Internet Overtakes Newspapers As News Source

http://people-press.org/report/479/internet-overtakes-newspapers-as-news-source

According to The Pew Research Center for the People & Press:



The internet, which emerged this year as a leading source for campaign news, has now surpassed all other media except television as a main source for national and international news.

Currently, 40% say they get most of their news about national and international issues from the internet, up from just 24% in September 2007. For the first time in a Pew survey, more people say they rely mostly on the internet for news than cite newspapers (35%). Television continues to be cited most frequently as a main source for national and international news, at 70%.

For young people, however, the internet now rivals television as a main source of national and international news. Nearly six-in-ten Americans younger than 30 (59%) say they get most of their national and international news online; an identical percentage cites television. In September 2007, twice as many young people said they relied mostly on television for news than mentioned the internet (68% vs. 34%).

FigureThe percentage of people younger than 30 citing television as a main news source has declined from 68% in September 2007 to 59% currently. This mirrors a trend seen earlier this year in campaign news consumption. (See "Internet Now Major Source of Campaign News," News Interest Index, Oct. 31, 2008.)

The survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Dec. 3-7 among 1,489 adults, finds there has been little change in the individual TV news outlets that people rely on for national and international news. Nearly a quarter of the public (23%) says they get most of their news from CNN, while 17% cite Fox News; smaller shares mention other cable and broadcast outlets.

 

Not too surprising.

But who are these sources that people are turning to. They are, for the most part, the same media companies: broadcast and print companies that have decided to put their news online. It's the same story, just a different platform.

Maybe, in the long run, this will help. News organizations can devote resources to gathering and producing the news, as opposed to buying newsprint, buying new presses, spending money on delivery, etc.

For a journalist, how much difference is there? I go to an event, write my story and put it on the web. As opposed to going to an event, writing my story, having it cut in half because there isn't enough room on the page that day and then waiting 12 hours to get the morning paper to read my story.

The more I think about it, the better a deal the internet looks.

 

For a journalist the difference is that the Internet rarely pays a living wage.

But as a platform for publishing, it is far superior.

 

The difference is there are reasons you have to have your story cut in half. It's because of all the bad decisions made by newspapers to kill the news hole. A better deal the internet looks? Good luck finding a job with benefits in 5 years. Internet newspaper staffs will be slashed 2/3s of what they are now. Can't sell ads. Most beats will be eliminated because stories that don't get hits won't be covered.

 

Most newspaper stories are better when they are professionally edited and placed in a specific space, rather than allowed to run unfettered. Whether people will pay to have that done for them in the near future is becoming increasingly doubtful.

 

Welcome to the board, Yoda!

 

Fredrick encounters one of his shop's higher-ups after a 10 a.m. meeting

 

How come no 10 a.m. meeting people tell us what positive come out of such meetings? Cause they know the answer is NOTHING. Why won't anybody back me up on my hatred of asskissing at 10 a.m. meetings?

 

I wouldn't go so far as to brand all meeting attendees as overt butt-smoochers. But I would say there has been a steady decrease of contrarians and devil's advocates at news meetings over, say, the past 20 years. This has not been good for the product or for newsroom morale.

 

I'm the only one who feels that way? Frank already has spoken on my side of the issue.
My goal is to have some of the 10 a.m. meeting people wince when they hear the Gannett gobblygook and realize at least one person out there knows they are full of shit and ruining our business.
For too long, these people have come out of the meetings like the little Caesar's they think they are. Butt kissing is not good.

 

OK, so what's your prediction? Is the internet going to die as well?

There are basic principles of supply and demand at work here,as they have been for decades. Businesses have to advertise SOMEWHERE. Where is that going to be?

People are going to get their news from SOMEWHERE. Where is that going to be?

The platforms may change, but the basics remain. We just have to be able to adjust to whatever evolves.

I, for one, am not ready to say the newspaper business is dead. Look, ALL businesses right now are experiencing downturns. Is real estate dead? Is travel dead? Is automotive dead? Is banking dead? These business, and others, have been hit harder than media businesses. In time, I expect all will bounce back.

How the heck did we all survive when there were only three TV stations in most markets? How did we all survive before the internet came along? There is more media out there now than anytime in human history. If you look at actual number of jobs out there, there are far, far more today than there were 25 years ago.

 

Fredrick, your message isn't all wrong.

It just gets overshadowed by the fact that you're such a stark raving fucking lunatic.