wQuestion 1: Many metropolitan daily newspapers have lost circulation and some have shut down. Why? Any examples? Community newspapers however, especially suburban weeklies, are booming. Why? Any examples?
It is true that many of the major newspapers have been forced to shut down. Just this week, in fact, the Chicago Sun-Times fired two of its editorial board members--and this was after the massive layoffs they already had earlier this year. The Sun-Times said they laid off the editors because of the "advertising collapse in newspapers."
The New York Times published a fairly comprehensive article a few months ago, explaining the downfall of newspapers. In short, the Times stated that newspapers were failing because of the decline of circulation (thanks to the internet and "instant news"), because advertisers have taken their ads somewhere else (i.e. television, the internet, or even some magazines), and because consumers are becoming less and less interested in purchasing newspaper classified space, thanks to websites like Craig'sList.
Thanks to the innovation of "instant news"--which is the idea that, through texting and email, consumers can be alerted near-instantaneously of breaking news and other stories--the newspaper has lost circulation.
On the other hand, however, community newspapers have had a fairly steadily increasing profit. This, I think, can be related back to the idea of why magazines aren't being hit as hard as newspapers. Community journals and newspapers tend to sell a much more specific type of news to its consumers--things like community events, local heroes, and city council meetings. Unlike the major, metropolitan newspapers, community papers focus specifically on one group of people. If the people want major news, they can just look on the internet. For local stuff, however, they are driven to community journalism. Besides all of that, community journalism tends to be less overwhelmingly depressing than national or international news. People are more likely to want to read about how firefighters saved a woman and her son from a fire than the failing economy and the depressing war in Iraq.
Not only are people attracted to community news, but local advertisers are as well. Why sell ads to a metro daily, when they can reach a much more specific audience through community papers? Advertisers and local business can be assured that their ads are reaching people in close proximity to their business. It just makes more sense to support the local paper. And since it does make sense, local papers are even better off, because they are getting advertising money.
Question 2: Read a newspaper, and determine how much of it is soft news, and how much is hard news. Which is better? Should the rates of the different kinds of news be different?
I read my hometown newspaper, The Bakersfield Californian. While Bakersfield is a city of over a half million people, their journalism is known to be fairly substandard, perhaps because of the conservative and (some claim) judgmental nature of many of its inhabitants.
Because I already knew that The Bakersfield Californian was more interested in community journalism than it was in national news and the state of the rest of the world, I wasn't surprised that the paper was overwhelmingly absorbed with soft news.
Things like the election for the school board election, the best salon to get one's hair straightened, and the local hockey team dominated the front page of the paper. Along the side of the front page was a few column inches of national news like Colin Powell's endorsement, or the struggling DOW. The actual stories were featured further inside the paper, and were generally overshadowed by articles about women's health or editorial columns about traffic in downtown Bakersfield.
Now, the fact that this paper is primarily concerned with soft news is not necessarily a bad thing. It just depends on what aspect of a paper one chooses to focus on: the business side of things, or the journalist aspects.
If the business of running a paper is what is most important, than it has already been stated that community journalism and soft news is more important. If a paper wants to make money, and wants to "give the people what they want," then soft news is the way to go.
If, however, a paper is concerned with being true to the profession of real journalism, then The Bakersfield Californian should be concerned with the lack of real hard news in their sections. There were a few articles that talked about national news in a serious tone, and some of the local news was hard-hitting and somber. For the most part, however, soft news dominated the paper.
In general, I dislike this type of journalism. I hope to be a journalist someday, and I take the profession very seriously. Obviously, not all news can or even should be hard news--if people were just told straight, cold facts all the time, they would lose both interest and hope. However, I hope that when I am a journalist, I will be able to dedicate myself to writing what some consider the "important" news, just because that is what interests me the most.
It is true that many of the major newspapers have been forced to shut down. Just this week, in fact, the Chicago Sun-Times fired two of its editorial board members--and this was after the massive layoffs they already had earlier this year. The Sun-Times said they laid off the editors because of the "advertising collapse in newspapers."
The New York Times published a fairly comprehensive article a few months ago, explaining the downfall of newspapers. In short, the Times stated that newspapers were failing because of the decline of circulation (thanks to the internet and "instant news"), because advertisers have taken their ads somewhere else (i.e. television, the internet, or even some magazines), and because consumers are becoming less and less interested in purchasing newspaper classified space, thanks to websites like Craig'sList.
Thanks to the innovation of "instant news"--which is the idea that, through texting and email, consumers can be alerted near-instantaneously of breaking news and other stories--the newspaper has lost circulation.
On the other hand, however, community newspapers have had a fairly steadily increasing profit. This, I think, can be related back to the idea of why magazines aren't being hit as hard as newspapers. Community journals and newspapers tend to sell a much more specific type of news to its consumers--things like community events, local heroes, and city council meetings. Unlike the major, metropolitan newspapers, community papers focus specifically on one group of people. If the people want major news, they can just look on the internet. For local stuff, however, they are driven to community journalism. Besides all of that, community journalism tends to be less overwhelmingly depressing than national or international news. People are more likely to want to read about how firefighters saved a woman and her son from a fire than the failing economy and the depressing war in Iraq.
Not only are people attracted to community news, but local advertisers are as well. Why sell ads to a metro daily, when they can reach a much more specific audience through community papers? Advertisers and local business can be assured that their ads are reaching people in close proximity to their business. It just makes more sense to support the local paper. And since it does make sense, local papers are even better off, because they are getting advertising money.
Question 2: Read a newspaper, and determine how much of it is soft news, and how much is hard news. Which is better? Should the rates of the different kinds of news be different?
I read my hometown newspaper, The Bakersfield Californian. While Bakersfield is a city of over a half million people, their journalism is known to be fairly substandard, perhaps because of the conservative and (some claim) judgmental nature of many of its inhabitants.
Because I already knew that The Bakersfield Californian was more interested in community journalism than it was in national news and the state of the rest of the world, I wasn't surprised that the paper was overwhelmingly absorbed with soft news.
Things like the election for the school board election, the best salon to get one's hair straightened, and the local hockey team dominated the front page of the paper. Along the side of the front page was a few column inches of national news like Colin Powell's endorsement, or the struggling DOW. The actual stories were featured further inside the paper, and were generally overshadowed by articles about women's health or editorial columns about traffic in downtown Bakersfield.
Now, the fact that this paper is primarily concerned with soft news is not necessarily a bad thing. It just depends on what aspect of a paper one chooses to focus on: the business side of things, or the journalist aspects.
If the business of running a paper is what is most important, than it has already been stated that community journalism and soft news is more important. If a paper wants to make money, and wants to "give the people what they want," then soft news is the way to go.
If, however, a paper is concerned with being true to the profession of real journalism, then The Bakersfield Californian should be concerned with the lack of real hard news in their sections. There were a few articles that talked about national news in a serious tone, and some of the local news was hard-hitting and somber. For the most part, however, soft news dominated the paper.
In general, I dislike this type of journalism. I hope to be a journalist someday, and I take the profession very seriously. Obviously, not all news can or even should be hard news--if people were just told straight, cold facts all the time, they would lose both interest and hope. However, I hope that when I am a journalist, I will be able to dedicate myself to writing what some consider the "important" news, just because that is what interests me the most.
No comments:
Post a Comment