We’ve been reading about the death of newspapers for years, and the declining circulation numbers recently released have prompted a whole new round of pre-mortem elegies for ink and dead tree dailies. But there’s something odd about the whole “death of print” thing. For one thing—if the papers are really in so much trouble—why is private equity so hot after them?
The answer is probably that private equity understands that a lot of thinking at newspapers is hopelessly outdated. The New York Times has done a great job with their website but most of the real innovation was done by outside consultants. The consultants made the site work better. It was the Times folks who thought "Times Select" was a good idea.
The fact is that people who have built there lives and livelihoods thinking in terms of "ink by the barrel and paper by the ton," newstand sales and subscriber numbers might not be very good about thinking in terms of digital content delivery. We've met more than one newspaper editor who, quite frankly, just didn't get the web. In their hearts, a lot of these people think people are reading less newspapers because, well, they've become too dumb or lazy to read long, well-reported pieces. But there are plenty of people who do get the web, and we wouldn't be surprised if a few of these old-school newspaper companies get snapped up by private equity and end up blazing a path into better digital delivery.
Newspaper Circulation Falls Sharply [New York Times]
Posted by Newport Beach , Oct 31, 2006 5:19PM
Good analysis. Another reason for declining newspaper readership may be the outdated political mindset of MSM folks. Also, traditional English-language media may be affected by the growth of non-English-speaking populations.
Posted by Daniel Morris , Nov 09, 2006 10:43PM
A great article indeed! My family owned a newspaper, and my father sold it five years ago. The newspaper was thriving with balanced reporting and balanced editorials.
The internet hasn't really hurt papers as much as you may think. One thing that you may want to research further is how the content and quality of the papers has lead to their decline more than anything. The internet is an easy excuse. Remember how people said television would kill radio? The internet isn't killing newspapers. They are killing themselves.
Many of the failing papers throughout America take very clear political sides. Many take liberal stances, and some take very conservative stances. The American public doesn't like this approach. Take the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review for instance. It has lost over 30% of its circulation in two years! Its headlines after that election in Pennsylvania stunk of sour grapes because the conservatives it so dearly loves were defeated. It's rival, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette leans heavily liberal, and it is losing circulation about as fast.
This problem isn't isolated to print. Fox is eating CNN for lunch. CNN is a mouthpiece for liberals, and Americans don't like their media or politics to go to far one way or the other. Americans wanted balance in government. Hence the outcome of the recent election.
Like casting votes, people are "voting" not to read many newspapers. I have been around many newspaper executives, and they are too egotistical to ever admit that they are the problem.