The Slow Death Of Newspapers

Princeton Survey Research Associates International recently did a survey of newspapers in the United States. The survey included 50% of newspapers with a circulation of over 100,000 and 30% of newspapers with a circulation between 50,000 and 100,000. What they found was not encouraging.

They found that newspapers are containing less news than in the past, especially national and international news. What little national and international news they do carry is probably pulled off one of the wire services. That's because nearly all the papers are reducing their staff of reporters.

The dwindling pool of reporters are being used to cover mainly local stories, and even then they must cover more stories than in the past. This results in shorter, more superficial stories. In-depth coverage is becoming a thing of the past.

Most of the editors surveyed blame the internet for their problems. More and more people are getting their news from the internet. Even though the papers have established their own sites on the internet, they have yet to figure out how to make as much money off their internet ads as they do on their lucrative print ads. Less money means less reporters, and that translates into fewer and more superficial stories in the paper.

I believe this is true. The internet has to be affecting newspapers. But I believe this survey is ignoring another factor that is having just as big a negative effect on newspapers as the internet -- corporate ownership.

It is getting to be almost impossible to find a home-owned newspaper. Almost all newspapers, especially those with less than a 100,000 circulation, have been bought by large corporate conglomerates. A prime example of this is my own home-town newspaper, the Amarillo Globe-News. It is now owned by a Georgia-based corporation.

Ask yourself, what is the primary concern of this Georgia corporation? Is it to inform the Amarillo public of the news that is important to them? If you answered yes to that, then you're a very naive person. Their primary concern is the same as any other corporation -- to maximize their profit.

If a corporation can make more money by firing reporters and getting their stories off the wire, then that is what they'll do. If they can get more profit by firing reporters and increasing the load on the remaining reporters, then that is what they'll do. The quality of the product is of little concern as long as the bottom line shows a healthy profit.

And while most newspapers would be loathe to admit it, the corporate interest in the bottom line affects the newspaper in other ways. You simply will not see a negative story about a business or business-owner, especially if they're heavy buyers of newspaper ads. If it is a big story that cannot be ignored, it will be very superficial. You won't get the in-depth dirt on that person or company.

And most editorial pages have long-ago gave up any pretense of fairness. They are little more than corporate-Republican propaganda pages. I don't even go to the editorial page of my home-town newspaper anymore, because I know from experience it'll contain nothing but corporate-friendly right-wing crap.

Most of the editors in the Princeton survey are worried about the future (and they should be). About 95% of them said they had no idea what their newsroom would look like even 5 years from now.

I don't know if the profit-driven newspapers as we know them can survive or not. But sadly, the news-driven papers of the past are dying fast. Quality in-depth reporting and fairness belong to another era.