my 2 cents

Newspapers ARE the News

 

Newspapers are making news in a few unrelated developments over the past several days. 

First, a few of the biggest daily papers have seen circulation jumps this past quarter, thanks mainly, it seems, to paywalls.  I would have thought paywalls would discourage those who've been used to getting free access to papers online, but it looks like I'm wrong.  Perhaps many who've become dependent on papers online for their news and information still want that news and they're now willing to pay for it.  So some who didn't purchase a daily paper at all are now paying for one, albeit, the online edition.

Three of the five biggest dailies in the U.S. have increased their readership, mostly via new digital subscriptions.  The Wall Street Journal increased its circulation by 12.3 percent, with about 30 percent of circulation now coming from digital.  The New York Times swapped places with USA Today to become the nation's 2nd biggest paper, up by 17.6 percent.  If my calculations are close, it looks like digital comprises about 40 percent of the Times' circulation.

The L.A. Times held onto the #4 spot, with a 6 percent circulation gain.  It looks like the L.A. Times has a little more than 20 percent of its readers online.  USA Today, in 3rd place, dropped by almost 8 percent, possibly due to decreases in travel in this still struggling economy.  And the N.Y. Daily News dropped by 11 percent, holding onto the #5 spot but suffering from its ongoing battle with the NY Post and what seems to be an uneven editorial product.

Average readership of the 593 dailies in the U.S. slipped by .7 percent from a year ago, which isn't as drastic as year-to-year declines have been over the past several years.

Another piece of newspaper news comes out of New Orleans, where the longtime mainstay The Times-Picayune was cut to three print editions a week several months ago.  

In an interesting twist, the paper last week announced plans to launch a 3-times-a-week print tabloid that will be sold only at retail and not via home delivery.  The 75-cent paper, to be called TPStreet, will begin sometime this summer.

In The New York Times report about this, they say many New Orleans residents are mocking the news, claiming the publisher should have listened to readers of the Times-Picayune who said the digital experiement wouldn't succeed.

And the final piece of newspaper news is talk that the ultra-conservative industrialist billionaires the Koch brothers are looking to buy The L.A. Times and several other papers.  There's talk of reporters and editors threatening to quit rather than work for the brothers, and some people are voicing concern over large daily papers possibly becoming conservative political bullhorns.

I don't see it that way, for a couple of reasons.  Even the biggest and best dailies don't dominate a city's news and way of thinking the way they may have decades ago, before 24-hour cable news and all the online news sources.  And look at The Wall Street Journal, which people thought would become a conservative pulpit when Rupert Murdoch bought it.  Yes, the editorials are often reflective of a conservative view, but the reporting still seems to be fair and unbiased, just as The NY Times runs liberal views on its editorial and Op-Ed pages, but reports the news fairly.  If Koch-owned newspapers can do the same, it's not necessarily a bad thing, since their ownership will keep more journalists employed and more papers in business.

And that's the news in the newspaper business these days.

 

 

 

We all make mistakes

Pressures of "instant news" make it tough for journalists on breaking stories

 

Much has been said about erroneous reports by respected news organizations as the Boston Marathon bombing story was unfolding.  CNN, in particular, took hits for reporting an arrest while the suspect was still at large.  The Associated Press and the Boston Herald also made similar mistakes.

At the same time, CBS News, which I watched as the pursuit took place last Friday night, was reporting very cautiously.  Anchor Scott Pelley and terrorism reporter John Miller, a former FBI assistant director, were telling viewers what they were hearing from various sources, but even as they gave these updates, they repeatedly said the information was unconfirmed and might not be totally accurate.

As a news consumer, I can understand those cautionary notes and I also appreciate them.  I am being advised that this is what reporters are hearing, and that it may or may not be true. 

Covering a fast-breaking story is tricky, especially when police are cautiously -- and understandably --  holding back information. Add to the confusion the information and misinformation coming across on Twitter and one can see what a minefield reporters and editors must wade through.

But when it becomes a race to be first to break news, mistakes get made.  Even by the AP, whose executive editor Kathleen Carroll said, less than a year ago, "I'd rather be behind and right than ahead and wrong."

If mistakes are made, we may only have ourselves to blame.  We're the ones whose demand for instant knowledge has been pushing the media in their rush to be first, even if being first isn't necessarily being right. 

And if you read an interesting piece by Jack Shafer, who blogs for Reuters, you'll see errors in news reporting are nothing new.  The bottom line is, we all make mistakes ... especially in the rush to be first. 

Withholding News

 

Joe Mandese, editor in chief at MediaPost, poses some interesting questions that news people face in the wake of tragic events like yesterday's bombings at the Boston Marathon.  His headline asks a pointed question -- How will our nation change?

He notes that terrorists and other crazies who shoot schoolchildren or people in theaters or who blow up buildings often want to see their names out there, and also want to publicize whatever cause they are championing.  Joe asks if the news media should withhold the names of these perpetrators, and not make public their grievances and causes they want to advance.

We, the public, want to know every detail.  But this is not an OJ Simpson trial, taking place in a court of law.  This is about random mass killings and hurting lots of innocent and unsuspecting people.  Perhaps we shouldn't know the bomber's name or what organization, if any, he is affiliated with.  Why give air to a crazy person's viewpoints?  Doesn't the media attention simply encourage others to use terrorist tactics to get their 15 minutes of fame?

There's a precedent for withholding information.  News media, for the most part, respect a rape victim's privacy by not using her name or showing her picture.  Minor children are usually afforded the same treatment.

We want to know details.  We have a right to have details.  But perhaps there are times when we must let it go, as a way to blunt the impact and effectiveness of terrorist acts.

It's a good question you raise, Joe.  It's a tricky decision for journalists to make. 

 

Sponsored News

A story on Page One of The New York Times business section today discusses sponsored news, or branded content or native advertising, as it's now being called.

Tanzina Vega writes how a growing number of well-known online media like Huffington Post, The Atlantic, BuzzFeed and even the online edition of The Washington Post are now including forms of branded content.  Often, it's written by the outlet's regular news staffers. But it's clearly sponsored by a company or a brand.

The article explains that this is happening as media are struggling to monetize their sites in ways that bring in more money than simple banner ads, which are often ignored by readers.

Sponsored content is not new.  Even newspapers as old-school as The New York Times have, for years, carried special sponsor-supported supplements and sections, often tied to an event like the Auto Show or the U.S. Tennis Open.  Or from time to time, we'll see a few pages in The Times business section promoting business in a particul;ar country, clearly spomsored by that nation's trade mission and some local banks and other businesses.  But these sponsored sections are always clearly identified as sponsored, and they usually are written by writers not on The Times' staff. 

I have no problem with sponsored articles, but with these caveats..

Sponsored articles should always be clearly labeled as such.

Sponsored articles should not simply be puff pieces and should be balanced

I want newsrooms to survive.  A democracy needs independent and unfiltered news.  So if sponsored articles will help keep newsrooms alive, I'm for it. 

But, for me at least, when I see a sponsored article, I won't read it with quite the same level of trust as I would an unsponsored article. Nagging in the back of my mind will be the question of what information was not included or played down to keep the sponsor happy. 

That's not a question I really want to be wondering about when I read what is supposed to be news.

 

 

Magazine Launches Drop by Half

27 titles began, while 9 closed in 1st Qtr of 2013

 

Media Daily News reports that new magazine launches were down nearly 50 percent from a year ago. 

Twenty-seven  magazines began publication during the first quarter of 2013, while nine titles shut down.   

Among those that closed was one of the pioneering free alternative weeklies -- The Boston Phoenix, which had been published for 47 years.  An edition of The Phoenix serving coastal New Hampshire and Maine -- particularly Portland, where there's a big music and bar scene -- will continue.

A year ago, 52 magazines launched and a dozen closed.

Media Daily News says for the full year of 2012, 227 titles began and 82 closed.  Total ad pages dropped by 8.2 percent last year, continuing a decline that totals 39 percent over the six years since 2006.

Besides the drop in ad pages, more people rely on the web for news and features, resulting in fewer subscription and newsstand sales.

 

 

Is New Jersey on verge of losing its biggest daily paper?

 

Here we go again... Advance Publications, which owns dozens of major market newspapers, may be getting ready to take the Garden State's largest paper from daily publication to three times a week, following a model it's been using in several other cities.  Advance has trimmed print frequency for its papers in New Orleans, Syracuse, Harrisburg, Cleveland and elsewhere.

Advance cut ten percent of the newsroom staff last week at the Star-Ledger, based in Newark but distributed throughout the state.  The company announced layoffs at other papers it owns in Easton, PA, Cleveland, and in southern NJ.  

The Star-Ledger has a daily circ of almost 312,000 -- 184,500 in print and 127,400 online -- making it the Garden State's largest daily by far and the 16th biggest daily in the U.S. On Sundays, the circulation is more than 442,000.

A story last week in the Star-Ledger notes that Advance's moves have drawn criticism.  In Ann Arbor, where Advance totally shut down the print edition of the paper and moved it online, the head of the Knight Wallace Journalism Fellowship at the University of Michigan said coverage has slipped due to "news on the cheap."   In New Orleans, where the Times-Picayune has been cut to three print editions a week, residents and businesses in the Crescent City are not happy, saying their local news coverage is being shortchanged.

Hopefully, the Star-Ledger won't follow in the footsteps of the other dailies owned by Advance.

There's other discouraging news on the newspaper front, although it's hard to take this one seriously.  New York Magazine reports that Donald Trump is looking to buy The New York Times.  The Times declined to comment, and the article says it's unlikely that the Times owners -- the Sulzberger family -- would even entertain an offer from Trump.  Let's hope not.  Just what we need here in New York.

Newspapers are still bleeding

 

Newspapers, as we know, are losing readers in print, although they seem to be doing ok when you figure in online readership.  But online readership isn't offsetting the drops in ad revenues that papers continue to suffer.

The Newspaper Association of America reports that 3rd Quarter ad income went down by 5 percent, marking the 25th consecutive quarter that ad revenues have declined.  From 2006 through 2011, newspaper ad revenues fell by a staggering 51 percent, from $49.3 billion to $23.9 billion. 

As reported here and elsewhere, publishers are struggling to find ways to improve income -- online paywalls and reduced print editions are two changes that we're seeing.  But when they start cutting newsroom staffing to save money, it seems like publishers are just hastening their own demise.  If a paper doesn't provide something distinctive in its news and information -- whether it's good local news reporting or outstanding analysis and commentary -- readers in print and online will simply go elsewhere.  And then there will be no readers that publishers can sell advertising to reach.

The Fishbowl NY blog, reporting on the decline, says, "We hope this guilt trip is enough to persuade any of you who still don’t pay to read newspapers to finally start forking over some cash."

A good thought, but I think it will take some real innovation and commitment to news by publishers to try to win back readers and, eventually, paying advertisers.  We know that the real money comes from advertising and not as much from subscription and newsstand sales.

 

Less News Is News

 

 

Advance Publications,  which owns dozens of newspapers nationwide including some major market dailies, seems to be cutting the frequency of its daily paper in Cleveland, The Plain Dealer.

In a letter to its readers, the editor and publisher of the paper said major changes were coming as the newspaper seeks to “embrace dynamic shifts in the way information is consumed.”

“The Plain Dealer has to respond to the sweeping changes we see every day in how consumers are getting their news and information -- and how advertisers are marketing themselves in this increasingly digital age.” All this suggests that the strategy will emphasize mobile and digital distribution at the expense of the print product.

Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/187555/cleveland-plain-dealer-may-cut-frequency-digita.html?edition=53702#ixzz2Cmi8Wyuv

big changes were coming as the newspaper seeks to “embrace dynamic shifts in the way information is consumed.”

Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/187555/cleveland-plain-dealer-may-cut-frequency-digita.html?edition=53702#ixzz2CmhtMrU5

“The Plain Dealer has to respond to the sweeping changes we see every day in how consumers are getting their news and information -- and how advertisers are marketing themselves in this increasingly digital age.”  Erik Sass, reporting on the changes in MediaPost, speculates that the strategy will emphasize mobile and digital distribution at the expense of the print product.

Other Advance newspapers in New Orleans, Syracuse, Harrisburg and several dailies in Alabama have created new companies to combine management of both print and digital products, while cutting the print publication frequencies of the dailies from seven days a week to three.  So far, this hasn't worked too well in New Orleans, reports are saying.

Total newspaper ad revenues have dropped more than 50 percent since 2005, says the Newspaper Association of America. Papers are having another bad year so far in 2012, as total revenues for the first half fell another 6.7 percent.

Cutting print frequency will save printing and distribution costs, for sure.  But publishers seem to be, so far, using these changes to slash newsroom staff as well.  I'm not sure how the publishers expect online ad revenues -- which still command far lower rates than print display ad rates -- to offset the loss of print ads four days a week.  And who's going to visit sites if there's less real news being covered, because of news staffing cuts?

Time will tell.

 

total newspaper advertising revenues have plunged from $49.4 billion in 2005 to $23.9 billion in 2011, according to the Newspaper Association of America.

The industry has suffered another bad year in 2012. In the first half of the year, total revenues fell 6.7% from $11.5 billion to $10.8 billion.

Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/187555/cleveland-plain-dealer-may-cut-frequency-digita.html?edition=53702#ixzz2CmjS7l8p

 

 

TV Wins as Newspaper Drops Print for Digital

 

Local TV seems to be the winner in New Orleans, now that The Times-Picayune has trimmed its print publication schedule down to three days a week.  The paper's publisher is hoping readers looking for local news will turn to NoLa.com, an expanded online version of the paper.

But a survey by Louisiana State University, reported in Media Daily News, shows local TV is now the first choice of Crescent City residents when they look for local news.  Seventy-six percent of those surveyed said local TV will be their first place to go for local news, followed by 44 percent who say they'll turn to the internet, although not necessaily the NoLa news site.  Forty percent said they plan to continue reading the Times-Picayune online.

What these numbers will mean in terms of the paper's ability to attract advertisers to its remaining print editions remains to be seen.  It will be followed closely, no doubt, since this model of reduced print newspaper editions is being employed by several other major city daily papers, with more to come.

 

 

TV is King for News

A new Harris poll, reported this week in Media Daily News, shows consumers prefer TV as their source of news and information.

The Harris poll says 50 percent of us prefer TV for news.  Online news sources are the prefered vehicle for 36 percent, and only ten percent say print is their first choice for news. 

The fact that print gets only ten percent is discouraging, although it should hardly be a surprise as more people go digital and use mobile devices.  It really is becoming a "news whenever and wherever I want it" world.  We know how newspapers and magazines are struggling to stay alive and relevant by putting content online, even as they try to figure how to get paid for it by subscription and/or advertising.

Also interesting from the poll is the demographics of who is interested in news.  Men, it says, are twice as likely to be interested in news than women -- 17 percent vs. 9 percent.  While the gender gap is suprising, what troubles me is that only 17 percent of those polled say they have a "serious" interest in the news. 

The poll also shows that news consumption is more a habit of older consumers.  Thirty-one percent of millenials -- the 18 - 35 age group -- say they are not interested in news.  (Are they too busy keeping up with all the personal trivia on Facebook?)  Among the Gen-x group (36 - 47), 23 percent say they have no interest in the news.  Only ten percent of boomers (48 - 66) have little interest in news, and six percent of those over age 67 say they are not interested in the news.

Now that is really scary and depressing, to see that such a high percentage of young people have little interest in what's happening in the world around them.  It does not bode well for the news business, but also for us as a nation in general.

 .