Discussion

By Robert Godwin on May 08, 2020

Is a newspaper's purpose to print the news or to sell ads? Which is more important?

 

By Gordon Pritchard on May 08, 2020

Ads are more important of course.
And the quality of journalism has gone down along with ad revenue. What used to be news is now commentary. And now, many people have not only switched from printed news media but they are also switching away from mainstream news media outlets on the internet in favour of “news” delivered via social networks.

 

By Chris Lynn on May 11, 2020

Wrong question, wrong answer. Newspapers are one of several media (others include magazines, TV, radio, internet) for JOURNALISM. Journalism's purpose is to create an informed citizenry - which is why dictators - actual and aspiring - demonize news they don't like as 'fake'. Robert's question is 20 years out of date. As we all know, newspapers have been struggling to find business models that replace ads as a source of revenue, so it's certainly not true that 'ads are more important' than news. There is plenty of thoughtful analysis on this huge and important topic online.

 

By Robert Godwin on May 11, 2020

As to Chris’s point, newspapers are in the revenue generating arena called business. The medium is the “massage” and print for instant journalism is what is out of date, not the question. If a business cannot generate revenue, it is not a business. If a news medium cannot generate revenue, it cannot exist (save for public/private funding) So ads trump news. Yet, ads require a medium to exist. The essential stuff of a business remains, the channel will change, the model will not.

No one questions the value of journalism, just the quality therein.

 

By Gordon Pritchard on May 11, 2020

"Journalism's purpose is to create an informed citizenry" - in an ideal world, perhaps. But that is not the world in which we find ourselves. "Fake" news - although not common - is a reality. What's more pervasive and insidious is biased reporting. "Newspapers have been struggling to find business models that replace ads as a source of revenue," which is exactly why 'ads are more important' than news. No ads = no newspapers.

 

By Chris Lynn on May 11, 2020

No argument that businesses need revenue. But ad revenue is not the sole source - newspapers are desperately trying to increase 'circulation' revenue (i.e. subscriptions) and revenues from other sources like content licensing, TV series, etc. Hence my point that Robert's question was out of date. Advertisers want access to the attention of a target demographic - whether it is citizens who care what is happening in their neighborhood or the world, crossword puzzle addicts, cookery fans, technology nerds or whatever. Newspapers create content to attract these demographics in order to sell the eyeballs to advertisers AND to create loyal subscribers. See the chart under 'Economics' here: https://www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/newspapers/

 

By Robert Godwin on May 11, 2020

Chris,
I just do not see how the point of selling ads is ‘out of date’. It is the highest margin revenue for the paper. Most if not all newspaper printers have other products and services they sell and have for years and years. The LA Times printed directories of every sort when they were a client (car ads) of mine in the 90's. They sell the subscriber data to marketers and advertising agencies (separately and as part of the ad sales). Digital subscriptions are simply an additional revenue source.
What is not so simple, and again to Frank's point, is that stories that attract attention on the web rarely deal with little Johnny Smith knocking in the winning run in his little league game. That is how my name appeared for the first time in the paper. Brooklyn, NY could not care less.
So, the 'local' aspect does not play out unless there are local stories and advertisements in the paper. So simple. Ads make the local paper relevant by virtue of what they offer the community that can transact at their car dealership, the pizza joint, the shoe repair. The web makes that aspect arcane because it is so less sticky using Google to find a story than it is to ‘subway fold’ the paper and read in the back seat of the Uber. The web lets you go anywhere, the newspaper keeps you focused. It is part of the nature and power of printed media. It is sticky! Ad buyers value stickiness more than anything else, and in every media venue they use, from bus shelter to billboard, from web page to newspaper, the longer a viewer is engaged, the greater the value of ad real estate.
The most popular read for most consumers of news is the weather report. The web performs a superior model as it can update in near-real time. The newspaper, as was said by the City councilman in THE MUSIC MAN, gets the weather right most of the time. Not as good a model. The problem with newspapers is the sense of urgency pales compared to the internet. Unless it reports deeply on a topic, or follows a story from an investigative standpoint, it has little special to offer. The newspaper is outdated due to a shorter attention span and an internet ‘quick fix’.
If a newspaper cannot sell an ad, it cannot create great content and it cannot survive. It does not matter what the story is if there is no money to pay the editor, reporter, pressman and delivery boy/girl.
Conclude what you wish if news or ads are more important, but for newspapers, one cannot live without the other.
I stand by the relevance and currency of my question.

 

By James Kohler on May 12, 2020

Well call me old which I must be because I still get USA Today and even better The New York Times - print of course. While you can get news digitally the attention span of digital viewers is short so most never get the detailed info. Print gives you that. I don’t get a local paper unfortunately since they just don’t cover enough, local news stations do that but never have follow up. Sad time for printed newspapers and good journalism.

 

By David Avery on May 15, 2020

The issue (pun intended) is that ad driven revenue and subscription fees support the news gathering operations.
No ad revenue, no news gathering.

This erodes the gathering and dissemination of relatively un-biased, vetted, fact-checked reportage. Something the electronic media don't care about.

Leaving those with the money to spend to control what you hear and read.

Yes, I subscribe to the local Rag digitally, and the NYT in print.

 

By Gordon Pritchard on May 15, 2020

RE: "This erodes the gathering and dissemination of relatively un-biased, vetted, fact-checked reportage. Something the electronic media don't care about."

Unbiased? Google "examples of biased newspaper reporting"

Vetted, fact-checked - Google "fake New York Times stories" to see examples of just one newspaper's "Vetted, fact-checked" reporting. Google "fake CBS news" to see examples of just one media's "Vetted, fact-checked" reporting.

Simply put, newspapers are commercial enterprises. If they publish material with a particular bias, they will be identified with that perspective, and people who also identify with with that will buy the paper. They also need to fill their pages with daily content while providing a favourable environment for its advertisers' target audience. This is not a recipe for the "gathering and dissemination of relatively un-biased, vetted, fact-checked reportage". And you can see that demonstrated in the daily editions.

 

By Chris Lynn on May 15, 2020

Many years ago, on a business visit to then-communist East Germany, I got into an argument with a local who favored their government-controlled press over the West's, which was "owned by capitalist oligarchs" as my interlocutor put it, and therefore biased. He - poor fool - preferred to trust the governmental mouthpiece. My response was that the oligarchs don't all agree with each other, so one can get a balanced view by reading several different papers.

I suggest this strategy to address your concerns, Gordon; and I'd add that the test of good-faith journalism is in the medium's willingness to admit and correct errors - a practice followed by the media you cite (and the WSJ, FT, & BBC among others), and almost never followed by Fox News, for example.

 

By Gordon Pritchard on May 15, 2020

@Chris - errors in reporting are one thing, fabricating news is another. Bias in coverage and reporting can be much more difficult (for many) to spot. Considering the dominance of Fox News on the airways it appears that very many people either don’t recognize bias or prefer to embrace it.