tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/newspaper-11802/articlesNewspaper – The Conversation2020-06-22T12:17:38Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1409012020-06-22T12:17:38Z2020-06-22T12:17:38ZJournalists believe news and opinion are separate, but readers can’t tell the difference<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342803/original/file-20200618-41238-19j01o7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Readers don't always know how to distinguish fact from opinion.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/gatehouse-media-owned-palm-beach-post-and-the-gannett-co-news-photo/1166289246?adppopup=true">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The New York Times opinion editor James Bennet resigned recently after the paper published <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html">a controversial opinion essay</a> by U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton that advocated using the military to put down protests. </p>
<p>The essay sparked outrage among the public as well as among younger reporters at the paper. Many of those staffers participated in <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/06/this-puts-black-people-in-danger-new-york-times-staffers-band-together-to-protest-tom-cottons-anti-protest-editorial/">a social media campaign</a> aimed at the paper’s leadership, asking for factual corrections and an editor’s note explaining what was wrong with the essay.</p>
<p>Eventually, the staff uprising forced <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/business/media/james-bennet-resigns-nytimes-op-ed.html">Bennet’s departure</a>. </p>
<p>Cotton’s column was published on the opinion pages – not the news pages. But that’s a distinction often lost on the public, whose criticisms during the recent incident were often directed <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonFarmer15/status/1269729759946330113?s=20">at the paper as a whole</a>, including its news coverage. All of which raises a longstanding question: What’s the difference between the news and opinion side of a news organization? </p>
<p>It is a tenet of American journalism that reporters working for the news sections of newspapers remain entirely independent of the opinion sections. But the <a href="https://newslit.org/get-smart/did-you-know-news-opinion/">divide between news and opinion is not as clear to many readers</a> as journalists believe that it is. </p>
<p>And because American news consumers have become accustomed to the ideal of objectivity in news, the idea that opinions bleed into the news report potentially leads readers to suspect that reporters have a political agenda, which damages their credibility, and that of their news organizations.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=702&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=702&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=702&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The op-ed column by Sen. Tom Cotton.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html">New York Times screenshot</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How news and opinion grew apart</h2>
<p>Long before newspapers became institutions for collecting and distributing news, they were instruments for the personal expression of individuals – their owners. There was little thought given to whether or not opinion and fact were intermingled. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/pennsylvania-gazette/#:%7E:text=Pennsylvania%20Gazette,Pennsylvania%20Gazette%20from%20Samuel%20Keimer.">Benjamin Franklin ran the Pennsylvania Gazette</a> from 1729 to 1748 as a vehicle for his own political and scientific ideas and even just his day-to-day observations. The <a href="https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030483/">Gazette of the United States</a>, first published in 1789, was the most prominent Federalist paper of its time and was funded in part by Alexander Hamilton, whose letters and essays it published anonymously.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Front page of the inaugural issue of the Gazette of the United States, from April 15, 1789.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030483/1789-04-15/ed-1/seq-1/">Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the early 19th century, newspapers were <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/07/16/from-tom-paine-to-glenn-greenwald-we-need-partisan-journalism/">often nakedly partisan</a>, since many of them were funded by <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/party-press-era">political parties</a>. </p>
<p>Over the course of the 19th century, though, newspapers began to seek a popular audience. As they grew in circulation, some began to emphasize their independence from faction. </p>
<p>Coupled with the rise of journalism schools and press organizations, this independence enshrined “fact” and “truth” as what scholar Barbie Zelizer calls <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1479142042000180953">“God-terms” of journalism</a> by the early 20th century.</p>
<p>Newspaper owners never wanted to give up their influence on public opinion, however. As news became the main product of the newspaper, publishers established editorial pages, where they could continue to endorse their favorite politicians or push for pet causes. </p>
<p>These pages are <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/about-the-times-editorial-board">typically run by editorial boards</a>, which are staffs of writers, often with individual areas of expertise (economics or foreign policy or, in smaller papers, state politics), who draft editorial essays. They are then voted on by the board, which usually includes the publisher. They’re then published, usually with no author attribution, as the official opinions of the newspaper. There are variations on this process: Often the editorial board will decide on topics and the paper’s opinion before these writers get to work on their drafts.</p>
<p>James Bennet, The New York Times opinion editor who resigned, acknowledged in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/reader-center/editorial-board-explainer.html">an article on the paper’s website</a> that was published in January 2020, months before the Cotton essay, that “the role of the editorial board can be confusing, particularly to readers who don’t know The Times well.”</p>
<p>Through most the 20th century, newspapers reassured their readers and their reporters that there was a <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3118032">“wall” between the news and opinion sides</a> of their operations.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Unbiased journalism is a relatively new phenomenon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/people-walk-by-the-front-of-the-new-york-times-building-on-news-photo/1027689402?adppopup=true">Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Publishers relied on this idea of separation to insist that their news reporting was fair and independent, and they believed that readers understood that separation.</p>
<p>This is a particularly American way of operating. Readers in <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2015/04/28/our-partisan-press-does-it-matter-to-journalism-or-politics/">other countries</a> usually expect their newspapers to have a point of view, representing a particular party or ideology.</p>
<h2>The creation of the op-ed page</h2>
<p>One way that newspapers found to allow a greater range of opinion in its pages was to create an op-ed page, which publishes opinions by individuals, not those of the editorial board. As journalism historian <a href="https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=cmj_facpub">Michael Socolow recounts</a>, John Oakes, the editorial page editor of The New York Times in 1970, created the first op-ed page because, he felt, “a newspaper most effectively fulfills its social and civic responsibilities by challenging authority, acting independently, and inviting dissent.”</p>
<p><a href="http://www.seattletimescompany.com/editorial/howtoread.htm">“Op-ed” is short for “opposite the editorial page,”</a> not “opinion and editorial” or opinions that are opposite from those of the editorial page. Literally, the name comes from the fact that it was located across from – opposite – the editorial page in the print newspaper.</p>
<p>The op-ed page of a print newspaper typically includes the newspaper’s opinion columnists. These are employees of the paper who write regularly. The paper also usually publishes a selection of opinion pieces from outside writers. Newspapers around the country emulated the Times after the op-ed page debuted.</p>
<h2>Online opinions, changing norms and blurred lines</h2>
<p>With the expansion of opinion pages online, the Times was <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-york-times-publisher-ag-sulzberger-laments-loss-of-a-talent-like-james-bennet">publishing 120 opinion pieces a week</a> at the time of James Bennet’s resignation.</p>
<p>While the move online allows The New York Times op-ed page to vastly increase its output, it also creates a problem: Opinion stories <a href="https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2017/news-or-opinion-online-its-hard-to-tell/">no longer look clearly different</a> from news stories. </p>
<p>With many readers coming to news sites from social media links, they may not pay attention to the subtle clues that mark a story published by the opinion staff. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Washington Post homepage on June 19, 2020. Opinions at top right; reporting to the left.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/?reload=true">Screenshot</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Add to this the fact that even readers who go to a paper’s homepage are met with news and opinion stories displayed graphically at the same level, connoting the same level of importance. And reporters share analysis and opinion on Twitter, further confusing readers. </p>
<p>The news sections of the paper also increasingly run <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/opinion/13pubed.html">stories that contain a level of news analysis</a> that casual readers might not be able to distinguish from what The New York Times designates as opinion.</p>
<p>In 1970, when the op-ed page debuted in The New York Times, <a href="http://media-cmi.com/downloads/Sixty_Years_Daily_Newspaper_Circulation_Trends_050611.pdf">daily newspaper circulation was equivalent to 98% of U.S. households</a>. By 2010, that number had dropped below 40% and has continued to dip since then.</p>
<p>Even if readers in 1970 could clearly differentiate between news and opinion, they likely do not have the same level of critical engagement when news exists online and in almost unmanageable volume. </p>
<p>If news organizations such as The New York Times continue to maintain that a robust opinion section, separate from their news reports, serves to further the public conversation, then those institutions will need to do a better job of explaining to news consumers where – or if – the “wall” between news and opinion exists.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140901/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin M. Lerner does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It is a tenet of American journalism that reporters working for the news sections of newspapers remain entirely independent of the opinion sections. But that wall may be invisible to readers.Kevin M. Lerner, Assistant Professor of Journalism, Marist CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1183332019-06-11T23:02:46Z2019-06-11T23:02:46ZAustralians are less interested in news and consume less of it compared to other countries, survey finds<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278826/original/file-20190611-32356-136pdk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">More Australians rely on just one source to get their news.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/milan-italy-august-10-2017-abc-701792245?src=SJkvYUhBLFpSbuRyu4OZsw-1-5">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australian news consumers access news less often and have lower interest in it compared to citizens in many other countries. At the same time, Australians are more likely to think the news media are doing a good job keeping them up to date and explaining what’s happening.</p>
<p>These findings are contained in the <a href="https://apo.org.au/node/240786">Digital News Report: Australia 2019</a>. In its fifth year, the Digital News Report Australia is part of a 38-country survey coordinated by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. </p>
<p>In comparison to the other countries, the survey of 2,010 online adults shows that Australian news consumers:</p>
<ul>
<li>are the “lightest” news consumers out of 38 countries</li>
<li>use fewer sources to access news</li>
<li>are less interested in news and politics</li>
<li>are more likely to subscribe to Netflix than news</li>
<li>are less likely to check the accuracy of a story.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-political-journalists-might-be-part-of-a-canberra-bubble-but-they-engage-the-public-too-114084">Australian political journalists might be part of a ‘Canberra bubble’, but they engage the public too</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>‘Light’ consumers of news</h2>
<p>The survey finds almost half (48%) of Australian news consumers are “light” users, who access news once a day or less, whereas the global average across the 38-countries was one-third (34%). </p>
<p>Correspondingly, Australia also has the lowest number of “heavy” news consumers, who access news more than once a day, at 52%. This is compared to an average of 66% across the other countries. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278852/original/file-20190611-32351-pq8ot0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278852/original/file-20190611-32351-pq8ot0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278852/original/file-20190611-32351-pq8ot0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278852/original/file-20190611-32351-pq8ot0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278852/original/file-20190611-32351-pq8ot0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278852/original/file-20190611-32351-pq8ot0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278852/original/file-20190611-32351-pq8ot0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278852/original/file-20190611-32351-pq8ot0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Participants were asked how often they typically access <em>news</em>, meaning national, international, regional/local news and other topical events accessed via any platform (radio, TV, newspaper or online).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Reliance on a single news source</h2>
<p>Australians also use fewer sources or platforms to access news. Just one third say they get their news from four or more sources, such as online, social media, TV, newspapers, social media and so on. This is well below the 38-country average of 44%. </p>
<p>More Australians rely on just one source to get their news (21%), which is higher than the 38-country average (17%). Only three other countries in the survey (Japan, South Korea and the US) have more people relying on just one source to access news than Australia. </p>
<p>The data tell us that Australians who rely on just one source of news also tend to consume less of it. Those who use four or more sources to get their news, also seek news more often. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278787/original/file-20190611-52758-7yjgq9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278787/original/file-20190611-52758-7yjgq9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278787/original/file-20190611-52758-7yjgq9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=663&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278787/original/file-20190611-52758-7yjgq9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=663&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278787/original/file-20190611-52758-7yjgq9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=663&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278787/original/file-20190611-52758-7yjgq9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=833&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278787/original/file-20190611-52758-7yjgq9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=833&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278787/original/file-20190611-52758-7yjgq9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=833&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Participants were asked which, if any, of the following they have used in the <em>last week</em> as a <em>source of news</em>.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Preference for Netflix over news</h2>
<p>Globally, news consumers are more likely to pay for video streaming services such as Netflix than news, but Australians have a stronger preference for entertainment over news than consumers in other countries. </p>
<p>More than a third (34%) of Australians say they would prioritise a subscription for a video streaming service, compared to an average of 28% across 16 countries where the question was asked. Only 9% of Australians say they would choose online news first. </p>
<p>This year, survey participants were asked whether they thought the news media in their country was doing a good job across five areas: </p>
<ul>
<li>scrutiny</li>
<li>relevance</li>
<li>negativity</li>
<li>keeping them up to date </li>
<li>explaining. </li>
</ul>
<p>Australians delivered a mixed report card on these questions and the results vary compared to the global average. On a positive note, two-thirds of Australian news consumers (66%) agree the news keeps them up to date, which compares favourably to the global average of 62%. </p>
<p>But Australian news consumers are also more likely to think the news is too negative (44%) compared to the country average (39%). Australians are also slightly more likely to agree that the news is not relevant to them (28%) compared to the international average of 25%.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278788/original/file-20190611-52780-1qtfe1b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278788/original/file-20190611-52780-1qtfe1b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278788/original/file-20190611-52780-1qtfe1b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278788/original/file-20190611-52780-1qtfe1b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278788/original/file-20190611-52780-1qtfe1b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278788/original/file-20190611-52780-1qtfe1b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278788/original/file-20190611-52780-1qtfe1b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278788/original/file-20190611-52780-1qtfe1b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Participants were asked to indicate whether they thought the news media in their country was doing a good job or not according to five criteria.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>According to the data, perceptions of news performance are strongly influenced by age and gender. Younger news consumers are the least likely to feel the news is relevant to them, particularly Gen Z women. This points to opportunities for more content that speaks to this age group. </p>
<p>Significantly, Australian news consumers who rely on legacy media for their main source of news, such as TV and newspapers, are more likely to think journalism is performing well. This highlights the ongoing importance of well-resourced traditional news brands as part of the hybrid mix of online and offline news sources.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-matter-of-mis-trust-why-this-election-is-posing-problems-for-the-media-116142">A matter of (mis)trust: why this election is posing problems for the media</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Australians are less interested in politics</h2>
<p>The lower rates of news consumption in Australia can perhaps be explained by the fact that Australian news consumers are less interested in both news and politics. </p>
<p>58% of Australians say they have a high interest in news, which is below the 38-country average (60%). When compared to other English-speaking democratic countries (UK, US, Canada and Ireland), Australians and Canadians are the least interested in news, and Americans and UK news consumers are the most interested (67%).</p>
<p>Australians are also slightly less interested in politics. Two thirds of Australians (65%) said they have little or no interest in politics, compared to 63% across the other countries. In contrast, Turkish news consumers have the highest interest in politics (67%) and Malaysians the lowest (19%). </p>
<p>When compared to other English-speaking democratic countries Australians are the least interested in politics, and news consumers in the US are the most interested (59%).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278791/original/file-20190611-52741-10ar8q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278791/original/file-20190611-52741-10ar8q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278791/original/file-20190611-52741-10ar8q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=230&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278791/original/file-20190611-52741-10ar8q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=230&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278791/original/file-20190611-52741-10ar8q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=230&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278791/original/file-20190611-52741-10ar8q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278791/original/file-20190611-52741-10ar8q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278791/original/file-20190611-52741-10ar8q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Participants were asked how interested, if at all, they would say they are in politics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Analysis of the data clearly shows that interest in politics is one of the strongest indicators of engagement with news. Those who are interested in politics are more likely to have a high interest in news, access it often, use more sources, have higher trust in it and are more likely to pay for it. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278800/original/file-20190611-52739-1jv6ltf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278800/original/file-20190611-52739-1jv6ltf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278800/original/file-20190611-52739-1jv6ltf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=204&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278800/original/file-20190611-52739-1jv6ltf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=204&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278800/original/file-20190611-52739-1jv6ltf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=204&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278800/original/file-20190611-52739-1jv6ltf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=256&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278800/original/file-20190611-52739-1jv6ltf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=256&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278800/original/file-20190611-52739-1jv6ltf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=256&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Participants were asked their MAIN source of news, how interested they would say they are in news, and how interested they would say they are in politics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The connection between political interest and news interest is supported by a range of academic studies examining citizen participation in politics and the role of the news media. Generally speaking, the research finds a reciprocal relationship, but some types of news consumption inspire greater interest in politics than others. </p>
<p>A 2018 <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1077699018793998#articleCitationDownloadContainer">study</a> found those who rely on commercial TV for news, rather than a public broadcaster, have lower interest in politics. Given the high rates of commercial TV news consumption in Australia this might help partly explain the lower interest in both news and politics – but this requires further research. </p>
<h2>Interest in news by age and gender</h2>
<p>It’s possible that people’s interest in news and politics has been displaced. Rather than adverse events causing people to disconnect, their interest and attention has been drawn to other things. This is the primary thesis of the “attention economy”, and we see evidence of this in the levels of interest in news between genders and generations, and the platforms they tend to get news from.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278801/original/file-20190611-52767-n7p4pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278801/original/file-20190611-52767-n7p4pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278801/original/file-20190611-52767-n7p4pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=214&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278801/original/file-20190611-52767-n7p4pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=214&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278801/original/file-20190611-52767-n7p4pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=214&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278801/original/file-20190611-52767-n7p4pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=268&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278801/original/file-20190611-52767-n7p4pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=268&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278801/original/file-20190611-52767-n7p4pm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=268&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Participants were asked how interested, if at all, they would say they are in news.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Women and Gen Z have lower interest in news, but they are also more likely to get their news from social media than men, and older generations. Whereas, men and older generations are better conditioned to engage with politics and news via traditional channels.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/mounting-evidence-the-tide-is-turning-on-news-corp-and-its-owner-116892">Mounting evidence the tide is turning on News Corp, and its owner</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Trust in news and politics is low overall</h2>
<p>A further contributor to Australians’ low interest in news could well be the general malaise among the Australian population toward the news media and politics. <a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-trust-in-politicians-and-democracy-hits-an-all-time-low-new-research-108161">Research</a> shows <a href="https://www.thepolicyspace.com.au/2018/04/272-trust-and-democracy-in-australia-democratic-decline-and-renewal">trust in politics</a>, politicians and the news media to be at an all-time low. </p>
<p>This year’s Digital News Report also finds general trust in news is low, at 44%. Trust in news found on social media (18%) and search engines (32%) is even lower. Given that more Australians (57%) use online sources as the main source for news, this isn’t surprising. </p>
<p>Over the past year, there has been a lot of turbulence in the news media, with takeovers, closures, job losses and a leadership crisis at the national public broadcaster. This general turmoil in the news media was echoed in the corridors of power, with a third prime minister installed in as many years. </p>
<p>This overall climate of instability reflects a degraded political and news environment, which can be seen in some of the findings this year.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118333/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>More than a third of Australians say they would prioritise a subscription for a video streaming service, such as Netflix, over a subscription for online news.Caroline Fisher, Assistant Professor in Journalism, University of CanberraGlen Fuller, Associate Professor Communications and Media, University of CanberraJee Young Lee, Lecturer, News & Media Research Centre, University of CanberraSora Park, Associate Dean of Research, Faculty of Arts & Design, University of CanberraYoonmo Sang, Assistant Professor, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1125382019-02-28T14:32:54Z2019-02-28T14:32:54ZRevival of Afrikaans anti-apartheid paper is good news. But change is in order<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261238/original/file-20190227-150721-1d0yxv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Editor Max du Preez with one of the early editions of Vrye Weekblad.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://twitter.com/klyntji/status/1096997669707247622/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1096997669707247622&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fcitizen.co.za%2Fnews%2Fsouth-africa%2F2085301%2Fvrye-weekblad-makes-a-return%2F">@klyntji/Twitter</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For a generation of Afrikaans-speaking South Africans the <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2019-02-19-vrye-weekblad-is-back-and-armed-with-a-power-crew/">relaunch</a> of the alternative weekly <em><a href="https://www.vryeweekblad.com/">Vrye Weekblad</a></em> (1988-1994), brought a whiff of nostalgia. Its readers remember the publication (first a newspaper, then a magazine) under Max du Preez’s editorship, fondly. </p>
<p>Unequivocally against apartheid, <em>Vrye Weekblad</em> (The Free Weekly) was the paper that helped free Afrikaans from its association with Afrikaner nationalism. It fearlessly exposed the apartheid police’s death squads, and infiltrated the far rightwing paramilitary <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/afrikaner-weerstandsbeweging-awb">Afrikaner-Weerstandsbeweging</a> and the secretive Afrikaner nationalist organisation, the <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/organisations/afrikaner-broederbond">Broederbond</a>. It also demystified the liberation movements for a readership isolated by censorship. </p>
<p>It provided columns with counter-cultural irreverence, satire and cutting edge aesthetics. This was reflected in the book reviews, music, recipes, travelogues and cartoons, all united by the common commitment to social change. </p>
<p>In short, <em>Vrye Weekblad</em> provided the kind of journalism that many news consumers today – in a time of shrinking budgets, and receding arts coverage and investigative journalism – would still relish. </p>
<p>Apart from the intrinsic quality of its journalism, there were at least two other factors that contributed to <em>Vrye Weekblad</em>‘s success. Firstly, the repressive apartheid regime was an obvious foil for its alternative journalism. This attracted a critical readership which had an appetite for resistance. </p>
<p>Secondly, the mainstream Afrikaans press, dominated by <a href="https://medialternatives.com/2011/11/15/media-inc-the-story-of-naspers-media24-and-channel-life/">Naspers</a>, was ideologically compromised. <em>Vrye Weekblad</em> tapped into an Afrikaans audience that wanted independent news in their own language, which the mainstream Afrikaans newspapers couldn’t provide. </p>
<p>Both those factors are no longer relevant in a democratic South Africa, with a media landscape that has undergone vast changes. Can the new <em>Vrye Weekblad</em> flourish in this new context? Can it provide a formula that addresses the realities of a society that’s undergone major changes, and that can survive in an industry that’s in a state of meltdown?</p>
<p>In my view it could, but it can’t trade on its history alone. It will need to consider the challenges of the present and the future.</p>
<h2>That was then</h2>
<p><em>Vrye Weekblad</em> gave to some Afrikaans speakers a new sense of identity. Its readers were fed up with decades of lying from the establishment; of having their language appropriated and abused in the service of Afrikaner nationalism, apartheid and a claustrophobic Calvinism; of having their cultural identity tethered to an illegitimate, murderous government. </p>
<p>For many Afrikaans speakers, the publication was the epitome of author Jeanne Goosen’s much-quoted <a href="https://www.litnet.co.za/jeanne-goosen-kry-dit-reg-met-i-ons-is-nie-almal-so-nie-i-1990/">novel</a> title: “Ons is nie almal so nie” (Afrikaans for “we’re not all like that”).</p>
<p>The traces its roots back to the <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/van-zyl-slabbert-concludes-meeting-anc">“Dakar Safari”</a> in 1987, the historic meeting in Senegal between the still-banned African National Congress and a group of progressive South African academics, intellectuals and artists. At the meeting, leftwing theologian <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/reverend-beyers-naude">Beyers Naudé</a> suggested to Du Preez that he start the progressive paper.</p>
<p><em>Vrye Weekblad</em> thrived with its no-holds-barred approach. But after years of harassment by the National Party regime (no friend of the free press) and state structures, including <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/general-lothar-neethling-sues-vrye-weekblad-and-weekly-mail">massive lawsuits</a> and crippling fines, it was eventually forced to fold up in 1994.</p>
<h2>This is now</h2>
<p>Today’s media landscape is radically different. Audiences have migrated online, newspaper circulations have fallen and traditional business models have collapsed. </p>
<p>The Afrikaans media landscape, too, has changed. <a href="https://www.naspers.com/">Naspers</a>, now a global media behemoth, has <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1367877908098855?journalCode=icsa&">repositioned</a> itself away from its historical support for Afrikaner nationalism towards the ideology of the global marketplace. The language is now used as a commodity, and a lucrative one at that. The Afrikaans book publishing landscape is vibrant and Afrikaans digital satellite channels have a strong focus on entertainment. Afrikaans rom-coms fantasise mostly about white worlds, while cheesy Afrikaans dance music is where the money is.</p>
<p>Although the language has lost its political dominance, its (white) speakers continue to enjoy economic power in the media marketplace. Six in 10 of the almost seven million Afrikaans speakers in South Africa are estimated to be <a href="https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Minority-of-Afrikaans-speakers-white-20130422">black</a>. Yet, in the majority of Afrikaans media, black Afrikaans speakers remain either conspicuously absent, or have a safe presence on the periphery. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/more-than-an-oppressors-language-reclaiming-the-hidden-history-of-afrikaans-71838">More than an oppressor's language: reclaiming the hidden history of Afrikaans</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Unfortunately, <a href="http://ukznpress.bookslive.co.za/blog/2018/04/18/yves-vanderhaeghens-afrikaner-identity-looks-at-the-role-that-media-plays-in-the-construction-and-demarcation-of-boundaries-and-culture/">white identity politics</a> seems to benefit most from the Afrikaans commercial media and entertainment market. Rightwing trade union Solidariteit’s <a href="https://maroelamedia.co.za/">Maroela Media</a> is an example of how the internet has provided a platform for the mediation of reactionary identity politics. The biggest exception has been the Afrikaans tabloid <em>Son</em>, owned by Naspers, which addresses Afrikaans-speaking township readers in their idiom with stories about their lived experience.</p>
<h2>Economic power</h2>
<p>The resurrected <em>Vrye Weekblad</em> will in all likelihood find its most <a href="https://themediaonline.co.za/2019/02/vir-mense-wat-lees-research-shows-significant-market-support-for-vrye-weekblad/">loyal readers</a> among white Afrikaans speakers who have to disown rightwing organisations like <a href="https://www.afriforum.co.za/tuis/"><em>Afriforum</em></a> and racists like Afrikaans singer <a href="http://stevehofmeyr.co.za/">Steve Hofmeyr</a> who try to speak on their behalf. The publication might attract a younger generation that will relish the opportunity to read good journalism in their own language without having to subscribe to the cultural mediocrity and moral conservatism clinging to many Afrikaans cultural products. </p>
<p>Others may just be attracted by the quality of the content. If the new <em>Vrye Weekblad</em> manages to reproduce the variety, vitality and vibrancy of its predecessor, it should have a shot at success.</p>
<p>There is, however, a major caveat. Even though the majority of Afrikaans speakers are South Africans of colour, they have historically occupied a marginal position in the Afrikaans media, and continue to do so. And by the looks of it, they might continue to do so in the new <em>Vrye Weekblad</em>. </p>
<p>It is disappointing to see that the triumvirate leadership of the revived <em>Vrye Weekblad</em> – Du Preez, Anneliese Burgess and Jacques Pauw – is an all-white outfit. Nobody can doubt their journalistic prowess. But this is an opportunity to appoint black Afrikaans-speaking journalists to the highest ranks of the publication. </p>
<p>For it to truly break new ground in Afrikaans, the new <em>Vrye Weekblad</em> should appeal to <em>all</em> readers of the language across class, race and gender. That is, admittedly, a tall order. But the old <em>Vrye Weekblad</em> had a reputation of never shirking from challenges.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112538/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Herman Wasserman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A progressive Afrikaans newspaper will be relaunched soon. But Vrye Weekblad can’t trade on its history alone. It will need to consider the challenges of the present and the future.Herman Wasserman, Professor of Media Studies and Director of the Centre for Film and Media Studies, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/785992017-06-05T20:03:29Z2017-06-05T20:03:29ZTime for a ‘digital’ reality check on Fairfax and The New York Times<p>I think it’s time to take a reality check on the state of news publishers digital transformation. While digital revenue streams may be delivering, there’s still a strong reliance on print for revenue and research shows readers engage more with print. </p>
<p>Media economist <a href="https://www.academia.edu/33222091/Selling_horses_when_consumers_prefer_sports_cars_The_fundamental_product_problem_of_legacy_news_providers_in_the_digital_world">Robert G. Picard.</a> summarises well the key problem with digital transformation. He notes that as news publishers focus on growing digital revenue, they forget their customers and their needs.</p>
<p>He notes that while journalism institutions have embraced the challenge of monetising digital media and increase revenue, this “institutionally focused strategy is designed to serve institutional interests not improve its offerings”. </p>
<p>In fact, newspapers keep offering the wrong things to their audiences. In Picard’s words, they sell readers horses when they actually prefer sports cars.</p>
<p>I think his words also apply accurately to Fairfax Media. Its digital strategy is focused on increasing shareholder revenue, and has very little to do with its journalism or journalistic offerings. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317176678_Does_digital_bring_home_the_bacon">My recent research</a> focused on the digital strategies of Fairfax Media and The New York Times Co. While the two “journalism institutions” pursue different digital strategies, the outcomes for two newsrooms are somewhat different. The New York Times strategy is based on digital-only subscriptions, whereas Fairfax is betting on its digital property listing service (Domain). </p>
<p>The main difference between the two is that while The New York Times continues to invest in its newsrooms and expand internationally (it has journalists filing stories from over 150 countries), Fairfax continues to chop newsroom jobs. It’s currently planning to cut 25% its newsroom staff from its Australian flagship papers to save $A30 million. </p>
<h2>Digital is growing, but so what?</h2>
<p>In 2016 major newspapers in the United States saw strong growth in digital subscriptions: The New York Times recorded a 47% rise and The Wall Street Journal 23% growth, according to the recently published <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/circulation-and-revenue-fall-for-newspaper-industry/">State of the News Media report by Pew Research Center</a>.</p>
<p>However, the report also notes that “these gains did not translate into circulation growth for the industry overall” and the combined digital and print circulation of newspapers fell 8% – “marking the 28th consecutive year of declines”. Digital advertising revenue also declined, but the proportion of digital advertising revenue of total revenue grew to 29%, because print advertising income continued to decline. </p>
<p>Fairfax, currently in the midst of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/tpg-bid-for-fairfax-what-usually-happens-when-private-equity-meets-media-77313">bidding war among private equity firms</a>, is still driven by digital revenue from Domain. But the management of the company changed its tune in February, in terms of its print strategy.</p>
<p>Fairfax <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/22/fairfax-media-announces-half-year-profit-and-plan-to-keep-printing-newspapers">CEO Greg Hywood</a> explained “while we have considered many options, the model we have developed involves continuing to print our publications daily for some years yet”, adding that “this is the best commercial outcome for shareholders based on current advertising and subscription trends”. </p>
<p>In May, media industry commentator <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/hellman--friedman-makes-rival-bid-for-fairfax-media-20170517-gw7e5r.html">Mark Westfield </a> said that Hellman & Friedman, which is bidding for Fairfax’s media assets, “wouldn’t be interested in buying [Fairfax] unless they saw the assets of The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and Australian Financial Review and Domain as good assets to maintain”. </p>
<p>The sale or closure of newspapers wouldn’t make sense as Fairfax is still print reliant in terms of its revenue, and the same applies to The New York Times. <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317176678_Does_digital_bring_home_the_bacon">My research</a> shows in 2016 Fairfax print still delivered 78.6% of revenue, while digital was only 21.4% of its total revenue. Digital advertising made 18.5% of the total revenue, and digital subscriptions 2.86% of total.</p>
<p>I also found in a six-year period from 2011 to 2016, digital revenue of Fairfax grew 69% and at the same time print & other revenue declined 31.5%. </p>
<p>In comparison, in a five-year period from 2012 to 2016 (when figures were available) The New York Times digital revenue grew 32% – more slowly than Fairfax’s, but its print revenue dropped less than Fairfax’s - 11.5%. In 2016, digital made 27.8% of its total revenue and print 72.2%. The New York Times also continues to be print reliant in terms of its revenue. </p>
<p>Recent studies by media scholars <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1279028?journalCode=rjos20">Neil Thurman</a> and <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17512786.2016.1208056?journalCode=rjop20">Iris Chyi & Ori Tenenboim </a> suggest that print continues to be strong in terms of readership. A study of 11 British newspapers by Thurman shows that the readers spent more time with print newspapers than with the online edition.</p>
<p>In their study, Chyi and Teneboim found that the “(supposedly dying) print product still reaches far more readers than the (supposedly promising) digital product in these newspapers’ home markets”.</p>
<p>In the light of this, it can be argued that digital transformation is continuing, but being fully reliant on digital readers may be a myth – as <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/digital-sublime">academic Vincent Mosco</a> puts it: “a captivating fiction, a promise unfulfilled and perhaps unfulfillable.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78599/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merja Myllylahti does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While digital revenue streams may be delivering, there’s still a strong reliance on print for revenue and research shows readers engage more with print.Merja Myllylahti, Project manager and author for Journalism, Media and Democracy (JMAD) Research Center, Auckland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.