June 29, 2008
Yes, Newspapers are Doomed-Becker
The number of general-purpose newspapers has been declining in cities ever since the growth of television, and the decline accelerated after the Internet was developed. The trend downward will continue, and perhaps even accelerate. I do not see much of a future for the general-purpose hard copy newspaper that combines opinions, sports, advertisements, comics, and information.
A telling fact is that young people today do not read general newspapers, whereas they did in the past. When I was a boy my father bought at least five newspapers every day, and I "read" (that is, looked mainly at sports and comics) three or four of them. It is now rare to see anyone under age 30 reading the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, or any other major newspaper. A teacher used to be bothered when bored students starting reading newspapers in class. That is no longer a problem since they now turn to their computers and play video games or email friends.
I find it hard to reconcile the rapid decline in the number of newspapers with Posner's data suggesting that newspapers are quite profitable. Declining industries, such as the American automobile industry, have always been associated not with profits but with substantial losses, as is happening to Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler. There is no doubt that the many newspapers which went out of business did so because they were losing money. Of course, the surviving newspapers tend to be the ones that are more profitable, but they too are experiencing financial problems. They are cutting staffs, long-term owners are selling their papers to others- as with the Wall Street Journal and Chicago Tribune- and they are trying various approaches to deal with the tough competition from online advertisements and other online services.
The Internet has gravely wounded the newspaper industry because it provides information, opinion, and entertainment more frequently and effectively than newspapers do. The Web offers as much sports news as desired, and presents the progress of baseball and other sporting in real time. The weather is updated every hour, or more frequently, and so are stock market quotes. Online ads give pictures and personal information about individuals looking for jobs, and prices and other characteristics of products offered for sale. Major as well as minor news stories, local and general news, and opinions on numerous issues are continually being presented.
A case still made for good newspapers and magazines is that they separate facts from opinions, and do enough checking to stand behind the materials presented as facts. I do not know of anything comparable on the Internet, although the reputations of better-known bloggers do rise and fall with changing perceptions about their insights and accuracy. Yet it is not apparent that the demand is very strong for this dimension of what newspapers have traditionally provided.
Newspapers are trying to strengthen their survival prospects by expanding online presentations, and combining these with print editions. In the short run this may help them, which explains why all the major newspapers are moving aggressively to expand online materials, and widen their online customer base. However, I do not believe this approach will succeed in the long run. The reason is that the way newspapers bundle different services is not the right approach to online presentations that usually provide information about the weather on websites that are different from those used to discuss sports or present ads for cars. Some online sites specialize in opinions about domestic politics, others discuss religion, some present pornographic pictures and films, while others focus on economic issues. The traditional newspaper does not readily fit into this format, and so they are generally losing money in their online efforts.
This does not imply that online presentations in the future will continue to be organized in the same way as at present. Perhaps the growing tendency for some websites to link to other sites will coalesce into organized multi-site presentations that deal with many different topics. Already some subscriber-based sites collect and present the best blogs on different topics. How that will evolve is not clear to me, but it is unlikely to develop into anything that looks like the conventional newspaper that has bundled news, information, and advertisements for hundreds of years.
The rapid and continuing decline in the number of major newspapers will be regretted mainly by older persons who are accustomed to reading several newspapers daily-my wife and I still subscribe to four and read others online. However, by voting with how they use their time, the great majority of consumers clearly have shown that they prefer to get their information, entertainment, and opinions from television, and especially from the Internet, than from newspapers.
Posted by becker at 1:56 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack (1)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1706
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference :
� PLoS and the future of publishing - as framed by Nature from WeiterGen
Ein Artikel auf Englisch von meinem Kollegen Anders Norgaard: Nature vs. PLoS und die unterschiedlichen Konzepte, wie wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen verlegt werden. [Read More]
Tracked on August 31, 2008 10:14 AM
Comments
Recently Rupert Murdoch had to decide whether he would make the content of the WSJ free online (as does the NYT), or whether, instead, it would continue to be offered on a subscription basis. After studying the numbers carefully, his decision was to keep it on a subscription basis.
Some of the traditional newspapers have been wiped out by the flood of dumb money into "new media." Once the dumb money dries up, there will still be a huge market for the well-edited and well-written content that we used to have from major newspapers during the Watergate Era.
This is the best of times (in terms of cost) and the worst of times (in terms of time). You can still get really good content by sifting through the many blogs out there and collating them into a customized feed. But in effect, you're paying with your time for the editing that used to get done offline.
People are going to figure this out eventually and subscription based business models will return.
Posted by Michael F. Martin at June 29, 2008 5:02 PM | direct link
Newspapers have one advantage: they are finite. You can read one from cover to cover, selectively if desired. You get to the end. Online perusal--with links--is infinite, and you never get the satisfaction of completing the day's news. That is why I read printed text books, even though online equivalents exist.
Posted by ionides at June 30, 2008 4:33 PM | direct link
This is the best of times (in terms of cost) and the worst of times (in terms of time). You can still get really good content by sifting through the many blogs out there and collating them into a customized feed. But in effect, you're paying with your time for the editing that used to get done offline.
While you are in a sense paying with your time when you set things up, but; once you have a feed set up you don't really have to worry about anything else.
Even the initial set up isn't that time consuming. I already had a handful of blogs I found via friends, or websites that I occasionally visited, and I found a couple more quality blogs / feeds via google readers' suggestions based on what I already subscribed to.
Posted by Mike Hunter at June 30, 2008 9:00 PM | direct link
我在有条件的时候还是会选择看报纸的，长时间上网，眼睛也难受，嘿嘿
Posted by weiweihe at July 1, 2008 7:25 AM | direct link
Mike,
I am also a ravenous consumer of RSS feeds.
But the each feed itself is a product of editing and fact-checking by the blogger.
Mass media isn't going to disappear. It's going to disperse.
Posted by Michael F. Martin at July 1, 2008 11:21 AM | direct link
Discussion over the advantages and disadvantages of the Internet compared with reading materials presented on papers has been on for a long time and in my opinion the final conclusion can not appear in a short time.But thanks for your article because it reminds me of another perspective to think of the future of newspapers and other similar things.
Posted by Serena Zhu at July 1, 2008 10:32 PM | direct link
Mike you have me wondering how good most folks are at being their own editor and self-selecting "quality blogs". While you and I would surely be very objective in our selections I wonder if the self-selected "feeds" in a nation of generally poorly educated people is likely to create varying "truths" that continue to create increasing division largely based on the false premises and conclusions spawned by a lack of debate and responsible editing.
Posted by Jack at July 2, 2008 2:43 AM | direct link
While you and I would surely be very objective in our selections I wonder if the self-selected "feeds" in a nation of generally poorly educated people is likely to create varying "truths" that continue to create increasing division largely based on the false premises and conclusions spawned by a lack of debate and responsible editing.
Responsible editing? Doesn't exist in the major newspapers.
Posted by RJ at July 2, 2008 2:33 PM | direct link
RJ: "Responsible editing? Doesn't exist in the major newspapers."
Let's consider: Be it the WSJ, NYTimes, or other major papers the reportage in the news section is typically, at least factually accurate and when it isn't or a fraud is purposely committed, heads roll. The op-ed section is clearly labeled as such and most papers offer the opinions of an array of pundits.
But out there in the wilds of the net how does one "selecting their feeds" sort the wheat from the chaff? Who purges the "news" of "Barrack being a Muslim" or "McCain has a "black" baby?"
As posted, I'd like to see newsmen dig deeper into our most important issues. If the democratic republic is to survive we have to make the best decisions possible on a wide range of hugely important issues over the next few years and I doubt that's going to happen with folks "feeding" themselves with what they want to hear, or that which fits best with, often, worn out ideology that was flawed to begin with. I guess I'd have to ask for more detail as to how you think major papers are irresponsibly edited?
Posted by Jack at July 2, 2008 10:41 PM | direct link
the news spread more quickly via interenet than newspaper.
Posted by Anonymous at June 26, 2009 12:17 AM | direct link
nice
مركز تحميل
Posted by Anonymous at June 29, 2009 8:21 PM | direct link