from this traditional medium. In many cases the decreases are genuinely business oriented—things like voluntary circulation cutting to outlying areas because of escalating fuel costs. Diego Vasquez wrote an article Q&A with Rick Edmonds media business analyst for the Poynter Institute.

There seems to be a lot more to the picture than it seems. The one thing that’s certain is that the only real way to tell what’s going on is through the use of audited circulation statements. Furthermore, though there may be a shift to online media that only reinforces the need for the development of realistic audit processes for that medium. We’ve been working with a group called Buy Safe Media and they’ve got some good info on the value of audited media.


Comments closed May 13, 2008.

Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.