NDM: The decline of the newspaper industry

The future of newspapers

The argument is that of all the “old” media, newspapers have the most to lose from the internet. Classified ads, in particular, are quickly shifting online. Newspapers have not yet started to shut down in large numbers, but it is only a matter of time. Jobs are already disappearing. According to the Newspaper Association of America, the number of people employed in the industry fell by 18% between 1990 and 2004.  Many are also trying to attract younger readers by shifting the mix of their stories towards entertainment, lifestyle and subjects that may seem more relevant to people's daily lives than international affairs and politics are.  

 Do you agree with its view that it is ‘a cause for concern, but not for panic’?

I agree, It is a cause for concern as people are losing their jobs and if newspapers shut down that means that no one will be able to pay journalists to go out and get news. It is not a cause for panic as news will still be available online however the main concern will be the quality of the news. 

The article is 10 years old - an eternity in digital media terms. Have the writer's predictions come to pass? 

The writer's predictions are coming true as Television is by far the most-used platform for news, with 67% of UK adults saying they use TV as a source of news. Furthermore, newspapers are only used by three in ten, which represents a decrease of nine percentage points since 2014 and 2013. Of the four main platforms, only 2% of respondents use newspapers in order to access news.  According to NRS figures, the reach of national newspapers has declined considerably in the past ten years, with reach among adults falling by 27 percentage points since 2005 (from 72.4% of all adults in 2005 to 45.4% in 2015). 67.9% of print newspaper readers are over-65's.

How is the Guardian funded? What do major stories from the last year such as the Panama Papers suggest about how investigative journalism is conducted in the digital age?

The Guardian is funded by the Scott Trust Limited and they also have a charitable wing, the Scott Trust Foundation. The Panama Papers conduct investigative journalism by using the digital age to their advantage through social media.

Build The Wall analysis

  
 Summarise each section in one sentence:

• Section 1 (To all of the bystanders reading this…)

The introduction of a new revenue stream through paid subscriptions intimidates an audience which is so naturally resolved to online free content.

• Section 2 (Truth is, a halting movement toward...)

High-end journalism remains unnecessary as audiences prefer the news in its plain form. The attention provided to news is sufficed by online discussions and interaction on social media, rather than critical news reporting served by journalists - which is also paid for. 

• Section 3 (Beyond Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Weymouth…)

Online subscription provides the incentive of delivering news to the consumer's 'doorstep', which builds from the initially suggested method of encouraging consumers to purchase the newspaper after finding it online - a failed strategy.

• Section 4 (For the industry, it is later than it should be…)

The requirement of a niche is intact with the decision for a newspaper to go behind an online paywall - as demonstrated by The Times.

Summarise David Simon’s overall argument in 250 words.

This essay discusses the decay of print journalism as a previously unfathomable event to the uprising phenomenon of the internet and new/digital media. David Simon recognises the faults in a system of online subscriptions because of the transgression of journalism into social media, blogs and online forums. Due to this abundance in sources where news is essentially reported, the digitised versions of the newspapers become peripheral as it is - the implication of a paywall only hinders its exposure and coverage even more in a wide market of free online content. The essay continues to discuss the repercussions of falling revenue on the newspaper institutions and how it leads to an ultimate death of the company due to: lower cash-flow, reduced overall output content and reduced quality of content. This links in with the fact that the curation of content which is the sole niche high-end journalism essentially has to offer, is no longer available for these companies to exploit in their business model. As a consequence, the paywall becomes an impractical marketing choice and leaves the newspaper with even more negligence than it already receives.

Finally, what is your own opinion? Do you agree that newspapers need to put online content behind a paywall in order for the journalism industry to survive? Would you be willing to pay for news online? 

I believe it is impractical for newspapers to lock their content behind an online paywall due to the main reasons discussed in the embedded articles of this blogpost. The reason why companies such as BuzzFeed have grown is because they have something different to offer in the market. This is discovered in the content itself because BuzzFeed is renowned for its close integration with online interactivity which essentially provides the life of the website (users post content, users react to content by sharing, discussing etc). For newspapers to generate revenue they'd have to exploit new and digital media instead of simply reinstating significance to high-end journalistic content - which is tangential in today's second-by-second world where everything changes in a couple clicks.