Rethinking Newspapers

It might be time to think about overhauling the American newspaper system. Not merely because U.S.-based newspapers are failing on pretty much every level, but because new studies are providing evidence that our advertisement-based system might not be the best supportive system either in the long term or for reporting purposes.

The report, soon to be issued by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), examines the state of the news business in 31 OECD member states. One of the most prominent findings in the report shows that the newspaper business is faring far worse in the United States than in other OECD countries.

For quite some time, the U.S. media has been criticized for biased media coverage (either with a liberal or conservative bent) and for becoming to “soft” to do any sort of public good. What is meant by soft? It’s a term that refers to news coverage of, say, grandma finding her lost picture album or the summer’s latest cooling gadgets. As the un-official fourth estate, the news media is supposed to serve the very real function of educating the public about key political issues and happening of note. They are also supposed to be responsible for keeping the political system in check – for calling them out and maintaining transparency.    

The reason our news media has gone to the dumps is a subject of much communications theorizing, but most date it back to deregulation and the switch to an advertising based revenue-strategy. Better circulation of newspapers meant more advertising revenue which meant that newspapers would put in whatever they could in order to increase viewership, even if It means including gossip sections and the like.

Now, in theory this all sounds fine and well. More money at newspapers means more resources and better circulation of content, means more eyes looking at news stories, even if it’s only a cursory glance as the reader flips to the gossip section. But this isn’t exactly the case. Fewer than half of all adults in the United States regularly read newspapers in 2008, compared with 96 percent in Iceland. Declining newspaper sales have led advertisers to stop investing in newspapers and a sharp decline in resources and staff to the further detriment of news reporting.

Other countries tend to have mixed newspaper systems, which provide other forms of revenue besides advertising. An additional finding in the OECD study shows that U.S. newspapers have an exceptionally high reliance on advertising, as opposed to sales of copies or subscriptions. In 2008, advertising contributed 87 percent of newspapers’ revenues in the United States, compared with 53 percent in Germany, 50 percent in Britain and 35 percent in Japan. This means that while the newspaper industry in the U.S. is pretty much going under, in other countries, while it might be struggling, it’s staying afloat.

These numbers make a good practical argument for why newspapers need a financial support system outside of advertisement. But the theoretical implications of such a shift are also very compelling. Advertising also tends to undermine the integrity of newspaper reporting. What newspapers will and won’t print can depend on who their advertisers are since issuing a story which shows an investing advertiser in bad light could mean losing that advertiser’s business.

If we could overhaul the system in such a way that it would create less dependence on advertisers, it might mean seeing a decrease in the amount of “soft” junk, an increase in funds which would enable better overall journalism, and a return to the idea that newspapers are supposed to be a service for the people, not a method of selling advertising space. The OECD study shows that our system is not only flawed, it simply isn’t sustainable over the long term.  

As a free, democratic society we need quality news reporting and newspapers as part of our checks and balance system. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is already looking for new ways to support and reinvigorate journalism. Let’s hope they have the imagination to go beyond simply employing new technology and flashy gimmicks and actually think about changing the underlying system – because it’s quite clear it is the underlying system that’s failing.