How to (Maybe) Get it Wrong

My nearby metro newspaper, the AJC, has wrestled of late with declining circulation and a humbling move out of downtown Atlanta into the burbs.  The paper's top editor is quoted in a story here about how the AJC will try a CNN approach and skate down the middle of the partisan aisle in its coverage.

The Journal-Constitution asked readers what they want -- and made a big change. "What we found is they don't want us to be a newspaper with a strong point of view," says Julia Wallace, the newspaper's editor-in-chief. "But what they do want is, they want balance. If we have a view to the right, they want a balance of a view to the left. And they want us to be transparent about how we go about our work." 

So Julia, how's that working for 4th place CNN?

I'm of two minds here.  The hard news journalism guy in me applauds the approach and wonders what the hell you were doing before this that suddenly you've discovered balance.  But the journalism realist in me sees this approach failing.  Why fail?  Well, the little theorist and methodologist in me knows that what people say when they mean balance is they want a balance teetering toward their own preference.  You often find yourself reminding people that a lack of a conservative bias does not equal a liberal bias, but that's exactly what they'll perceive. People see what they want to see.

Then again, Fox is not fair and balanced, yet the slogan remains.  So maybe the AJC is taking the Fox approach.  Clever and sneaky, far too clever and sneaky to be true, but I could easily be wrong here (not on the success of this plan, but the motivation behind it).

It may very well be that advocacy journalism is the future.  Fact-based news, but told from a definite perspective.  At least for a while, until there is some kind of backlash and playing down the middle maybe makes a comeback in the public mind.  Whether anyone can stay afloat financially until this wonderful day, no one can say.

What Will Save Newspapers? A Musical Explains

A 16-Year-Old Reads the NYTimes

A copy of the dead-tree version of the New York Times now appears every morning on our driveway and with the doldrums of summer my 16-year-old has been seen picking it up and reading ink on paper.

He rarely reads news online.

For example, after he read the story about North Korea missile tests and how the youngest son may be named successor to Kim Jong-il, we chatted about the problems an unstable North Korea raises not only for the U.S. but especially for China. Cool.

What's this to do with what people know? If I generalize from an N of 1, it suggests putting news in front of someone, rather than waiting for them to go to it, is more likely to generate readership and, subsequently, political knowledge. Yeah, it's one kid -- one bright kid -- and it's summer -- and he's sitting at the table eating a bagel -- and what else is he gonna do but pick up the paper sitting right in front of him? And yet, and yet. I think there is something to be said for serendipity, of push instead of pull for news, and the sheer convenience of paper. But it is an N of 1 and generalizing from one person, that never works, at least in real research.

Selectively Covering the End of Journalism

The big TV news networks love talking about the economic struggles facing newspapers. You get to drag out all that old video of printing presses and cool old movies like The Front Page.

But when it comes to TV news facing similar problems, not so much coverage. But let me warn you, I have some methodological issues to deal with after the next graph.

A NYTimes article about a study by the fine folks at Annenberg finds lots and lots of newspaper coverage about the struggles of newspapers, and lots and lots of TV coverage about the struggles of newspapers, but when it comes to covering TV news and its problems the results kinda fall apart. Kinda. The sampled newspapers apparently (I haven't seen the actual report) had 900 stories about the struggles of papers and 95 stories about the struggles of TV news. TV news had 38 stories about the struggles of newspapers and a measly six about their own problems.

Now it's methodology time. If my math is right, that means 90 percent of newspaper articles on problems of the two media were about papers. That also means 86 percent of TV news stories about the two media are about newspapers. Without cranking up my SPSS and doing a little chi-square analysis, I'm fairly sure there's no statistically significant difference here. Also the press release has, it seems, slightly different numbers than in the NYTimes article (I can't locate the original PR release, but this blog has some text attributed to the PR people).

So, much ado about nothing?

Yes.

First off, if the numbers are right, the proportions are about the same or at least close enough to warrant concern. Second, newspaper struggles are simply a better story, one full of history and democracy and a helluva hook with the shutdowns at major metro papers in Seattle, etc. And yeah, the TV hairdos don't want to spend time talking about the decline of viewers, and that says something about them and their willingness (or lack thereof) to examine their own shops.

In terms of what people know, this is obvious: people know newspapers are failing, given the extensive coverage by all media, but there's a good chance they don't know that TV news suffers from many of the same problems. It's time TV news took a hard, honest look at itself rather than running all that video of printing presses.

Dear Valued Subscriber

Letter today with my Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Dear Valued Subscriber:

Thank you for your subscription to .... etc. etc. And then the biggie:

Beginning April 26, 2009, we will focus distribution of our print edition to 20 counties that are closely connected with Atlanta's growing market and our core customers. Due to the changes, the final newspaper distribution to your address will take place on April 25, 2009.

Bloody hell.

Yeah, it upsets my morning routine and I know you're deeply disturbed by that, but let's turn this to what people know. I (and others) use the AJC to find out what the brainiacs are up to in the Georgia Legislature. This is a group that rarely finds a stupid idea too stupid to actually approve. Yes, I can get it online. I can even subscribe to the coveted "e-edition" that is a replica of the print product. Yeah, right. It's simple -- people don't read online with the same depth and attention that they do with a print product. Online we're skimmers, we're grazers, we pick up bits and pieces of journalistic flotsam and jetsam.

This is probably a dumb idea by the AJC, but I can't really say so because I don't have the circulation numbers and costs to be a fair judge. But to kiss off Athens and UGA, does that make sense for 35,000 potential young readers who eventually will grow up, stop binge drinking, and perhaps have real jobs in the Atlanta market some day? I'm also surprised they're cutting Oconee and really surprised they're cutting Barrow County, which is growing fast and become kinda an exurb of Atlanta.

Sad news, along with the cuts of journalists who work at the AJC. That's the worst bit of all, both personally and in terms of what people know. Fewer people covering the news, the less we know.

Newspaper Angst

A new report by Pew is sure to create more angst among newspaper people. The report's lede says it all:

As many newspapers struggle to stay economically viable, fewer than half of Americans (43%) say that losing their local newspaper would hurt civic life in their community "a lot." Even fewer (33%) say they would personally miss reading the local newspaper a lot if it were no longer available.

I don't think this is all that big a deal. A huge chunk of people don't read the paper any way, so 33% saying they would miss it is no big surprise. I am a little surprised that among regular paper readers, 10% would not miss it at all and another 10% "not much." But in general this reflects what we've all known -- newspapers are no longer as important a part of life in a community, or its people, than they used to be.

The days of being everything to everyone, they may be gone. That common tie that brings a community together? It was the newspaper, among a few others. Those common ties are unraveling.

Newspaper Trends

If not for the fine folks at the Pew Center I'd be stuck on some days for something to post. They come through again.

The chart at the right shows the trend over the past two years from print to online. According to the report:

Overall newspaper readership declined in spite of an increase in the number of people reading online newspapers: 14% of Americans said they read a newspaper online yesterday, up from 9% in 2006. This includes those who said they read
only a newspaper online (9% in 2008), as well as those who said they read both print and Web versions of a newspaper (5%). These numbers may not include the number of people who read content produced by newspapers, but accessed through aggregation sites or portals such as Google or Yahoo.

My Old Paper

One of my old newspapers, the Sarasota (Fla.) Herald-Tribune, announced the kind of cuts we've seen elsewhere in the news business, but the deepest cut of all was stopping delivery in Port Charlotte.

Why? Because I worked the paper's Charlotte bureau when we went head-to-head with the evil Gannett Fort Myers News-Press and two local papers. The county was at the time one of, if not the, fastest growing county in the U.S.

And we kicked ass. As in, a year or so after I'd moved on, the FMN-P finally moved outta town.

All that, for nuthin.

True story when I worked there -- one time the Herald Tribune created an "I" team for investigations. Says me: "Oh good. We've put the 'I' in the SH-T." Editors, unamused.

The paper will still be available in racks and stores, but it's not the same, not for the reporters and sure as hell not for people in Charlotte County. It's a business decision, maybe a necessary one, but it sucks nonetheless.

Trimming the Fringe

My hometown has been trimmed.

I grew up in Lawrenceburg, Tenn., a town of about 15,000 in southern Middle Tennessee. Not known for much except once boasting the world's largest bicycle factory, which cranked out bikes for nearly everyone who then put their own brand on it (Sears, Western Auto, etc.).

I also grew up delivering the Nashville Tennessean (mornings) and Banner (afternoons -- now defunct). At age 12 I got up around 5:30 every morning to bike my way around the streets, tossing the Tennessean on people's driveways. Did it again at 3 for the Banner. This paid for two motorcycles and a car for me before I was even 17 because my route got bigger and bigger. My dad was the regional circulation manager for both papers. I grew up in the circulation business.

Anyway, my mom told me today that the Tennessean will no longer deliver in L'burg.

A lot of metro papers are doing this. It's called trimming the fringe, a cost saving measure since city advertisers aren't really looking to reach people 70 miles down the road.

And it sucks.

It sucks because one of the first things I do when I visit home is walk to a nearby store and buy a Sun-Drop (greatest soft drink every made) and a copy of the Tennessean. It sucks because this was the only real daily serving my hometown. It sucks because with no circulation there, how likely is it the paper will truly keep an eye on the crooks and nuts who live and run L'burg? It sure as hell won't be the two little local weeklies.

It sucks in so many ways, I'm gonna stop now before I type suck one more time. Okay, once more. It sucks.