Many lament the oncoming death of newspapers, since so many people, especially younger folks, get their news and information from electronic gadgets. Doomsayers abounded also in the 1920s, when radio became popular. That will be the end of newspapers, they said. Again in the 1950s, when television surged into American households. That will be the end of newspapers, they said. And in the 1980s, after desktop computers became all the rage for consumers. That will be the end of newspapers, they said.
It didn't happen.
Currently, as pocket-sized electronic tablets saturate the market, many are saying that will be the end of newspapers.
Not likely.
There are still almost 1,400 daily newspapers in America, and thousands more weekly newspapers, all of whom need reporters, writers and editors to gather, prepare and publish information of interest to their readers. And while there has been some downsizing and consolidation in the industry, the total number of dailies in America is down by only a few hundred from fifty years ago. Granted, New York City used to have six major dailies and is now down to three -- The New York Times, The Daily News and The Post -- but that's still more than any other city in America, many of which are down to just one daily rather than two or three. (The Wall Street Journal is considered a national paper, not a city paper. Likewise, USA Today is a national daily, and not identified with one city.)
Another trend to consider is that daily newspapers provide stories that are longer and in more depth than television can hope to offer. Moreover, a newspaper can assign a single reporter to research a single story, and spend months doing it, before writing it.
Television can't afford that. The evening news has about 20 minutes to cover everything, and much of that is the equivalent of a three-paragraph rewrite of something that had already appeared in the morning paper. And when a major story breaks, television stations must send out an entire crew -- reporters, producers, camera operators, sound technicians -- with their specialized equipment and vehicle.
This is not to knock television news. Moving images are very powerful things, and that part of the journalism industry provides that type of coverage very well. But it will not replace the permanence of print.
So what, you say. I still get everything I want to know from my mobile device. That's no doubt true, that you get what you want to know. But do you get what you need to know? That's a different issue.
In any case, consider that some of these apps and web sites are delivery platforms, not sources, as the Newspaper Association of America put it.
Moreover, are they reliable?
There are still many folks who do not have a computer, regardless of size -- desktop, laptop, or pocket size. Moreover, they don't want one, and wouldn't know how to use one if they did have one. Or they can't afford one.
Again, this is not to knock computers or other electronic information delivery systems. This blog, frankly, wouldn't be possible without them. But the newspaper industry remains a powerful force in American business, with total revenue of $38.6 billion in 2012, according to the Newspaper Association of America.
And their delivery systems are changing, as well. A survey conducted by the NAA said 69 percent of U.S. adults read newspaper media content in print or online in a typical week, or access it on mobile devices in a typical month. In addition, 59 percent of those ages 18 to 24 do the same
There are challenges, especially during tough economic times. But the information delivery industry -- read newspapers, magazines, radio, television, Internet and mobile devices -- all of which prepare information, is changing, and many in the industry are combining several of these delivery platforms to ensure survival and profitability.
At the same time, there are some news providers that will remain as they are for a long time. After all, you can't read about what your local town council or school board is doing with your tax dollars by reading the Wall Street Journal or USA today. For that, you need a local paper, either daily or weekly. And the TV station in the nearest major city is not likely to send a camera crew to your village unless there's some especially lurid story to pursue. Even there, the cops are more likely to talk to the local reporter they know than to the brash big-city guys they don't know.
Or, as happened once in New Jersey, when a Manhattan reporter complained that she was "not used to being treated this way in New York," the local cop pointed to the highway.
No comments:
Post a Comment