The post-newspaper world?

[Lust4Life]

@iamthewalrus_3

There aren’t enough eyeroll emoticons. You think the number of people reading newspapers over the last eleven years has declined that precipitously because young people aren’t as literate? In 1999, young people’s literacy was sufficient for 45% of people to be newspaper readers, and by 2010, it’s down to 25%? And a similar (if not quite as dramatic) drop for other age groups? That’s absolute nonsense. You couldn’t get a literacy drop like that with anything short of the complete eradication of all elementary schools in the country.

This is a massive demographic change driven by the poor economic position of newspapers relative to other information sources, most notably the internet.

Uh, it takes one to know one? Might want to take another look at that data that you casually dismissed.

Actually in a previous life I had a job where numeracy was key, and being an old git computers weren’t an option.

I was, very much against my will compelled to take a maths course which I didn’t need eighteen months ago, and scored at a very high level, so your rather childish insult is just a little bit wide of the mark.

I suggest that you learn about polls, statistics etc.

I recall reading in, I think, “Lies, Damned lies and Statistics” which though dated is still incredibly relevant today, the majority of women in a U.S. poll about which magazines they read mostly answered that they read the more sophisticated “Womans magazine”, against the cheap down market gossip rival.

Unfortunately sales figure showed that more women in the poll bought the up market magazine then was actually published, while the down market sales figures were through the roof and much more then the women taking part in the poll would admit to.

Its a sad fact that recent generations of school leavers are very much underperformers when compared to previous generations, but luckily what some people call “cyber prosthetics”, ie. calculators, spell checkers, self adding cash tills etc. cover their lack of basic abilities (Which have now been promoted in education to “Skills”.) in the real world, well at least until theres a power cut, or their battery runs out.

People of my generation can operate computers, i pods etc. as easily as we can do mental arithmatic etc. without electronic assistance.

Which is not surprising as it is, and was us who developed the technology in the first place, not children fresh out of school.

Oh sorry, I forgot, there ARE no children over twelve now, they’re all “Young People”.

[Lamar_Mundane]

@iamthewalrus_3

A decent amount of it. I’d guess about a third to half of what I read online is either published by a newspaper website or links to and discusses a newspaper article.

However, as the years have gone by, the fraction that is newspaper-originated has dropped, while magazines and various blogs and online publications have grown. I haven’t noticed a quality drop-off (though that may be happening and I haven’t noticed it, or it may happen in the future).

I’ll bet that number is a lot higher if you count the content that comes not directly from a newspaper website, but from AP and Reuters. While not newspapers themselves, that is newspaper content.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Lust4Life

I was, very much against my will compelled to take a maths course which I didn’t need eighteen months ago, and scored at a very high level, so your rather childish insult is just a little bit wide of the mark.

I apologize for the insult. It was intended as a lighthearted response, but I know that such things often don’t translate very well in text. It was bad form on my part.

That said, your arguments so far have not demonstrated an impressive understanding of statistics. They appear to be based on anecdotal evidence and qualitative impressions (“young people are less literate”) as opposed to qualitative data (“literacy declined by a rate of x% in people aged y to z”).

I don’t see how any of your response in this post relates to the actual data at hand.

I recall reading in, I think, “Lies, Damned lies and Statistics” which though dated is still incredibly relevant today, the majority of women in a U.S. poll about which magazines they read mostly answered that they read the more sophisticated “Womans magazine”, against the cheap down market gossip rival.

Unfortunately sales figure showed that more women in the poll bought the up market magazine then was actually published, while the down market sales figures were through the roof and much more then the women taking part in the poll would admit to.

I understand how polls work and that self-reporting polls have various biases.

Are you suggesting that over just eleven years, people’s willingness to self report newspaper readership declined in a huge way? What would have produced such a change? Did it recently become shameful to admit to reading newspapers? Do you have an actual hypothesis here, or are you just clouding the issue? It’s fine to point out that polls are subject to various sorts of errors, but you can’t just categorically refute polling data without a reasonable suggestion for how such errors would lead to the data in the poll misrepresenting reality. You haven’t done that.

Its a sad fact that recent generations of school leavers are very much underperformers when compared to previous generations, but luckily what some people call “cyber prosthetics”, ie. calculators, spell checkers, self adding cash tills etc. cover their lack of basic abilities (Which have now been promoted in education to “Skills”.) in the real world, well at least until theres a power cut, or their battery runs out.

We could debate the finer points of how recent students are not as well-educated as they ought to be, but there’s simply no way that such changes are the primary cause of a 40% decline in newspaper readership among the 18-24 age group. Not to mention the fact that such complaints don’t even begin to explain the similar drops in readership in other age groups.

[sevenwood]

@suranyi

The problem is, as has been said before, where is the internet getting the news in the first place, if not from newspaper reporters?

I have a problem with the above statement, in that it appears to be in direct conflict with my experience.

I get most of my news online (places like CNN.com, MSNBC.com, and FOX.com, with my sporting news coming from places like NFL.com and MLB.com.) I also subscribe to the Philadelphia Inquirer (a well-regarded newspaper which has won its share of Pulitzers).

The problem I have with the Philadelphia Inquirer is that by the time it shows up on my driveway at 6AM the news inside it is pretty old. It’s not just that I’ve already read the news it contains online. Given that the Inquirer’s articles are “put to bed” by 10PM in order to get them in the morning paper, the news in the paper is often older than the news I’ve read online the night before.

Note that the Philadelphia Inquirer has an online presence, but it appears that they have made a deliberate decision not to publish news online that hasn’t already been available in their printed version. As a result the Philadelphia Inquirer online edition is just as late with its news as the print edition.

They’re doomed.

[BMalion]

Who gathers and writes the news?

[kidchameleon]

@Lust4Life

I suggest that you learn about polls, statistics etc.

Do you have any facts to back up anything you’ve written?

[kenobi_65]

@BMalion

Who gathers and writes the news?

That depends on the paper, and the story in question.

For most papers, they’re getting their national and international news from a wire service, such as the Associated Press or Reuters. The biggest papers (New York Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.) likely still have correspondents in other cities (and other countries), who file stories from those places, but that’s the exception to the rule.

Most papers are likely still using their own reporters (or perhaps reporters which they share with sister papers in nearby markets) for local stories.

[suranyi]

@kenobi_65

That depends on the paper, and the story in question.

For most papers, they’re getting their national and international news from a wire service, such as the Associated Press or Reuters. The biggest papers (New York Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.) likely still have correspondents in other cities (and other countries), who file stories from those places, but that’s the exception to the rule.

Most papers are likely still using their own reporters (or perhaps reporters which they share with sister papers in nearby markets) for local stories.

Who pays for the wire service reporters if the newspapers disappear?

Who pays for the local reporters if the newspapers disappear?

[kenobi_65]

@suranyi

Who pays for the wire service reporters if the newspapers disappear?

Who pays for the local reporters if the newspapers disappear?

Excellent question. According to their site, the AP is a not-for-profit news cooperative, owned by its “members” – the various media news providers which subscribe to it. That’s not just newspapers (though newspapers are undoubtedly a big chunk of their members), but also radio stations, TV stations, and web sites.

I would have to believe that, if newspapers went away (or were even more seriously reduced in scope than they are now), the AP would have a more limited budget than it has now, and there would be fewer AP reporters / newsgatherers.

Reuters, on the other hand, is a publicly-traded company, so it undoubtedly operates under a somewhat different business model, but the same basic situation might apply.

[Lust4Life]

@iamthewalrus_3

I apologize for the insult. It was intended as a lighthearted response, but I know that such things often don’t translate very well in text. It was bad form on my part.

That said, your arguments so far have not demonstrated an impressive understanding of statistics. They appear to be based on anecdotal evidence and qualitative impressions (“young people are less literate”) as opposed to qualitative data (“literacy declined by a rate of x% in people aged y to z”).

I don’t see how any of your response in this post relates to the actual data at hand.

I understand how polls work and that self-reporting polls have various biases.

Are you suggesting that over just eleven years, people’s willingness to self report newspaper readership declined in a huge way? What would have produced such a change? Did it recently become shameful to admit to reading newspapers? Do you have an actual hypothesis here, or are you just clouding the issue? It’s fine to point out that polls are subject to various sorts of errors, but you can’t just categorically refute polling data without a reasonable suggestion for how such errors would lead to the data in the poll misrepresenting reality. You haven’t done that.

We could debate the finer points of how recent students are not as well-educated as they ought to be, but there’s simply no way that such changes are the primary cause of a 40% decline in newspaper readership among the 18-24 age group. Not to mention the fact that such complaints don’t even begin to explain the similar drops in readership in other age groups.

A good comparison would be pubs in the U.K.

When I was young pubs did a massive amounts of business, there were pubs everywhere, and they were frequented strongly during the week as well as at w/e s.

Of course the alternative was to stay at home and watch the two B&W tv channels, and that was it !
No video games, internet etc.

But while not as ubiquitious as they once were they’re still around in large numbers just about anywhere you 're likely to visit.

And now we’ve got Kindles and so on, well thats the book publishing industry overwith then.

But I look around me and see that it isn’t.

Yes the figures show a downturn, it would be surprising if they didn’t, but predicting the death of N.P.s from that is like telling a patient that they’ve got a malignant growth when they’ve only just started developing a fever.

[Lust4Life]

@kidchameleon

Do you have any facts to back up anything you’ve written?

Ah so in defiance of all precedance in debates generally, I’m required by someone who hasn’t actually made any contribution to this thread, to prove a negative.

Sorry, but when you get to understand debating a little bit better, (And I realise that for some this may take a bit longer then the rest of us, maybe a lot longer for one or two individuals ), you’ll realise that this isn’t down to the denier, but up to the asserter.

Anyway, good luck, I’m sure that you’ll get there in the end, no matter how long it takes.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Lust4Life

A good comparison would be pubs in the U.K.

A better comparison would be telegraphs. For the first few years after the telephone started gaining ground, people assumed it would be a novelty, then they thought it might exist side by side. But nobody sends telegrams any more. Sometimes technological change actually replaces things entirely. Newspapers had a good run, but they’re going to be as antiquated as clay tablets in a few decades.

Ah so in defiance of all precedance in debates generally, I’m required by someone who hasn’t actually made any contribution to this thread, to prove a negative.

How about responding to me, then? I’ve contributed, I’ve made a bunch of specific claims, and you haven’t really responded to any of them besides saying that polls aren’t valid because of an error that is not relevant, and providing anecdotal support.

It’s kind of funny that this thread was started to talk about the post-newspaper world, but we’re spending all this time trying to convince you that such a thing will exist.

[Kozmik]

@iamthewalrus_3

Newspapers had a good run, but they’re going to be as antiquated as clay tablets in a few decades.

Clay tablet.

[Lust4Life]

I also remember that going to the movies would no longer happen first because of tv., then because of video etc.

And no doubt because of "all in one food "tablets, we won’t bother with cooking or resteraunts after the year two thousand…

Oh wait !

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Lust4Life

I also remember that going to the movies would no longer happen first because of tv., then because of video etc.

And no doubt because of "all in one food "tablets, we won’t bother with cooking or resteraunts after the year two thousand…

So, people have made incorrect predictions in the past, therefore all predictions are incorrect?

I’ve made several specific points and I have data to back them up. Do you want to respond to those, or should I just give up?

[Spud]

@Lust4Life

Ah so in defiance of all precedance in debates generally, I’m required by someone who hasn’t actually made any contribution to this thread, to prove a negative.

Sorry, but when you get to understand debating a little bit better, (And I realise that for some this may take a bit longer then the rest of us, maybe a lot longer for one or two individuals ), you’ll realise that this isn’t down to the denier, but up to the asserter.

Anyway, good luck, I’m sure that you’ll get there in the end, no matter how long it takes.

Let me help you out a bit then… the literacy rate in the U.K. and the U.S. is 99.0.

The only stats I could find (with a thorough 5 second Google search) shows a steady and drastic decline in the rate of illiterates in the US from 1870 to 1979.

Why again do you think the literacy rate has fallen lately?

Both my sister and her husband have been in the newspaper business for over 30 years. They are constantly being given “unpaid breaks” and they are the lucky ones who haven’t been let go. She is lucky since she does the educational beat… he is a graphic artist and ads are way down (i.e. the money source for the paper).

I’m an old fart at 50 and only read a “paper” when I’m staying at a hotel that gives them away. I get all my news on-line or on the TV. My sister pointed out an interesting thing… 20 years ago for most people in suburbia and rural areas everyone had a mailbox and a separate little box for the newspaper. Look around today and they are few and far between.

k

[BMalion]

I’m an even older fart at 51, I love reading the paper every day, delivered to my door.

[Spud]

I’ll be 50 and 6 months in two weeks. I guess we have come pretty damn close to identifying exactly where the change in demographics occurs.

[An_Gadai]

@BMalion

The Cleveland Plain Dealer has done a far superior job investigating and reporting local news and scandals than any online entity could have done. I’m happy to subscribe. Sadly, the paper has gotten smaller in recent years.

But the comics are in color every day!

I really like the Plain Dealer, devour it anytime I’m in Cleveland. I used to read the Guardian and the Irish Times on a daily basis. Now I only get the Guardian on a Saturday, and rarely buy any other papers. I get Guardian articles through twitter and I don’t have a commute anymore. I have been thinking though of getting a subscription to the Economist.

[Lust4Life]

[quote=“Spud, post:36, topic:607668”]

Let me help you out a bit then… the literacy rate in the U.K. and the U.S. is 99.0.

The only stats I could find (with a thorough 5 second Google search) shows a steady and drastic decline in the rate of illiterates in the US from 1870 to 1979.

Why again do you think the literacy rate has fallen lately?

Both my sister and her husband have been in the newspaper business for over 30 years. They are constantly being given “unpaid breaks” and they are the lucky ones who haven’t been let go. She is lucky since she does the educational beat… he is a graphic artist and ads are way down (i.e. the money source for the paper).

I’m an old fart at 50 and only read a “paper” when I’m staying at a hotel that gives them away. I get all my news on-line or on the TV. My sister pointed out an interesting thing… 20 years ago for most people in suburbia and rural areas everyone had a mailbox and a separate little box for the newspaper. Look around today and they are few and far between.
You are obviously joking with me.

No, no you really are .

I expect that I’ll get back to you.