The State of The World Media, As Outlined by The Project for Excellence in Journalism, Posted by Robert Paisola

The Mainstream Media is OUT- The Consumer Media Machine is in FULL STEAM AHEAD!

Overview

By the Project for Excellence in Journalism

Intro

The pace of change has accelerated.

In the last year, the trends reshaping journalism didn’t just quicken, they seemed to be nearing a pivot point.

On Madison Avenue, talk has turned to whether the business model that has financed the news for more than a century — product advertising — still fits the way people consume media.

With audiences splintering across ever more platforms, nearly every metric for measuring audience is now under challenge as either flawed or obsolete — from circulation in print, to ratings in TV, to page views and unique visitors online.

Every media sector except for two is now losing popularity. Even the number of people who go online for news — or anything else — has stopped growing. Only the ethnic press is up.

The definitions of enemy and ally in the news business are changing. Newspapers have begun to partner, for instance, with classified-job-listing Web sites they once denounced, brought together by mutual fear of free sites such as Craigslist.

With fundamentals shifting, we sense the news business entering a new phase heading into 2007—a phase of more limited ambition. Rather than try to manage decline, many news organizations have taken the next step of starting to redefine their appeal and their purpose based on diminished capacity. Increasingly outlets are looking for “brand” or “franchise” areas of coverage to build audience around.

For some, the new brand is what Wall Street calls “hyper localism” (consider the end of foreign bureaus at the Boston Globe or the narrowing of the coverage area at the Atlanta Journal Constitution). For others, it is personality and opinion (note the rising ratings of Lou Dobbs or Keith Olbermann). For still others it is personal involvement (the brand of Anderson Cooper, and, more tentatively and occasionally, even broadcast network anchors). For an emerging cohort of Web sites it is the involvement of everyday people (some alternative news sites now come closer than ever to the promise of authentic citizen media).

In a sense all news organizations are becoming more niche players, basing their appeal less on how they cover the news and more on what they cover.

The consequences of this narrowing of focus involve more risk than we sense the business has considered. Concepts like hyper localism, pursued in the most literal sense, can be marketing speak for simply doing less. Branding can also be a mask for bias. Handled badly, the new strategy might also render a big city metro paper irrelevant. The recent history of the news industry is marked by caution and continuity more than innovation. The character of the next era, far from inevitable, will likely depend heavily on the quality of leadership in the newsroom and boardroom. If history is a guide, (be it Adolph Ochs, Ted Turner, or Google) it will require renegades and risk-takers to break from the conventional path and create new directions.

“I really don’t know whether we’ll be printing The Times in five years, and you know what? I don’t care,” the paper’s publisher and chairman of the New York Times Company, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., told an interviewer earlier this year. The head of country’s most esteemed news company meant to sound an optimistic tone about journalism’s future, but the statement, like the industry, seemed to teeter between boldness and uncertainty.

This is the fourth edition of our annual report on the state of the news media — the status and health of journalism in America. The broad context outlined in earlier editions remains the same: the transformation facing journalism is epochal, as momentous as the invention of television or the telegraph, perhaps on the order of the printing press itself. (See Previous Reports).

The effect is more than just audiences migrating to new delivery systems. Technology is redefining the role of the citizen — endowing the individual with more responsibility and command over how he or she consumes information — and that new role is only beginning to be understood.

Our sense remains, too, that traditional journalism is not, as some suggest, becoming irrelevant. There is more evidence now that new technology companies have had either limited success in news gathering (Yahoo, AOL), or have avoided it altogether (Google). Whoever owns them, old newsrooms now seem more likely than a few years ago to be the foundations for the newsrooms of the future.

But practicing journalism has become far more difficult and demands new vision. Journalism is becoming a smaller part of people’s information mix. The press is no longer gatekeeper over what the public knows.

Journalists have reacted relatively slowly. They are only now beginning to re-imagine their role. Their companies failed to see “search” as a kind of journalism. Their industry has spent comparatively little on R&D. They have been tentative about pressing for new economic models, and that has left them fearful and defensive. Some of the most interesting experiments in new journalism continue to come from outside the profession — sites such as Global Voices, which mixes approved volunteer “reporters” from around the world with professional editors.

There are signs, meanwhile, that those the press is charged with monitoring, including the government, corporations and activists, have reacted more quickly. Politicians, interest groups and corporate public relations people tell PEJ they have bloggers now on secret retainer — and they are delighted with the results.

These are a few of the conclusions we arrive at about The State of the News Media 2007. Each year, we try to identify new key trends facing the media. In the past, among others, we have noted that journalism’s challenge is not from technology or lack of interest in news but from diminished economic potential; that power is moving to those who make news away from those who cover it; that there are now several competing models of journalism, with cheaper, less accurate ones gaining momentum; that while there are more outlets delivering news, that has generally not meant covering a broader range of stories.

Major Trends

In 2007, we see seven new major trends worth highlighting:

News organizations need to do more to think through the implications of this new era of shrinking ambitions. The move toward building audience around “franchise” areas of coverage or other traits is a logical response to fragmentation and can, managed creatively, have journalistic value. To a degree, journalism’s problems are oversupply, too many news organizations doing the same thing. But something gained means something lost, especially as newsrooms get smaller. There is already evidence that basic monitoring of local government has suffered. Regional concerns, as opposed to local, are likely to get less coverage. Matters with widespread impact but little audience appeal, always a challenge, seem more at risk of being unmonitored. What do concepts like localism and branding really mean? Should only national newspapers maintain foreign bureaus? Does localism mean provincialism? Should news organizations, so as not to abandon more high-level coverage, enlist citizen sentinels to monitor community news? To what extent do journalists still have a role in creating a broad agenda of common knowledge? Those issues, debated in theory before, are becoming real. And the wrong answers could hasten, not stave off, the decline of news organizations.

The evidence is mounting that the news industry must become more aggressive about developing a new economic model. The signs are clearer that advertising works differently online than in older media. Finding out about goods and services on the Web is an activity unto itself, like using the yellow pages, and less a byproduct of getting news, such as seeing a car ad during a newscast. The consequence is that advertisers may not need journalism as they once did, particularly online. Already the predictions of advertising growth on the Web are being scaled back. That has major implications, (which some initiatives such as “Newspaper Next” are beginning to grapple with). Among them, news organizations can broaden what they consider journalistic function to include activities such as online search and citizen media, and perhaps even liken their journalism to anchor stores at a mall, a major reason for coming but not the only one. Perhaps most important, the math suggests they almost certainly must find a way to get consumers to pay for digital content. The increasingly logical scenario is not to charge the consumer directly. Instead, news providers would charge Internet providers and aggregators licensing fees for content. News organizations may have to create consortiums to make this happen. And those fees would likely add to the bills consumers pay for Internet access. But the notion that the Internet is free is already false. Those who report the news just aren’t sharing in the fees.

The key question is whether the investment community sees the news business as a declining industry or an emerging one in transition. If one believes that news will continue to be the primary public square where people gather — with the central newsrooms in a community delivering that audience across different platforms — then it seems reasonable that the economics in time will sort themselves out. In that scenario, people with things to sell still need to reach consumers, and the news will be a primary means of finding them. If one believes, however, that the economics of news are now broken, with further declines ahead, then it seems inevitable that the investment in newsrooms will continue to shrink and the quality of journalism in America will decline. One thing seems clear, however: If news companies do not assert their own vision here, including making a case and taking risks, their future will be defined by those less invested in and passionate about news.

There are growing questions about whether the dominant ownership model of the last generation, the public corporation, is suited to the transition newsrooms must now make. Private markets now appear to value media properties more highly than Wall Street does. More executives are openly expressing doubt, too, whether public ownership’s required focus on stock price and quarterly returns will allow media companies the time and freedom and risk taking they feel they need to make the transition to the new age. The radio giant Clear Channel made that point when it went private. So have a host of private suitors emerging in the newspaper field. What is unknown is whether these potential new private owners are motivated by public interest, a vision of growth online, having a high-profile hobby (like a sports team), or as an investment to be flipped for profit after aggressive cost-cutting. Public ownership tends to make companies play by the same rules. Private ownership has few leveling influences. And the new crop of potential private owners is unlike the press barons of the past, people trying to create their legacy in news. Most of them are people who made their fortunes in other enterprises.

The Argument Culture is giving way to something new, the Answer Culture. Critics used to bemoan what author Michael Crichton once called the “Crossfire Syndrome,” the tendency of journalists to stage mock debates about issues on TV and in print. Such debates, critics lamented, tended to polarize, oversimplify and flatten issues to the point that Americans in the middle of the spectrum felt left out. That era of argument —R.W. Apple Jr. the gifted New York Times Reporter who died in 2006, called it “pie throwing” — appears to be evolving. The program “Crossfire” has been canceled. A growing pattern has news outlets, programs and journalists offering up solutions, crusades, certainty and the impression of putting all the blur of information in clear order for people. The tone may be just as extreme as before, but now the other side is not given equal play. In a sense, the debate in many venues is settled — at least for the host. This is something that was once more confined to talk radio, but it is spreading as it draws an audience elsewhere and in more nuanced ways. The most popular show in cable has shifted from the questions of Larry King to the answers of Bill O’Reilly. On CNN his rival Anderson Cooper becomes personally involved in stories. Lou Dobbs, also on CNN, rails against job exportation. Dateline goes after child predators. Even less controversial figures have causes: ABC weatherman Sam Campion champions green consumerism. The Answer Culture in journalism, which is part of the new branding, represents an appeal more idiosyncratic and less ideological than pure partisan journalism.

Blogging is on the brink of a new phase that will probably include scandal, profitability for some, and a splintering into elites and non-elites over standards and ethics. The use of blogs by political campaigns in the mid-term elections of 2006 is already intensifying in the approach to the presidential election of 2008. Corporate public-relations efforts are beginning to use blogs as well, often covertly. What gives blogging its authenticity and momentum — its open access — also makes it vulnerable to being used and manipulated. At the same time, some of the most popular bloggers are already becoming businesses or being assimilated by establishment media. All this is likely to cause blogging to lose some of its patina as citizen media. To protect themselves, some of the best-known bloggers are already forming associations, with ethics codes, standards of conduct and more. The paradox of professionalizing the medium to preserve its integrity as an independent citizen platform is the start of a complicated new era in the evolution of the blogosphere.

While journalists are becoming more serious about the Web, no clear models of how to do journalism online really exist yet, and some qualities are still only marginally explored. Our content study this year was a close examination of some three dozen Web sites from a range of media. Our goal was to assess the state of journalism online at the beginning of 2007. What we found was that the root media no longer strictly define a site’s character. The Web sites of the Washington Post and the New York Times, for instance, are more dissimilar than the papers are in print. The Post, by our count, was beginning to have more in common with some sites from other media. The field is still highly experimental, with an array of options, but it can be hard to discern what one site offers, in contrast to another. And some of the Web’s potential abilities seem less developed than others. Sites have done more, for instance, to exploit immediacy, but they have done less to exploit the potential for depth.

Audience

Technology is overwhelming the old ways of measuring the audience for news. In 2006 the push to find new metrics gained significant momentum.

The pressure is coming from two directions. Advertisers, worried about having to split their budgets among an expanding list of platforms, want more precise information about exactly who is consuming what. And in certain media, the content producers feel the old yardsticks are undercounting their numbers.

In television, watching shows on DVRs, Web sites, and YouTube is making conventional TV ratings only part of the equation. Advertisers also want to know whether people are fast-forwarding through the commercials. Nielsen, the primary company for counting television viewers, is working on something called “Anytime Anywhere Media Measurement” that will track viewership of TV commercials, fuse TV and Internet viewing and, within five years, eliminate paper diaries that require people to write down their viewing habits.

In newspapers, worried publishers want to make more of three key ideas they think are missed by the old notion of circulation, the number of newspapers sold each day. That metric, they argue, fails to recognize how many different people actually read a paper, how much time they spend with it, and the number of people who read the paper online. Their goal is some measurement that will capture total audience.

Magazines may be headed toward something similar, led by Time, which wants to sell itself as a combination of print and online.

And online, the situation may be even more muddled. What is a page view? What is a visit? The way pages are built and the measuring system employed often yield different results. And new delivery systems, such as e-mail alerts, RSS, podcasting and more, can go uncounted in the current ways of measuring. The more successful a site is in making its content mobile, the more it may drive down “traffic” to the site itself.

The effects of that may already be showing. The number of people who go “online” for news or anything else has now stabilized, confirming something we first saw last year. In all, about 92 million people now go online for news, according to one leading survey.¹

How is it possible that the online audience has already reached a plateau, even as high-speed connections are spreading? The spread of new mobile digital equipment may be part of the answer. The concept of going online itself may now be too limited.

And online is the best that it gets. In 2006, by the traditional yardsticks, the audience numbers dropped for more media than we have seen before. Even public radio, which had seen its audience explode over the last decade, appears to have flattened out. The audience for alternative weekly newspapers, recently a growth area, now appears to be contracting.

One big change was cable. Fox began to see its audience decline in 2006, enough despite gains at MSNBC to produce an overall slide for the industry. The mean average audience for cable news dropped roughly 12% in prime time and 11% in daytime.

At newspapers, despite hopes that the year might be better, 2006 saw daily circulation drop by almost 3% and Sunday almost 4%, about as bad as the year before. The 50 biggest papers in the country continued to suffer more than that by about another percentage point.

Over the last three years, the losses total 6.3 percent daily and 8 percent Sunday.

Readership, the new preferred number, while it looked better, was also falling, down 1.7% in 2006.

The audience for magazines over all was flat, but magazines to some degree can buy circulation through discounts. The more telling factor was that Time decided to reduce the circulation it guarantees to advertisers.

In network news, a year of change on the air made little difference with audiences. Despite new anchors, millions in promotion, press attention and more, network evening news lost another million viewers, roughly the same number it has lost in each of the last 25 years. As a percentage, of course, the number is growing.

Morning news also fell, for the second year running, by 500,000 viewers (to 13.6 million) putting the audience at the lowest point of the decade.

Local news, meanwhile, registered even more rapid audience declines — a disappointment after earlier numbers had suggested the losses had stabilized. We found ratings and share numbers dropping year to year in every period of the year and in every daypart, in some cases by double digits. The use of new digital people meters may have something to do with it, but that hardly explains it all.

The ethnic press is still a growth area, but some analysts now see it as cresting. For the first time, the number of native-born Hispanics in the U.S. was higher than the number of immigrants. Still, in 2005, the latest year with data available, Spanish-language newspaper circulation — not just dailies but all papers — continued to grow substantially, up 900,000, to 17.6 million.

The audience for radio, meanwhile, remains stable, with more than 90% of people listening at least some each week. But logic suggests that the landscape there is changing, too, in the amount of time spent listening if not the total number of listeners. In traditional radio, news/talk/information remains the most popular category, but news is probably a small part of that.

While alternative listening devices are proliferating, news is only a small part of that universe as well. Only 8% of MP3 owners listen to news podcasts, 6% of cell phone owners get news on their phones, and 18.5% of owners of personal digital assistant devices get news from their PDA’s. One technology dismissed earlier, Internet radio, seems to be now gaining some force.

Footnotes

1. And nearly a third of them, or roughly 29 million people, now regularly get news online.

Economics

If the audience trends are down, the financial picture for journalism is more nuanced. The industry has learned to manage decline, to a point. But it has also shown it can over-manage, cutting costs without innovating.

Heading into 2007, that tension, between managing decline and maneuvering through transition, will become even greater. The signs of more structural change are strong.

There is more evidence that advertisers are reluctant to spend money without a clearer sense of its effect. The technology for measuring audience is about to leap forward, including methods for showing whether TV viewers are skipping the ads. The hope that Internet advertising will someday match what print and television now bring in appears to be vanishing. Former enemies, newspapers and classified job Web sites are now creating partnerships in part to fend off the effects of free listings from Craigslist. The entire business model of journalism may be in flux in a few years.

For the moment, however, the current phase of transition for many sectors is proving difficult.

In 2006, newspaper revenues were flat and earnings fell — for the first time in memory in a non-recessionary year. The decline in earnings before taxes was sizeable, about 8% from 2005, and 2005 was not an especially good year either.

The fundamentals are all problematic: Employment classified is disappearing. Automotive is suffering too. And the gains in online ad revenue are no longer enough to make up for the combined declines in print ads and circulation.

The response by Wall Street was grumpy. The price of newspaper stocks fell about 11%, and that after 20% declines the year before.

The other major print sector, magazines, fared better, but it was still not a good year. After a bad 2005, the industry anticipated a recovery in 2006 that didn’t materialize. The number of ad pages in magazines in 2006 was flat industry-wide, and news magazines fared about the same.

That has led several publications, particularly Time and to a lesser degree U.S. News and World Report, to announce that they want to be considered for the purposes of setting ad rates combined online and print publications.

The one sector in print that seemed to break the trend continued to be the ethnic press, especially Hispanic. For the latest year available, 2005, ad dollars spent in Hispanic publications grew 4.6%. The percentage ad revenue at Hispanic newspapers from national advertisers doubled, according to the Latino Print Network.

Online, meanwhile, the advertising market appeared headed for yet another record-setting year, up more than a third again, past $16 billion, in 2006.

But now there are growing doubts about how much of that will accrue to news, and the projections are that the growth rate in online advertising will begin to slow next year and could drop to single digits before the decade ends. That adds to the sense of urgency that journalism must find a new economic model online or suffer serious erosion.

If the problems in print seem intractable, and the growth of online still not enough to clarify the future, television continued to manage the balance sheet more successfully.

In local TV news, projections for 2006 have advertising revenues increasing 10%. TV is still able to increase revenues by adding more news programming during the day, and indeed the number of hours of local news programming has reached record highs. But at some point local TV news will likely hit a ceiling when it comes to adding programs.

In network news, according to the latest full-year figures (2005), all three networks saw revenues grow for both morning and evening news, in some cases by double digits. The projections for 2006 also look positive.

And in cable, where fees come both from advertising and from 10-year contracts signed with cable carriers who pay licensing fees to the channels, business for the news channels is robust. Fox is projected to see profits grow by a third, overtaking CNN. CNN is expected to increase profits 13%, MSNBC is expected to see meaningful profits for the first time.

Radio, by contrast, was flat in 2006, with total ad revenue rising just 1%. More radio news directors, according to survey data, have also been reporting losses from their news operations in recent years.

But some of that may be deceiving. Revenues from new audio technology are growing rapidly; online radio advertising rose 77% in 2005 to $60 million. Those numbers are still small, but a good portion of such revenues (half in the case of online radio advertising) are going to traditional radio companies.

Ownership

A year ago in this report, we outlined how arguments reaching back nearly a century, about what models of ownership of media were best, had suddenly intensified.

The progression from local owner to chain and from chain to publicly traded company was fueled by growth. Going public and getting bigger allowed media companies economies of scale and gave them cash to invest — for more reporters, more presses, more papers, more TV stations.

Later, when companies like Tribune, Times Mirror, the Washington Post and others, went public, they bet in effect that they were so profitable they would be immune from many of the conventional pressures of Wall Street. That bet looked solid for a while.

And even as the business fundamentals changed in the last decade, media companies were able to manage the decline. Critics complained that the companies were “eating their seed corn,” by failing to invest in the future, but managers countered that they had to make a profit and operate in the real world. Whatever the long-term implications, business was good.

Yet the argument that journalism was more than a business, that it had some larger public-interest obligation, began to fade. What could not be justified financially, quite simply, could no longer be justified. The media business felt it could no longer afford it.

Now, there has been a new turn in the debates over ownership. Starting in 2005 and accelerating in 2006, there have begun to be questions not only from journalists but now from corporate managers and investors about whether the dominant model of media ownership, the public corporation, is still preferred. And the questions are no longer simply moral ones.

Companies that rode the wave of deregulation and consolidation, such as Clear Channel, went private in 2006. The radio giant also began to divest and get smaller. There was more sales activity in local TV than in years, properties that at the moment can command high prices. Newspapers are losing value, and the percentages are staggering. The Minneapolis Star Tribune was sold to private investors for half of what McClatchy paid for it eight years earlier. The New York Times wrote down the value of the Boston Globe by 40%.

What model might replace the public corporation? That is in much more doubt. Philanthropies have had talks about whether they should get involved. Already charitable funding of the news, sometimes with pointedly political motive, has become more of a factor in financing particular stories, but not yet in owning media. Private equity firms have become more active. So have wealthy magnates like the record mogul David Geffen, the former General Electric boss Jack Welch and real estate magnate Eli Broad. But look more closely. The list is so diverse it represents uncertainty, not a direction.

The Federal Communication Commission decided to reopen talks about relaxing ownership rules, a step it tried and failed to put into effect in 2003. Liberals like the FCC commissioner Michael Copps want to push in the other direction. He told a panel at Columbia University in early 2007 that the country should not only re-impose the regulations junked in the Reagan years, including tighter ownership caps, the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time rule. He also wants to impose new rules, perhaps for print as well. Whether or not there is now a constituency for that on Capitol Hill, few would have wasted their breath on such a campaign a few years ago.

The one thing that can be said with certainty — to a much greater degree than was true a few years ago — is that the notion that a diverse public corporation is best suited to have the wherewithal, resources and experience to manage the future of media is no longer gospel. The concept of the media conglomerate, in that sense, has been put into play.

News Investment

Over the previous two years, some of the long-term cutbacks seen in newsrooms appeared to ease. Blogging gained momentum. We found the beginning of more genuine investment in the Internet. The cutbacks in network news appeared to stabilize.

In 2006, however, the situation for most of the media we study appeared to worsen. And that occurred at a time a time when the news was hardly slowing down during a global war on terror and a worsening situation for the United States in Iraq.

Matters are eroding most acutely at daily newspapers, and what occurs in that industry still has an echo effect on the press generally. Papers remain the news organizations most likely to cover the fullest range of life in a community, to influence what is on the wires, to provide the news for the Internet and to be an alert for other media.

Between 2000 and 2005, newsroom staffing at dailies had already dropped by 3,000 people, or about 5%.

By the time the final tally is in for 2006, we estimate it could be down another 1,000 —with more now expected in 2007.

When combined with reductions at several papers in the physical size of the page, the overall number of pages and a smaller ratio of news to advertising, the changes suggest that American newspapers have reduced their ambitions. The year 2007 may well be one when a smaller American newspaper, more targeted and analytical — rather than one that purports to cover the whole waterfront — emerges as a trend.

That is significant in part because newspapers, according to our research in the past, were one of the last platforms attempting to provide people with a complete diet of the news —from international to local, from hard news to lifestyle. Newspapers remain the alert system, too, for so many other media.

Less clear is what is lost and what is left uncovered. That becomes a concern that deserves more study.

The retrenching comes, too, as new research reaffirms what scholars of an earlier generation also felt they had establishment—that the best way for news organizations to thrive is to invest. The study, based on research conducted by the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism, found that when newspapers increased spending on newsrooms, their profits went up. And cutting could be shown to do the reverse. “If you lower the amount of money spent in the newsroom, then pretty soon the news product becomes so bad that you begin to lose money,” said Esther Thorson, a co-author of the study.

As he resisted more reductions at the Los Angeles Times, the soon-to-be ousted publisher Jeffrey Johnson argued the same notion. “Newspapers,” he said, “can’t cut their way to the future.”

The situation at the three major weekly news magazines also appears serious.

After big cuts in 2005 and 2006 — 14% of Time magazine’s newsroom by our analysis — Time Inc. in early 2007 announced staffing cuts of nearly 300 more at all its magazines. Time itself will lose 50 people (from business and editorial combined) and close bureaus in Los Angeles, Chicago and Atlanta.

At Newsweek, meanwhile, editorial staff positions in 2006 were down by half from what they were in 1983, and down 11% from 2005.

In network news, our sense, new this year, is that the cutting continues. From 2002 to 2006, a new PEJ analysis estimates that total news division staffing dropped about 10%, with reductions in non-correspondent staff down at greater rates than that.

And that was before NBC Universal announced plans to cut another 300 jobs in the news division, or about 5%. Many of those, it said, would come from consolidating the operations of its cable channel, MSNBC.

In radio, the situation appears to be one of continuing consolidation. The great majority of stations delivering news (70%) now do so through joint newsrooms, and the situation in those newsrooms looks increasingly complicated. The average number of stations that those centralized newsrooms serve is 3.3, according to a survey for the Radio Television News Directors’ Association. Over a third of news directors reported overseeing five or more stations.

In cable, meanwhile, the picture is mixed. Fox News appears to be investing more in its newsroom (expenses up 11%), but not at a rate that is keeping pace with surging revenues and profits. CNN is just barely keeping up with inflation (expenses up 5%), and MSNBC is cutting.

It is less clear how much of these expenses are going into reporters and producers — newsgathering — and how much is going elsewhere, including into star salaries.

But not all of the electronic media are shrinking.

In local TV, for the latest year for which there are data, 2005, staffing appears to have risen some, to an average of 36.4 people per newsroom, the second-highest level of full-time staff since the survey began in 1993. Those people may be spread across more programs than before, but it is still a small upward trend. But people have more to do. The number of hours of news is at record high (3.8 hours) and more newsrooms are producing news for multiple stations and the Web.

One media sector that continues to grow in several ways is the ethnic press. Staffing here is on the rise, particularly at Hispanic daily newspapers, where the average staff increased from 90 in 2003 to 108 in 2005, some 20%. The trend in Spanish-language television, however, appears to be going the other way, led by cutbacks by NBC at Telemundo.

Online, the details are sometimes hard to pin down. The evidence, however, points to the idea that investment is continuing to grow, something we began to see in earnest a year ago.

It is less clear how much of that is in what journalists would call original newsgathering and how much is on the technical side. But at least one survey from a leading journalism school found that more online managers valued content-related skills like copyediting than technology skills like producing audio and video. That may reflect something of a change. After getting the technical skills into the operations, it may be that newsrooms are now turning to think about creating more content rather than simply importing it.

Yet all these problems are added to the larger picture of shrinking newsrooms. One other new piece of data was released in 2006. The scholars David H. Weaver, G. Cleveland Wilhoit and three other distinguished academicians released The American Journalist in the 21st Century: U.S. News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium. The book is the largest longitudinal study of journalists, dating back to the early 1970s.

The new study found that between June 1992 and November 2002, the number of full-time people working in news in the U.S. workforce declined by roughly 6,000, or about 5%.¹

All evidence suggests that in the four years since, those losses may have significantly accelerated.

Footnotes

1. David H. Weaver, Randal A Bean, Bonnie J. Brownlee, Paul S. Voakes, G. Clevelan Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 21 st Century: U.S. News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium ( Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey) 2007: p. 2

Digital

Even in a tough year, the news industry moved toward digital journalism with new seriousness.

Only two years ago our sense was that traditional media were still hesitating. In addition to the more obvious fears about a drain on resources and the culture clash over new technology, journalists worried that the medium was by nature so immediate and demanding that it tended to threaten two of the qualities the best news people covet —taking the time to verify the news accurately and understand and report in depth.

A year ago, we saw evidence that attitudes had begun to change. One reason was that online activities were one of the few areas that were creating revenue growth, especially for newspapers. Inside the boardroom, that made digital journalism a priority. Inside the newsroom, the Web was coming to be seen as less a threat and more a promise of something that could stem a growing wave of cutbacks and declining audience.

As an internal report at the Los Angeles Times put it in late 2006, “news organizations are experimenting energetically.”¹

Those experiments differ greatly in emphasis and scope, even within media sectors. At the Washington Post, for instance, the site is forming an identity distinct from the print newspaper. According to one report there are 200 full-time Web staff people, and the Web is already contributing 15% of the Post revenue, with 50% in sight.² Our content analysis also found the Post site to be one of the most broadly based and richest in appeal of these we studied.

The Los Angeles Times’s candid internal appraisal of its own site concluded that the paper needed to become far more serious about the Web and indeed make it the primary rather than the secondary goal. “We are Web-stupid,” the report declared.³ Some papers are experimenting with blogs, real-time traffic coverage, localized community sections written by readers, reporters carrying digital cameras and more — almost all in just the last year or so. Yet our content analysis also finds that some papers have yet to act, still mostly using their sites as a morgue for old copy.

The networks in 2005 had already begun to approach the Web as a major opportunity, developing ways to free themselves from the limits of time slot. In 2006, while their efforts were growing, behind the scenes there were more questions. CBS ousted its head of digital, the widely respected Larry Kramer, in favor of someone who is more strictly a business figure, though its Web site appears to be one of the strongest we have studied. MSNBC’s site, while popular, still has been eclipsed in some ways as an innovator. ABC may have the furthest still to go.

In cable, too, there were signs of movement. All three national news channels began to make content available to the third screen, cell phones. Of the three sites, Fox trails rather than leads in online audience, in contrast to its TV audience, and its site in 2006 lagged measurably behind the others in what it offered as well. But it underwent a significant redesign late in the year that according to our analysis made a clear difference. The site, however, is still more a platform for promoting talent than its rivals. For its part, CNN’s site still relies heavily on wire copy. It also features only a few stories that get major treatment. Despite all that, the site attracts 20 million visitors a month.

The new array of Web-only news outlets, meanwhile, reflect a growing diversity in the kind of information offered, the editorial approach, and the features they provide. The aggregators continue to emphasize searchable, up-to-the minute news while still relying on others for the content. Bloggers offer voice and citizen input but have also taken steps in the last year to set their own reporting guidelines. Citizen-based sites, according to our study, have shown some of the most sophisticated experiments in newsgathering and dissemination — embracing original reporting and a wide mix of voices, as well as firm editorial control.

Even the digital laggards apparently began to move in 2006.

Local TV news was among the slowest media, our content assessments found, to make a commitment on the Web. The resources still appear to be relatively small, according to surveys-- an average of just three people working on each Web site. But there are clear signs of movement. More sites are making a profit. More stations are producing their own sites. And the two local TV news sites included in our content analysis evinced more effort than anything we had seen in earlier years.

The magazine industry, too, has begun investing more online. The leader here is Time. The biggest name in newsweeklies remade its Web site and identified a plan to count its audience as a print and online group combined. There are also signs of movement at the other news magazines, but perhaps in directions quite disparate from each other.

If there are conclusions to be drawn, for now we see two. First, there is no one model or formula for news success on the Web. Second, increasingly, sites are moving away from their legacy media, splitting into distinct approaches based on ideas rather than history.

As audiences sort through the options and creators look for economic formulas, that diversity will encourage more experimentation. For those who lack vision and resources, it will also make simple imitation more difficult.

Footnotes

1. The Los Angeles Times Spring Street Project Report, www.innovationsinnewspapers.com

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid

Public Attitudes

About the best that can be said for the public’s view of the press is that the situation is no longer on a steady and general decline.

Americans continue to appreciate the role they expect the press to play, and by some measure that appreciation is even growing.

But when it comes to how the press is fulfilling those responsibilities, the public’s confidence in 2006 according to some indices continued to slip.

And perceptions of bias, and the partisan divide of media, appear to be on the rise.

All that comes, of course, against a background of more than 20 years of growing skepticism about journalists, their companies and the news media as an institution. As we have noted in other reports,since the early 1980s, the public has come to view the news media as less professional, less accurate, less caring, less moral and more inclined to cover up rather than correct mistakes.

The fundamental issue, as we interpreted it in earlier reports, is a disconnection between the public and the press over motive. Journalists see themselves, as Humphrey Bogart put it in the movie “Deadline USA,” as performing “a service for public good.” The public doubts that romantic self-image and thinks journalists are either deluding themselves or lying.

The roots of the disconnection can only be speculated about. The public-opinion data go only so far. But it probably is fair to say that journalists are growing frustrated with the public’s doubt as they struggle against increasingly difficult conditions — lower pay than they might have made in other professions, newsrooms suffering major cutbacks, the buffeting effects of new technology, and depictions in movies and on TV of journalists as exploitative jackals.

The public, in turn, sees a news industry whose corporations increasingly act like other businesses. News outlets in an era of fragmentation seem more prone to produce content designed only to attract a crowd. Alerts of journalistic failures are coming more frequently from politicians, bloggers, mainstream press critics and, with more ways to add their own voice, even citizens themselves. Perhaps most important, with more choices, the public can easily see the limits of what any one news organization is offering.

The structural forces, in other words, may bring with them a new kind of relationship that makes improving the public view of the press difficult.

Sorting through the data from 2006 suggests that, with all this, the public’s view, while skeptical, is nuanced.

The public does appreciate what the press has to do, and in some ways it does so increasingly.

If given a choice, for instance, a growing percentage of Americans would pick press freedom over government censorship. After September 11, a majority leaned the other way (53% to 39%). That number has been reversing to the point that by February 2006 a majority now favored press freedom (56% to 34%).¹

A slim majority of Americans also continue to say they enjoy keeping up with the news, and this number, a key indicator of news consumption, has been stable for years.²

And by a large majority people continued to say in 2006 that they prefer getting news from sources that don’t have a particular point of view — 68% — unchanged from two years earlier. Less than a quarter — 23% — wanted to get the news from a source that shared their point of view.³

But on some key measures of performance, public skepticism is still growing.

The number of Americans with a favorable view of the press, for instance, dropped markedly in 2006, from 59% in February, to 48% in July. The metric can be volatile, but that was still one of the lower marks over the course of a decade.⁴

And in one of the most basic yardsticks of public attitudes, the number of Americans who believe most or all of what news organizations tell them, there were continued declines. Virtually every news outlet saw its number fall in 2006. In a battery that included more than 20 outlets, the only ones that did not decline were Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, people’s local paper, the NewsHour on PBS, People magazine and the National Enquirer.⁵

In contrast with a decade ago, there are no significant distinctions anymore in the basic believability of major national news organizations. About a quarter of Americans believe most television outlets. Less than one in five believe what they read in print. CNN is not really more trusted than Fox, or ABC than NBC. The local paper is not viewed much differently than the New York Times.

And there are signs, despite the appreciation for an independent press, that the perception of bias, even agenda-setting, is a growing part of the concern.

Among those who feel that their daily newspaper has become worse, for instance, the number who blame bias, and particularly liberal bias, has grown from 19% in 1996 to 28% in 2006.⁶

Overall, Republicans express less confidence than Democrats in the credibility of nearly every major news outlet, with the exception of Fox News. Yet that partisan gap is narrowing, and that is because Democrats are beginning to doubt the believability of more news outlets, and their suspicion of bias is growing too.

One big change is that more people now feel they can get what traditional journalism offers from the Internet, and that, too, is a challenge for the press, one that may be accelerating faster than declining trust.

In the end, there is no sense that the public view of the press changed markedly in 2006. Such shifts are almost always evolutionary. But there are reminders in the data of the continuing sense that journalism matters, and continuing doubts about whether it is being practiced in a way people want.

That suggests that allegiances could switch to new outlets fairly quickly. And more competition, as it has for the last two decades, may breed still more skepticism.

Footnotes

1. Pew Research Center for the People and the Pres, “Bush Drag on Republican Midterm Prospects,” February 9 2006

2. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, “Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership,” July 30, 2006

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid

Conclusion

In the first two years of this report, we sensed the news media in America trapped by the twin phenomena of changing technology and economic success. The former created the need for the news media to change fundamentally. The latter bred conservatism and aversion to risk. The role of the press was changing, yet the companies that controlled the media, insulated by high profits, seemed neither to fully understand nor ready to act boldly.

We sensed that had changed some heading into 2006. Problems had worsened. The direction of audience and advertising was clearer. The industry turned more seriously to new technology.

In 2007, that recognition and change began to take on a more discernible shape. And for many, it was the shape of branding, targeting and diminished ambitions. That may be inevitable. It may even be logical. But it also strikes us that it continues to lack boldness. The new direction has the strengths and weakness of prudence, of consensus.

News is not a corporate product. It was not invented in a laboratory or an R&D department. It evolved out of popular sentiment, out of political movement and out of a human instinct for knowledge and awareness. And its greatest leaps forward came from risk-takers who were often discounted because their vision broke with convention, and because their tastes ran in sometimes contradictory directions, the likes of Ted Turner, or Joseph Pulitzer, or Adolph Ochs.

We have wondered in earlier reports whether the news industry had waited too long, letting too many opportunities slip by, such as offers years ago to buy start-up companies that now are major new-media rivals; or whether consumers will care about the values that the old press embodies, or the brands — such as CBS and the New York Times —that represent those values.

Now, as change accelerates, it is the third question we have posed before that seems most urgent. Does the industry have a vision that is bold enough, and does it have leaders whom journalists and audiences will follow?

The answers, we continue to suspect, will be in the journalism, too, not only in the business strategies that fund it. If the past tells us anything, it’s that the two sides cannot flourish unless they move together.

Send to Printer