Post from Bobby Allyn's Blog:
Are Newspapers Dead?
Bad? Brilliant?
You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.
In a seven-page story in this week’s issue of The New Yorker, Eric Alterman (The Nation, Media Matters) writes a riveting piece about the history, evolution, and future of newspapers.

As it has been repeatedly written about, there has been a sharp decline in paper-and-ink newspapers:

  • Newspapers have lost forty-two per cent of their market value in the past three years
  • The New York Times Company has seen its stock decline by fifty-four per cent since the end of 2004
  • Newspaper-wide trends of budget cuts, bureau closings, buyouts, layoffs, and reductions in page size and column inches.

Young people are the driving force behind the change in newspaper dynamics:

Alterman reports that "thirty-nine per cent of respondents under the age of thirty-five told researchers that they expected to use the Internet in the future for news purposes; just eight per cent said that they would rely on a newspaper." (Ironically, as he points out, most newspaper Web sites just aggregate stories from their print editions.)

The original reporting, expertise, and foreign bureaus makes newspapers an indispensable source of information – most blogs wouldn’t exist without the major newspapers, just like this post wouldn't exist without The New Yorker. Some predict that in thirty years newspapers will exist solely online -- the future of print copy is another discussion. Leading blogs like The Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo have democratized news and raised the level of transparency news agencies are held to, but they haven’t replaced the Times. Alterman makes the great case that whatever the medium newspapers are here to stay.
 
This is a must-read piece for anyone thinking about a career in print journalism.
 

Reader Comments
  
editorial issues
By JR Mar 28th 2008 at 8:56 pm EDT
I think the real factor killing print journalism is what will ultimately kill television as we understand it: people enjoy making their own editorial and programming decisions. When you aggregate your news online, you choose what articles and issues to focus on, based on your own interpretation of what's important, not someone else's. The position of News Director is rapidly becoming obsolete.

Soon, television will have to become more interactive in order to keep up with people's desire to program content themselves. TiVo is the first step towards this end. Internet television will probably provide the next few developments of note.

By the time the next decade ends, I fully expect that the majority of Americans will program their own viewing schedules in addition to selecting their own written news content.
Re: editorial issues
By JR Mar 28th 2008 at 9:04 pm EDT
Adding: the big problem I have with the argument that newspapers provide services that are otherwise unattainable is that foreign bureaus can exist without newspapers paying for them. Either domestic sources can aggregate foreign coverage, or wire services can provide content (let's be honest--if it weren't for AP, AFP, UPI, and Reuters, half the newspapers in America would go to press with blank pages or shrink to the size of church bulletins). And of course we have the TV bureaus. There's no reason to think that blogs or other web sites are forever and inextricably linked to newspaper coverage.
  
Campus Progress

Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.

Campus Progress