CHAPTER

2

The Editor and the Audience

 

NEWSPAPERS AREN’T DEAD

A common perception in the U.S. is that all newspapers are dead or dying. Why, then, did Warren Buffett, generally recognized as one of the savviest investors on the planet, purchase 62 newspapers—dailies and weeklies—in Virginia and the rest of the South in mid-2012? The Oracle of Omaha, as Buffett is known, explained it this way:

In towns and cities where there is a strong sense of community, there is no more important institution than the local paper. The many locales served by the newspapers we are acquiring fall firmly into this mold, and we are delighted they have found a permanent home with Berkshire Hathaway [Buffett’s holding company].

The newspapers Buffett purchased in the transaction include the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch and were acquired from Media General, which sold all its print properties except the Tampa Tribune, its flagship. Earlier, Buffett had acquired his hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, six other Nebraska newspapers, and the Buffalo (N.Y.) News.

Buffett doesn’t invest in losers, so his acquisition raised eyebrows. Sure, he is a big fan of newspapers, having served on the board of the Washington Post and having started his company as a young man after saving $5,000 while working as a newspaper carrier. Still, investors like Buffett don’t make purchases of this sort for sentimental reasons. Why, then, did he make the move?

Earlier comments by Buffett indicate he believes the newspaper industry made a big mistake by giving away its content on free websites but that the strategy is reversible. Many agree. In the last few years, multiple publications have jettisoned free sites for increasingly sophisticated pay models. You can bet Buffett will employ such a strategy at his newspapers.

One of those models adds a charge to existing subscribers’ bills for access to online information. Nonsubscribers are charged more. Buffett and others clearly are betting that people will pay for the information they can get about their local communities only from the local newspaper. Only that paper has the extensive news-gathering apparatus to provide the information people want.

That theory builds on the belief Buffett expressed in his acquisition statement: Newspapers, particularly those in smaller communities, have a connection with their readers that others—particularly their metropolitan counterparts—lack.

Time will tell if Buffett’s investment will pay off, but it’s interesting to see someone recognized as one of the smartest investors in the nation make a commitment to the business.

Andy Waters, general manager of the Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune, is one of those who manages a smaller newspaper that is financially healthy. Like many newspapers of its kind, the Tribune’s print circulation has remained flat at less than 20,000, but it has increased total readership by attracting more and more online customers. The newspaper allows anyone to read 10 free articles a month but charges after that. Print subscribers get access to the online site for a minimal monthly fee.

As in so many communities, the Tribune has more reporters than the local radio and television stations. It has news that simply cannot be obtained elsewhere, and therefore it has a loyal and connected audience. Waters knows that the Tribune’s online site will play a big role in his company’s future. The idea at present is to keep the newspaper healthy while gradually increasing online revenue. It’s the same strategy Buffett is expected to employ.

A JOURNALISM RENAISSANCE?

If Warren Buffett is right, is it possible we could be on the cusp of a journalism renaissance? Richard Gingras, head of news products at Google, thinks so: “I do feel these are extraordinary times,” he told an audience at the Nieman Foundation. “I know that’s hard for many people to hear given the pain of the disruption to the traditional sources [of news].”

At a conference at Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., Gingras said:

These are extraordinary times. These are exciting times. There has been a tremendous disruption [in the media industry], but let’s consider the huge positives that underlie that disruption. There are no longer the same barriers to publishing: Everyone has a printing press, and there are no gatekeepers. There are new ways for people to both consume and share news. There are powerful new technologies that can change what journalists do and how they do it. In my view, the future of journalism can and will be better than its past….

We need to rethink every facet of the journalism model in light of the dramatic changes in the architecture of the news ecosystem. I’m not suggesting that everything must change, but a comprehensive rethinking is necessary….

As reported on the website of the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University, Gingras then asked eight questions to suggest how journalism might be reshaped:

1. Can we develop new approaches to storytelling akin to a running blog, where a reporter’s efforts could be found in one place under a persistent URL?

2. In a culture dominated by updates, posts and bullet points, are there approaches to … in-depth journalism that extend beyond 5,000- to 10,000-word articles?

3. Because our medium can accommodate all the reporter’s work with no space limitations, is there not value in creating new tools to support a reporter’s day-to-day efforts?

4. Are there new approaches that let news organizations leverage the assistance of the trusted crowd? Might we benefit from systems that allow smaller news organizations to work together?

5. Can investigative journalism aggressively leverage computational journalism to help with stories and eventually become persistent, automated investigative reports?

6. Are there better ways to use search and social media not only to drive audience engagement but also to inform?

7. Now that search leads readers directly to stories rather than to a home page most of the time, should that impact site design? Should we not put more focus on the story page rather than the home page?

8. Recognizing that the pace of change will continue to increase, how do we imbue constant innovation into an organization’s DNA?

Finding answers to those questions could help to reshape the future of journalism.

Lots of organizations are focused these days on finding solutions to the disconnect between journalists and their readers. One of those organizations is the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the Missouri School of Journalism, where researchers seek to find solutions to the industry’s problems.

One of those problems is that editors and their audiences are too often disconnected. Recent statistics from the Newspaper Association of America show that only 34.6 percent of 25- to 34-year-old Americans read newspapers daily. The percentage is 36.1 percent for those 18 to 24.

Perhaps the biggest problem for newspapers is that there’s little hope of reversing this trend. Study after study shows that if the newspaper reading habit is not acquired early in life, it probably never will be. As a result, newspaper readers are increasingly older. Worse, as older readers die, younger readers are not taking their place.

One anecdotal incident vividly illustrates the problem: After being exposed to an electronic newspaper used in a University of Missouri research project, one junior high student was asked what he thought of the new medium.

“Cool,” he responded.

“Cool or way cool?” asked the researcher.

“It can’t be way cool,” responded the student. “It’s a newspaper.”

For those fond of newspapers and the significant role they have played in winning and maintaining democracy in the U.S., that comment hurts deeply. For the editor or publisher trying to ensure a newspaper’s future, it is equally devastating. But it is a view shared by many school-age children. Newspapers, they believe, are boring, written for older people and simply not relevant to their lives.

That same study, however, showed that the online media have a chance to turn that attitude around. After a two-year study of elementary and junior-high school students, researchers concluded that computer-based media could convert young people into news consumers if not into newspaper readers.

“Children would stay in from recess to read the [digital newspaper],” one teacher reported. “I’ve never seen anything like it.” And researchers confirmed that the students weren’t just looking at comics and reading horoscopes. News ranked high on the list of items consumed. Clearly, young people are more willing—and more eager—to consume information from a computer screen than from the printed page.

Perhaps that’s because the younger generation was weaned on television and computers. But television has never managed to attract young viewers, who are entertainment consumers almost exclusively, to its news. Computer-based media may well be the last great hope for reaching this generation, which needs news information if it is to make well-informed decisions in the voting booths of America.

If young people are disconnected from the media, so, too, are many adults. Study after study shows that the public views journalists with disgust. Journalists, as a whole, are ranked among the least popular of professional groups—often below politicians and used-car vendors. Those dismal and declining newspaper readership figures are further confirmation of dissatisfaction with the media.

Television also has problems. The decline of network and local news operations is an often-discussed topic among journalists. The consensus is that budget cutbacks and pandering to ratings has led to a marked decline in the quality of radio and television news. Today’s television news, it is said, revolves around “talking heads” who look good on the screen but have limited journalistic talent and ability. Gone are respected figures like Walter Cronkite, the former CBS news anchor who once ranked as the most trusted person in America.

The fragmentation of audiences also has hurt. The three big networks—ABC, CBS and NBC—once dominated network news, and their affiliates dominated the local broadcast news scene. Today, the networks compete with MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and others, and cable has made local stations’ audience shares increasingly smaller. No longer are the local stations the only thing to watch.

Advertising Prompts Change

Newspaper editors and broadcast news executives have done plenty of self-examination in an effort to arrest some of these alarming trends. In reality, they can do little about most of the problems by changing editorial content. That’s because the big mass-media outlets of the past are giving way to smaller media designed to reach specific segments of the audience. All this is driven by advertising, not news.

Audience fragmentation is fed by advertisers’ desires to reach targeted segments of the reading, listening or viewing audience—teenagers, young adults, even cyclists and exercise addicts. A few products (soap, for example) can and should be mass-marketed items. Everyone needs them. Other products are marketed most efficiently and at the lowest cost by reaching those who are more likely to be interested in buying. Why advertise Maseratis to a mass audience when only the elite have the money to buy them? Target marketing goes after those who can afford to buy or those who need the product.

Radio lures certain audiences with station formats (country and Western, oldies and rock, for example). Magazines increasingly are aimed at targeted audiences with titles like Skiing, Boating and Popular Mechanics, while the number of general-interest magazines (Life, Look and Saturday Evening Post) has dwindled dramatically. Radio stations and magazines efficiently deliver target audiences, and television (with targeted cable channels on subjects as diverse as sports, health and fitness, and cooking) isn’t far behind. Newspapers, on the other hand, are poor vehicles for targeting audiences because they are, by nature, a mass medium aimed at a general, not specialized, audience. It’s difficult enough to print special editions for one part of the city and almost impossible to target specific socioeconomic groups. Why place an ad in a newspaper (with a high cost per thousand consumers reached) when radio (with a much more cost-effective pricing plan) will get the same results?

As if these shifts in the existing media aren’t enough food for thought, just consider the likely impact of advertising in the online media. Computer-based media are able to tell advertisers exactly how many people read (or watch) an ad for how long. Even more significant, they are able to tell those advertisers the demographic profile of the potential customer or customers and—with the consumer’s permission—generate a firm sales lead. Advertisers are willing to pay a lot for that capability.

Media in Turmoil

If all this makes it seem as if media industries are in turmoil, they are. Not only are great shifts taking place in the impact of one medium versus another, but the arrival of new media forms has complicated the situation. All this has led to an increased emphasis on the packaging and marketing of media products.

Newspapers are a great example. In the 1980s, many newspapers launched massive redesign projects to improve their appearance. Many also created marketing committees made up of executives from various departments—circulation, advertising and news among them—who tried to settle on joint approaches to improving and selling the product. In prior years, such cooperation was frowned on for fear the news department would be influenced by market considerations to cover stories that advertisers wanted and ignore those they wanted to hide. Most of these barriers broke down as editors and publishers decided that something had to be done.

Newspaper editors’ eagerness to reconnect with youthful readers, in particular, led to some rather questionable pandering. In New York, the Syracuse Herald-Journal tried youth-page articles that addressed readers as, “Hey you, yeah you,” or, on occasion, “You knuckleheads,” or even, “Yo, buttheads.” Explained the youth-page editor, “We decided we would give [our readers] things they wanted to read, not only things we think they should read.”

Critics charged that newspapers were guilty of doing what they perceived television had done: pandering to the market concept of simply giving people what they want. The media, critics argued, are a public trust and should be above the pressures of marketing. But the reality is that media operations in free societies produce products that must be marketed. There is no government subsidy to keep most of them running, and as competition increases, marketing pressures grow accordingly. The reality is that broadcast programs and newspapers are products that must be marketed and sold if they are to survive.

Good marketing requires a bit of research. Traditionally, newspapers have done that with readership studies, and television has relied on Nielsen Ratings to determine who’s watching and in what numbers. In today’s competitive media marketplace, however, efforts of that sort simply aren’t adequate.

CONNECTING WITH AUDIENCES

Editors at traditional media outlets often fail to understand that an increasing percentage of today’s media consumers want to interact with editors about the events occurring around them. Getting information with no opportunity for feedback is simply not satisfying.

As we noted in Chapter 1, in the media environment of most of the last century, the only way news consumers could participate was to write a letter to the editor or call the local television station news desk to comment or complain. At the end of the 20th century, that began to change as talk radio, blogs and other forms of interactivity allowed consumers to join the dialogue.

Editors who hope to stay in touch with their audiences—and retain those audiences—must realize that the media landscape has changed. Today, many media outlets show signs of trying to adjust. One such effort is being made on the website of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, where editors and reporters engage in regular dialogue with readers in a number of forums. On that site, it’s not unusual for lead sports columnist Bernie Miklasz to defend himself from reader assaults on a position taken in his latest offering.

Miklasz is not alone. Similar interaction takes place on the websites of other newspapers, magazines, and radio and television stations nationwide. That’s a sign that the traditional media are trying harder than ever to gauge reader reaction and to be responsive to criticism.

Still, it would be foolish to suggest that the traditional media fully grasp the import of the changing media landscape. Many websites of the traditional media hold firmly to old models of simply regurgitating information found in the printed or broadcast medium of old. Few have truly been creative when taking advantage of the Internet’s power.

For example, it would be relatively easy for a local television station or newspaper to create a user-friendly interface to the local property tax records or to a voter registration database. These public records would provide fascinating reading for citizens interested in how much a neighbor paid for his or her house or how much the mayor’s house is worth.

Surprisingly, most traditional media websites haven’t figured out that interactivity is the current rage and that such content would likely drive users to their sites in droves. It is, perhaps, a great example of media managers just not “getting it.”

Good editors recognize there are ways to connect with audiences, even in the face of corporate reluctance to move rapidly in that direction. Many newspapers now print the email addresses of reporters. Internet site forums and chat rooms provide a good opportunity to engage in dialogue with readers and viewers. And website records that show page-click data at least let editors know which pages interest readers and which do not.

In the past, there were few ways for editors to listen to their readers and viewers. Today, there are many more. Good editors listen.

EVALUATING THE MEDIA MIX

In an age widely heralded as the Information Age, no one suggests that the desire for information will wane. Instead, the main question is how that information will be consumed. One can make a persuasive argument that no medium is doing a good job of satisfying the public’s thirst for information. Perhaps that’s because no one medium has all the technological advantages.

Radio has immediacy of delivery on its side, but so does television, which adds the appeal of color and moving pictures. Conversely, newspapers are far better-suited than either of the broadcast media to carry large amounts of information and to provide the space necessary for analysis. Newspapers also have the advantage of portability and selective consumption—you choose what you want to read when you want to read it. With radio and television, you take what you are given when it is being offered unless you record a program and replay it later. The Internet allows editors to overcome all those limitations and adopt all those good traits, which is why many consider it the medium of the future.

These realities may help explain why the arrival of television did not spell doom for newspapers, as many predicted in the 1950s. They also may explain the overall confusion in the information marketplace. As the technology continues to evolve, editors are bringing new delivery mechanisms to consumers.

More than 5,000 newspapers, magazines and television stations now have sites on the Internet, and companies are scrambling to figure out how to make a Web profit. A sure sign that the Internet plays a major role in the media mix is the rush of media companies hiring students well-versed in website creation.

Newspapers, television and the Internet are evolving into a new infomedium that combines the best attributes of them all. Wise young journalists of today should therefore view themselves not as print journalists, online journalists or broadcasters but as information providers equipped to provide news and other messages in whatever form the audience desires. After all, what is more important: the message or the way it is delivered?

UNDERSTANDING U.S. AUDIENCES

Research tells editors much about how their audiences consume news. Here are some highlights from recent research studies of newspaper, radio, television and online audiences:

• News consumers expect news, whether it’s national, state, regional or local. What editors call hard news, or late-breaking developments, is most important.

• Consumers want information about health, science, technology, diet, nutrition and similar subjects but will figure out for themselves how to cope with these problems. Reporters don’t need to tell them.

• Overall, consumers like the newspapers and newscasts they choose to read or watch. Most think they are indispensable, although younger readers aren’t so sure.

• Most consumers agree that newspapers are here to stay, regardless of the potential that television and computer screens may have for disseminating information.

• Consumers sometimes feel manipulated by editors and question whether they are fair and unbiased in covering and allocating space to various constituencies.

• Consumers want a complete, balanced paper or newscast with solid reporting of national and international news but equal quality in coverage of local news.

• Consumers want a balance between bad news and other important news they need to know. Don’t sensationalize or attempt to manipulate public opinion.

• Newspapers should provide the important details readers don’t get from television news, but remember—readers are short of time.

• Reporters should do a better job of covering the new subjects of major interest—business news, health, consumerism, science, technology, schools and education, family, children and religion.

• Reporters and editors need to understand that women’s interests have expanded to the sports and business pages that used to be read almost exclusively by men. Food, fashion and similar topics are as interesting to men as to women.

• Consumers want to feel connected to the news by being able to discuss it with reporters, editors and each other.

• Consumers would like to know more about editors and reporters.

• Reporters and editors should include consumers in on the fight to preserve the First Amendment. Readers are ready to support their right to know.

• Consumers today are a far more serious, concerned, interested and demanding audience than those served in the past.

Credibility and the Media

The most important factor in the relationship between media and consumers is credibility. Concerned about study after study that showed declining levels of credibility, the American Society of Newspaper Editors decided to study the phenomenon in depth as the first step toward improvement.

The landmark study, based on telephone interviews with 3,000 Americans, was conducted by Urban & Associates of Sharon, Mass., under the direction of the company’s president, Christine Urban. Sixteen focus groups followed.

“Throughout the survey, the public expresses constant and consistent appeals for fairness and even-handedness in news coverage,” Urban said. “They see the editorial page as the only home for opinion or suggestion. The public believes that the reporter’s job is to report the facts—completely, insightfully and without spin, and clean of any intent to sway or convince.”

Major findings of the study are:

• The public sees too many factual errors and spelling or grammar mistakes in newspapers.

• The public perceives that newspapers don’t consistently demonstrate respect for, and knowledge of, their readers and their communities.

• The public suspects that the points of view and biases of journalists influence what stories are covered and how they are covered.

• The public believes that newspapers and television chase and excessively cover sensational stories because they’re exciting and sell papers or drive ratings. The public doesn’t believe these stories deserve the attention and play they get.

• The public believes its priorities and those of newspapers and television stations are sometimes in conflict.

• Members of the public who have had actual experience with the news process are the most critical of media credibility.

At the forefront of the criticism is inaccuracy and the increasing number of spelling and grammar mistakes. More than a third of readers said they see mistakes more than once a week, and 21 percent reported seeing them almost daily. “It seems like the paper’s gotten sloppier in the last 10 years,” said one focus group respondent. It probably has. Declining revenues have led many newspaper companies to cut staffing—particularly on copy desks, where such mistakes are supposed to be detected and corrected.

More than 80 percent of Americans believe that sensational stories get lots of news coverage simply because they are exciting, not because they are important. Further, 78 percent believe the media are biased. The same percentage believes powerful figures in society are able to influence a newspaper to “spike or spin” a story.

When asked which medium was the worst offender in the realm of bias, 42 percent said television and 23 percent said newspapers. Television is overwhelmingly seen as the dominant source of national and world news, while a majority (54 percent) of readers sees newspapers as the primary source of local news.

Skepticism about the veracity of the media is not new. Unfortunately, the media reinforce doubts about their credibility when they refuse to admit errors, when the names of people and places are misspelled, when grammatical mistakes abound and when hoaxes of one type or another are uncovered.

Scandals involving prominent media personalities are all too frequent, and many of them involve fabrication of information, sloppy reporting and disregard for the publics they serve. Reporter Stephen Glass was fired from the New Republic for fabricating articles, quotations and sources. Anchor Dan Rather left CBS with a cloud over his head after reporting that former President George W. Bush used family influence, while a young man, to avoid being sent to Vietnam. Much of Rather’s report was based on records that proved to be fabricated. Several newspaper columnists have been fired or disciplined in recent years for ethical lapses in their reporting.

The New York Times, arguably the most respected newspaper in the world, was engulfed in turmoil in 2003 when one of its reporters, Jayson Blair, was fired after editors determined he had regularly fabricated information for his stories. Another highly regarded publication, The Washington Post, also was involved in one of the most celebrated scandals in U.S. journalism history. In 1981, Janet Cooke, a reporter for the Post, won a Pulitzer Prize for a story about a child named Jimmy who became a heroin addict. Subsequently, it was learned that Jimmy didn’t exist and that Cooke had invented the fictional youngster as a composite of situations involving children she had learned about while doing research for her story. The resulting publicity in both cases damaged the credibility of the media nationwide.

The Washington Post also was involved in one of the most noted scandals in the political history of the U.S.—the Watergate affair, which eventually led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Through a series of stories featuring anonymous sources, the Post and reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward unraveled the involvement of Nixon and his aides in the burglary of the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate complex in Washington. The service the newspaper performed in that investigation probably is unparalleled in U.S. newspaper history, but along the way, the many stories with anonymous sources raised serious questions about the credibility of the media. Editors today are reluctant to use anonymous sources without compelling reasons to do so.

Editors concerned about their credibility have tried to find ways to convince the public that newspapers are in fact reliable. These range from simple steps, such as the attempt to reduce annoying typographical errors, to elaborate schemes designed to check the accuracy of reporters’ work.

To enhance the image of newspapers, today’s editors readily admit errors. Some papers run a daily notice, prominently displayed, inviting and encouraging readers to call attention to errors in the paper. A well-known editor regularly conducts an accuracy check of his newspaper’s locally written news stories. A clipping of the story is mailed to the source along with a brief query on the accuracy of facts in the story and headline. Another editor invites people involved in controversy to present amplifying statements when they believe their positions have not been fully or fairly represented. Television stations tend to be far less candid in admitting mistakes.

More balance in opinion is evident in the use of syndicated columnists whose opinions differ from those of the newspaper and in expanded letters-to-the-editor columns. Some newspapers are using ombudsmen to hear readers’ complaints. More are providing reader-service columns to identify newspapers with readers’ personal concerns. More attention is also being given to internal criticism in employee publications or at staff conferences.

Broadcast stations are making similar efforts to increase their credibility. Many stations now have email addresses for their news directors. Listeners and viewers are encouraged to write with questions or complaints. Still, some studies show that the public considers television news more credible than print news. The reason? It’s easier to believe what you can see and hear.

Changing Needs of Changing Consumers

If the media industries are changing, so are the lives of media consumers. The U.S. Census and other data reveal much about changing lifestyles:

• Both spouses are working in more families, and there are more single-parent households.

• The number of people choosing to remain single also is increasing, contributing to a rapid increase in households. (That, by the way, makes declining newspaper circulation numbers even worse. Market penetration, a key measure of media effectiveness, is measured by dividing the number of households in a given market area by circulation.)

• Leisure time is shrinking, and media use is a leisure-time activity.

• More players—direct mail, special-interest magazines and an increasing number of television channels—are competing for that decreasing amount of time.

All this puts pressure on editors to know and understand their audiences. They do so by reading everything they can find about their communities. They also keep an open ear to topics of discussion at the local health club, at parties and anywhere else people gather. An editor who knows what people are talking about has a good idea which stories would interest them.

Some editors have tried other means of taking the pulse of the community, including formal readership studies, open forums or focus groups (representative samples of media consumers assembled into small discussion groups). Such sessions often are recorded for the benefit of editors. Whatever the technique employed, there is no substitute for learning the community, even if that is an inexact science. The editor who is part of the community—who participates actively in it—is in the best position to be connected to the audience.