Not dead yet: signs of life still in newspapers
Traditional media is less inflammatory and more accurate
If you’re reading this by design and not by accident (I don’t know what accidental newspaper reading would look like, but it might be possible), then you’re probably a newspaper reader and, as such, you’re probably aware that newspapers have hit a rough patch.
And by rough patch, I mean deep, soul-searching crisis. People are getting their news for free online. Advertisers are following (as advertisers must), finding themselves bewitched by all the data they can get about online customers. “Alternative facts” and “fake news” are actual things now! How can newspapers survive? Well, many can’t: regional dailies have closed down across the Western world, budgets have been slashed to the bone, and increasingly, journalists are being pressured to investigate, research and write as they always have, but also to put in time maintaining some kind of online presence via Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and audio visual frippery.
Moreover: how can journalists possibly compete with comedians-cum-political commentators like John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, Samantha Bee and Trevor Noah? What we learned from Jon Stewart’s sardonic, Peabody Awardwinning TV news show is that there is perhaps no better way to deal with “Bullshit Mountain” than satire. When things get so beyond the pale in news and politics — so hyperbolic, so idiotic, so dishonest, so greedy, so discriminatory, so insert-social-ill-here! — the only appropriate response is enraged ridicule, or possibly some exasperated mockery. If journalists respond journalistically — attentive, pen poised over a notebook, as was done before life online inspired and enabled the clowns to run the circus — it’s as if they’re validating the buffoonery of corrupt politicians and media performers (see: Fox News), as if these were standard and worthy of serious attention. Even better: satirical TV news shows lend themselves well to online video. It’s rather more difficult to get YouTube views for your news article or column.
And yet: reports on the death of traditional journalism might be slightly exaggerated. If there’s a silver lining in Donald Trump’s election, it’s that a good many people have woken up to the reality that if we don’t have legitimate, traditional reporting, we’re at risk of losing tolerance, understanding, and democracy. The New York Times now has more subscriptions than ever before: over 3 million. In January of this year, The New Yorker’s subscriptions were up 300% over those of January 2016, and it currently has its largest circulation ever. Subscriptions to The Atlantic — a long-standing, fairly intellectual American magazine — are up 200% from last year. The Washington Post has seen a 75% increase, with a record-breaking number of new subscription starts. The Financial Times’ subscriptions went up 33% at the end of last year, and then 75% after the Brexit vote. While it’s certainly true that most newspapers in the Western world have suffered declining revenues, even a regional publication in the US can thrive: the Boston Globe’s subscriptions are up 47% since last year.
And while John Oliver is one of the comedians who offers up accurate reporting for pretty-much-free on his show Last Week Tonight, he’s actively promoted traditional journalism, arguing that “the media is a food chain which would fall apart without local newspapers.” His August editorial on the crisis in traditional journalism has gotten 8.5 million views on YouTube, so clearly, his message is resonating.
Even though Trump is treated like a global affliction (no argument here), his election hasn’t improved newspapers’ fortunes outside of the States. In Canada, the numbers continue to go down. In Britain, newspaper circulation has almost been cut in half since 2006. Of course, we’re less reliant on newspapers than the U.S. because we have publicly-funded radio and TV journalism. Funding for the BBC is about $114 per capita, and for the CBC, about $34. In the U.S., funding for PBS and NPR is about $1.50 per capita; for-profit media outfits have rushed in to fill the void, and TV and radio “news” have found that the most provocative, alarming stories and perspectives are the ones that get better ratings and revenues. Traditional newspaper journalism, by its nature, is less inflammatory and more accurate; it relies on research and the written word, rather than media personalities and their concomitant directors; video editors; makeup, hair and wardrobe teams; musical themes; promotion budgets; etc. All these “extras” are there to incite emotional reaction, rather than reasoned critical thinking, and the USA’s reliance on these forms of journalism is easily revealed in the kind of illogical, raw emotional responses that put Trump in the White House.
I’d never suggest we get rid of publicly funded news, since it’s less vulnerable to the revenue demands of capitalist media corporations, but to think that it’s a convenient, inexpensive and more easily digested replacement for newspaper journalism would be a big mistake.