For many years, I always thought that newspapers would successfully make the transition from a paper product to the Internet — though the process would be painful. I’m not so sure anymore. Here’s why.
The majority of Internet readers aren’t looking for a comprehensive news report that is incredibly expensive to produce. Need evidence? Just look at the top-viewed stories on two Southern California newspaper sites. At this moment, the top stories on latimes.com are these:
The majority of the stories are commentaries on the news or crime briefs. The top-viewed stories don’t reflect the work of 600-plus journalists busting their asses around the world. That’s just not valued by Internet readers. Sad, but true. Okay, now take a looked at the Orange County Register’s top-viewed stories:
Okay, what do we have? A dog photo contest. The Lakers. A weather story. And a crime story.
Both The Times and Register devote tremendous resources to provide readers with in-depth reporting from around the world. But do today’s readers care? I would argue that they would rather read commentary (the reason why the Huffington Post has been so successful) and celebrity and crime news.
Compounding the problem is the fact that Internet advertising provides only a faction of the income as old-school print advertising revenue. So newspapers have to face two stubborn facts: the majority of readers don’t want their in-depth, quality news coverage and (even if they did) advertising revenues won’t support that kind of editorial heft.
Now we can argue what this means for our democracy or, more pointedly, to websites and bloggers when their free source of news dries up, but the facts remain. Readers and the business model won’t support the expensive journalism newspaper operations produce.
In this case, it’s two strikes and newspapers are out.
25 responses so far ↓
1 Kyle // Oct 1, 2008 at 12:22 am
Sadly, Our nation is addicted to television and there is scarcely a need for the written word at all. I would venture to say most Americans get their news from television. The newspaper, in it’s printed form, has little hope of surviving. I still prefer to read my news but will admit to utilizing the internet, not a printed paper.
2 Paul Bonner // Oct 1, 2008 at 12:56 am
I recently heard Ken Lowe, CEO of the newly spun-off Scripps Interactive and father of what he calls the “food and shelter” segment of the media market, i.e., the Food Channel and HGTV, talk about the bright online future for journalism of that sort and we the “happy beneficiaries” of it. I kept waiting for the downside. Near the end, he devoted half a sentence to “extreme views” and pornographers, barely a wisp of a black cloud on the horizon of, in the words of poet Richard Brautigan, our being watched over by machines of loving grace.
3 Blarneystone // Oct 1, 2008 at 1:12 am
One possible chink in your argument is that some of the popular Times stories are artificially inflated by incoming links from political blogs. Some of those stories on the most-viewed list have been there for days, which indicates they’re not being read by the paper’s core audience.
You have a stronger case on the Register.
4 Inkstained // Oct 1, 2008 at 1:15 am
As a crime reporter, I find this news heartening!
5 Marty // Oct 1, 2008 at 1:18 am
How is this different than print? What do readership surveys show about the print L.A. Times? Even with the shortcomings of that reporting method, I’d guess that the comics page beats several of the “important” pages in the paper.
6 Ben // Oct 1, 2008 at 1:26 am
William, is that the Most Viewed list you’ve got there, or the Most Emailed list?
7 Steve // Oct 1, 2008 at 1:44 am
I see this as a case of chickens coming home to roost. It’s not that the public isn’t interested in deep, serious news, it’s that they have given up on newspapers providing it.
As a comparison, check out what the top hits are on sites like Fox News and CNN – to cover the ideological spectrum that is taken as a given these days.
Is it any different? Still shallow? Also, pre-internet, did newspapers track the popularity of what they wrote? Has serious news always taken a back seat to Andy Capp?
I have no idea what the answers to these questions are, but I think they are valid to ask in order to get a better handle on what is really going on.
8 Tim Stroud // Oct 1, 2008 at 2:33 am
These questions have been coming towards us for years now and the major newspapers are still grapping with them. I think society is changing at a faster pace than ever. But newspapers, until recently, were proud to be an old-time, classic institution resting on their laurels and slower to adapt to a changing society (marketplace).
One of the basic principles we have lived with and believed in for centuries is that for the good of a free society we have to have a free and unfettered press.
But does “press” have to be synonymous with newspapers?
“Press” has a wider meaning than news printed with ink on paper. I think it means journalism disseminated in any media format.
If Woodward and Bernstein broke their Watergate stories on two hour radio or television broadcasts or, coming 35 years in the future, multi-part internet web pages, that news would still have its huge audience transfixed.
9 darleene // Oct 1, 2008 at 2:35 am
A good, shocking investigative story may get a spike if Drudge or some Digger or Farker takes note (and puts a eye-catching headline on it). But when the next day comes, it’s gone. A good story can also get legs if a broadcast investigative reporter takes it and makes good video out of it, making legislators take notice. I’ve seen that happen too.
I know what its like to do an extensive, pour-your-heart-sweat-blood-and-tears-into-it type story and have no one take notice. Not even your editor. It is what it is.
10 Most-read, or most-reviled? — Zero Percent Idle // Oct 1, 2008 at 2:42 am
[...] William Lobdell, who previously wrote a trenchant and sadly accurate critique of the state of papers in general and the LA Times in particular, has looked at the “Most popular” feature at local web sites and decided the end is near for journalism as we know it. [...]
11 James Lynch // Oct 1, 2008 at 2:47 am
I edited a small daily in Chicagoland…despite all the community “happy news” readers say they wanted…the DUIs, sex pervert apprehensions, burglaries etc. were always the most viewed. No big surprise there – it’s called “voyeurism.”
12 Chris // Oct 1, 2008 at 2:55 am
The mistake in this analysis is lumping in all newspapers. The problems of the LA Times and Orange County Register and their sizeable newsrooms and payroll isn’t necessarily true of small town newspapers. I’m familiar with small town newspapers who remain very profitable – maybe not as profitable as they’d like but who is? – and have a very strong future because they focus on community and local content. The print product isn’t going away anytime soon, at least not in small town America where Internet users aren’t nearly as robust as the Metro areas. And small town newspapers can be as strong journalistically as the bigger shops. It’s perfectly fine for the LA Times to continue to shed FTEs in its newsroom in order to realign with the economy of the 21st Century. It can still be a stalwart on the national scene and become even more relevant to its local community. Shrinking isn’t necessarily an evil thing. Being content, complacent and afraid to adapt is the enemy of these large newsrooms. A good working number to shoot for is around 200 to 250 FTEs at the LA Times.
13 Steve // Oct 1, 2008 at 3:07 am
I think this article linked here reinforces my point
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/30/dog-bites-man-and-reports-the-story/
14 Do Web readers really give a rip? - Click Here : Appeal-Democrat // Oct 1, 2008 at 3:57 am
[...] Lobdell, a former repoter for the Los Angeles Times, shared his analysis of what, according to the “most popular” widgets that the Times and our sister Orange County [...]
15 truro1505 // Oct 1, 2008 at 3:57 am
Your interpretation may be right, but I will offer my own approach to newspapers and the web as an alternative explanation. I get both the LA Times and the NY Times delivered every day and also go to the websites of both papers a dozen or so times a day. I read the in-depth reporting in the papers every morning; This is far more satisfying than staring at a screen (I also turn every page of every section every day.)
I rarely have much interest in the LA Times’ op-ed columnists, but I follow those in the NY Times and sometimes read them on-line in the middle of the night rather than go outside in the dark to bring in the papers. I don’t look at very many gossip or car crash items items, but the fact that I sometimes go to them on-line hardly means I am not primarily interested in serious reporting. I know the LA Times is always praising itself for the increase in the number of web “hits” it gets. You — and they — might consider the possibility that these figures reveal less than you seem to think they do.
A final note on the websites themselves — the NY Times is good; the LA Times is just terrible. Given all the fuss the LA Times makes about the importance of its site, it’s amazing how poor it is.
16 Scott // Oct 1, 2008 at 4:13 am
Unfortunately the post reflects the fact that newspapers continue to blame ex-readers for their decline rather than looking at their product. I for one value comprehensive news reporting very highly, but have found that few newspapers (and particularly not the Times) offer comprehensive unbiased coverage. If I want to read the half of the story that supports the political narrative du jour, why not go to the Huffington Post where at least it’s free and not 24 hours old?
17 John Cannon // Oct 1, 2008 at 4:48 am
I think this problem is a little self-fulfilling. When you put a list of “most viewed” stories in a prominent place on your site, those stories will get more and more views, at the expense of more important and more in-depth stories. Many times the SF Gate site (San Francisco Chronicle) will have stories on its “most viewed” list that are a week old, but people still check them out.
Maybe rather than “most viewed,” a paper could do a list of “Our Best Work,” and give it a prominent place on the site. Fluff will still probably draw more clicks, but I would think that many more people would be exposed to important stories that way.
18 ffafooey // Oct 1, 2008 at 7:48 am
damn commie
19 Just Thefacts // Oct 1, 2008 at 9:16 am
Actually, I draw the opposite conclusion from that LA Times’ most viewed list. Contrary to the stereotype of web users reading only celebrity gossip, etc, five of those top 10 stories (Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8 and 9) are enterprise public affairs reporting produced by some of those 600-plus journalists busting their asses. Maybe there’s hope for journalism on the web afterall.
20 Sean // Oct 2, 2008 at 1:46 am
Some good points made already. I agree with John Cannon that having the “most viewed” list creates a cycle — I admit that I frequently click through to the articles on that list, even if they aren’t something I would otherwise read. I figure if so many people found it interesting, I might too.
Another point is that while I do look at that type of article, those aren’t the things I go to the newspaper sites for in the first place. I can get most of that stuff elsewhere. I go to the newspaper sites for quality, in-depth reporting. While I’m there, I do tend to also look at the more lightweight stuff, but if it weren’t for the in-depth reporting, I wouldn’t visit the site anymore. It would be a huge mistake for the newspapers to see these stats and think that they should replace all of their meaty articles with fluff — that’s the point at which they lose their differentiating factor, and I will stop reading.
Another important point is that any given in-depth article may be interesting to a smaller percentage of readers than a crime story. I certainly don’t read them all. But many readers will be interested in at least some of them. If we each read 1/5 of in-depth articles but 1/3 of fluff articles (they have broad interest and are quick to read), that will clearly push the fluff up the list, but it doesn’t mean the other stuff is unimportant. Would be interesting to look at stats like the percentage of readers who read at least one in-depth article, rather than just the individual articles that had the most readers.
21 Michele Rosenberg // Oct 2, 2008 at 3:25 am
My local newspaper The Baltimore Sun is dying. When I was growing up this newspaper had foreign bureaus ranging from U.S.S.R to Israel. Now we can’t even get decent news about a city council hearing. Most of the reporters no longer come from Baltimore and don’t have an institutional memory.
For my national and world news I can turn to the Internet. What do I do for local news?
–
I am currently writing for a monthly newspaper which gives me the opportunity to do in depth reporting on specific “not breaking news” subjects. Perhaps this is the answer for those seeking more information. Maybe we will see some disgruntled journalists and editors starting new weekly and monthly newspapers.
22 sl // Oct 3, 2008 at 3:38 am
You post the MOST EMAILED section, not the most viewed. I am tired of seeing these stories bemoaning lack of readers’ depth that cite these lists. Right now the top MOST VIEWED stories on the LATimes website includes news on the bailout and Ted Stevens–hard news. The most emailed story is some scandal about a sheriff’s deputy torturing his wife. I’d argue that lists of most emailed stories are often fluffier, because readers assume that their friends will have read the hard news stories, but might have missed the less important, but still interesting, crime and celebrity stories.
23 dk // Oct 4, 2008 at 3:53 am
Besides the argument that the “most emailed stories” may or may not be a metric of anything, I’d add that the Los Angeles Times has – sadly – been, for the most part, a failure to its local readers for years. From the front page to sports to business, it hasn’t understood the city. It chooses to go for national prestige stories over covering local issues in the neighborhoods; it chooses to cover non-sports – like pro football – over sports that people actually do in Los Angeles, like surfing and mountain biking. It covers the stock market more than it covers Hollywood (at least until recently) in business. The Times beat itself into submission until it created a situation where it was so weak that it allowed predators in – who then were able to further beat it down, creating an even worse vortex, where the paper began collapsing on itself, losing what talent it had, becoming worse, which led to losing more talent, onward and onward.
I love newspapers, and I’m ashamed – almost – to say this, but I welcome the eventual departure of the Los Angeles Times. It will not be the cataclysm many say it will be; it will certainly not be the disaster nostalgic current and former staffers say it will be. I believe that a new local paper – which we desperately need – will (and can only) emerge when the Times vanishes.
Sooner, rather than later.
Finally, and one last bit of advice, to reiterate what I started with: if you really believe that what people are emailing is a meaningful metric – which I doubt – then don’t blaming the readers. Don’t even blame current management. The blame begins, at least, when the Times lost touch with readership years ago, and decided that it was more important than – and, from its content mix, embarrassed to be from – Los Angeles.
24 dk // Oct 4, 2008 at 3:57 am
(and when I describe pro football as a “non-sport,” my metric has to do with whether it happens locally. We’ve proven, over the past decade, that we don’t want or care about having an NFL team. Maybe that’s because we’re too busy with motocross, surfing, and dozens of other hometown sports that the Times virtually ignores.)
25 oliviaharis // Oct 7, 2008 at 12:37 pm
The main business difference between print media and web media, as far as circulation, is how the numbers are done. For web media, real time statistics show a lot about which parts of a website are most popular, and how many people actually visit. In the print media the numbers are basically ‘how many are circulated’.
————————
oliviaharis
opinion leader
You must log in to post a comment.