Newspapers and Lifestyles
I've already linked it today, but in case you missed it Newspaper circulation continues to decline. Is this surprising? No, quite frankly, its not, but it is troublesome. As fewer and fewer people purchase the major dailies, the news bureaus clearly will be losing money, and hence their ability to report effectively on the news.
But I'm no expert in the economics of the print media. So instead, I'll ponder why circulation is declining.
Lifestyle/Generational
First and foremost, there has been a lifestyle shift. My father wakes up every morning and goes through his morning routine, which involves sitting to eat breakfast and read the paper. I know of no one of my generation (the all important 18-34 year old demographic) who does this. I don't know people who eat breakfast at home in this go-go world of ours. If its not Starbucks or McD's, then it ain't being touched before lunch time. This fact alone explains why home delivery is unpopular with younger workers.
Technology
On the commute, half the riders on my metro are plugged into their iPods listening to music, rather than reading even the free Express. Once I'm at work, am I really going to pull out a newspaper at my desk? I mean, if I had an office with a door, maybe, but in the cube farm? If it ain't on my computer screen I'm not reading it.
Internet
Yes, free news content on the internet does impact subscription numbers, but come on, do you really get as much news on the internet as you would from reading the paper cover to cover? I certainly don't. Furthermore, e-books and even audio-books haven't impacted the sales of books in the same fashion as critics of free internet news have claimed for newspapers.
Television
And yes, more people are getting their news from CNN and *gasp* Fox News, but even the numbers for broadcast news are dropping. In the evening, people don't want to read news that is almost a day old, when they can just zone out in front of their jumbotron flat screen and watch Brit Hume make an ass of himself.
What would get me back?
I am probably never going to subscribe to daily delivery. I just don't make the time before work/on the commute to read the paper. By the time I get home, its old news already and I can watch TV.
Even if the major players started charging for web content?
I most likely would not pay for content. Personally, I think that it is wrong to pay for something that is taking time away from the job that is paying me to do other things. Too many ethical lines are being crossed there for me.
Interestingly enough, I could see myself reading an evening paper when I got home from work like the Evening Star or the SF Examiner. I for one would prefer to read a copy of the Post when I got home (provided that it had that current day's copy and was of a comparable quality to the WaPo), rather than tune into CNN. But maybe that's just me.
In the end, newspapers may simply be turning into a relic of a past era that is being replaced by newer and more relevant technologies. God, I hope not. I for one hate to rely on anything as dumbed down as television or unfiltered (as in edited by someone who knows what they are talking about) as the internet.
But I'm no expert in the economics of the print media. So instead, I'll ponder why circulation is declining.
Lifestyle/Generational
First and foremost, there has been a lifestyle shift. My father wakes up every morning and goes through his morning routine, which involves sitting to eat breakfast and read the paper. I know of no one of my generation (the all important 18-34 year old demographic) who does this. I don't know people who eat breakfast at home in this go-go world of ours. If its not Starbucks or McD's, then it ain't being touched before lunch time. This fact alone explains why home delivery is unpopular with younger workers.
Technology
On the commute, half the riders on my metro are plugged into their iPods listening to music, rather than reading even the free Express. Once I'm at work, am I really going to pull out a newspaper at my desk? I mean, if I had an office with a door, maybe, but in the cube farm? If it ain't on my computer screen I'm not reading it.
Internet
Yes, free news content on the internet does impact subscription numbers, but come on, do you really get as much news on the internet as you would from reading the paper cover to cover? I certainly don't. Furthermore, e-books and even audio-books haven't impacted the sales of books in the same fashion as critics of free internet news have claimed for newspapers.
Television
And yes, more people are getting their news from CNN and *gasp* Fox News, but even the numbers for broadcast news are dropping. In the evening, people don't want to read news that is almost a day old, when they can just zone out in front of their jumbotron flat screen and watch Brit Hume make an ass of himself.
What would get me back?
I am probably never going to subscribe to daily delivery. I just don't make the time before work/on the commute to read the paper. By the time I get home, its old news already and I can watch TV.
Even if the major players started charging for web content?
I most likely would not pay for content. Personally, I think that it is wrong to pay for something that is taking time away from the job that is paying me to do other things. Too many ethical lines are being crossed there for me.
Interestingly enough, I could see myself reading an evening paper when I got home from work like the Evening Star or the SF Examiner. I for one would prefer to read a copy of the Post when I got home (provided that it had that current day's copy and was of a comparable quality to the WaPo), rather than tune into CNN. But maybe that's just me.
In the end, newspapers may simply be turning into a relic of a past era that is being replaced by newer and more relevant technologies. God, I hope not. I for one hate to rely on anything as dumbed down as television or unfiltered (as in edited by someone who knows what they are talking about) as the internet.
posted by Fletch at
12:56 PM
3 Comments:
I think anything thing that reduces the amount of paper consumption in the US is a good thing (you know, excluding printing the news on animal pelts). I had a roommate in college who subscribed to the Wall Street Journal because he was an Econ major, but of course, none of them ever left their plastic wrapper.
By
Anonymous, at 10:41 AM
Its true that paper consumption is an environmental disaster, but I think that there is something to be said for the experiential nature of reading a paper. Granted, it is a very temporary media, and yet at the same time, if I want to find an article from three days ago, its sitting there in my recylcing bin, rather than lost in the ether.
And Jake, its only news that was worthless in the first place, a la "the Runaway Bride," or is date related, such as concert listings, which is obsolete after a day. Haven't you ever done historical research using old newspapers?
By
Fletch, at 10:59 AM
No news is bad news. The primary reason that newspaper consumption is dropping is that people are reading less as society continues to shift to a visual culture (television, movies, video games, etc.) Part of the reason that this is bad is that readers, particularly newspaper readers, are more likely to be engaged in and participating in local issues/the events of the day. "News" on television is pretty much devoid of news, unless murders, accidents, fires, sports, and weather comprises your total definition of what is newsworthy.
There is also the issue of newspapers as "news gathering and generating machines" independent of the manufacturing and distribution function of the newspaper. How will this function be maintained if people like you (and me) don't want to pay for web access to content, and advertisers are less likely to pay for advertising to reach fewer people through the print vehicle?
And, as much as you like the digital, it's much much faster to read print vs. screen-based content. Check out www.useit.com if you don't believe me.
By
Richard Layman, at 1:39 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home