4 ms·

Newspapers’ online readership has seen little to no gains

15 points by eplanit 11y ago

x5n1 11y ago
Spend time reading press releases, or read books with actual information. I pick books. I have my computer read them to me.
- elcapitan 11y ago
  I stopped reading "the news" (as presented as a product) earlier this year and haven't looked back. I don't miss major events, because they're everywhere anyway, and I can look up the facts the way I want, not according to the rhythm of the narration of sensationalist media outlets. I have much more time to read in-depth books and articles that I select for myself. I feel better informed since I have stopped reading newspapers and online news. This is actually basically what I read in Nassim Talebs books years before but thought it was a bit over the top at the time.
  - hacker_9 11y ago
    I agree. If you read the news you are just informed about how the world is going to shit and everyone is corrupt or a killer. This really colours people view of the world and they end up leading a life of fear, whereas the reality is 99% people are actually good.
  - iamtew 11y ago
    Likewise, I stopped reading the global news years ago. I only read the local news, as it's nice to know what's happening directly around me.
    - elcapitan 11y ago
      That's interesting, what kind of 'local' is that? Living in a big city and reading city-related news, or more suburban or rural context? (because I live in Berlin and local/Berlin news would be just as messy garbagy as global news)
      - iamtew 11y ago
        I live in Amsterdam, so I mostly read AT5, www.at5.nl
- sbmassey 11y ago
  Or read blogs by military strategists/economists/scientists that have some actual knowledge of the stuff they are writing about, rather than a bunch of ignorant journalist types.
tempestn 11y ago
I have to say, that's a poor use of a line graph. The line implies a progression. Without reading the axes, it appears to be a graph of readership over time. I only noticed it wasn't because it made no sense that the print line was increasing. A simple bar graph with different colours of bars for print and online would be much more intuitive.
- elcapitan 11y ago
  I was kind of surprised that they wouldn't show the actual change over time (say the last 10 years). Those snapshot values don't really tell a story.
tempestn 11y ago
Very surprising data. I would have expected that in the two under-35 age groups, online readership would be higher than print. Especially in the youngest age group, although I wouldn't expect either to be particularly high there. Interesting that they're specifically speaking about "in-market" online readership. Does this mean that there's significant out-of-market readership that isn't being counted? I know personally I generally read top national and international papers online far more often than the local paper. Of course, part of the answer is people getting news in different ways. Like HN! But also various social media, blogs, etc. But that doesn't account for the relative popularity of print news over online newspapers among young people. Again, surprising.
- elcapitan 11y ago
  The up to 25 readership is probably because they still live with their parents to some degree, so they would tick a 'have access to paper news' box in a survey. Also, tabloids might be pretty prevalent in the less educated group, which is pretty big.
douche 11y ago
I used to read the New York Times. And by read, I mean I read the front-page, and then did the crossword puzzle. Then I stopped reading the front-page, and just did the crossword. A dollar a day for a decent crossword isn't the worst, but I stopped having time to do it, so I cancelled.
soyiuz 11y ago
These findings don't account for huge centralizing effects of online readership. We would expect for several winners to take all, since there are no barriers for readers to navigate towards the highest quality content. I am also puzzled by the absence of The New York Times, which I think would be one of those winners eating into local audiences elsewhere. The concept of a "newspaper" itself makes little sense online, where traditional newspapers compete with aggregators like Reddit and Facebook, and mixed content providers like Breibart, Huffington Post, FiveThirtyEight, Vice, BBC, NPR, Al Jazeera and so on. Should we count those as newspapers? The word "paper" suggests that our categories are inadequate to the task. Other studies show that people are reading more news than ever online. This study should simply conclude that readers no longer call their news sources "newspapers." Imagine a paper that would discuss the stagnation in online shopping by looking at traditional retailers, without mentioning Amazon or Alibaba.

15 points by eplanit 11y ago

x5n1 11y ago

Spend time reading press releases, or read books with actual information. I pick books. I have my computer read them to me.

elcapitan 11y ago
I stopped reading "the news" (as presented as a product) earlier this year and haven't looked back. I don't miss major events, because they're everywhere anyway, and I can look up the facts the way I want, not according to the rhythm of the narration of sensationalist media outlets. I have much more time to read in-depth books and articles that I select for myself. I feel better informed since I have stopped reading newspapers and online news. This is actually basically what I read in Nassim Talebs books years before but thought it was a bit over the top at the time.
- hacker_9 11y ago
  I agree. If you read the news you are just informed about how the world is going to shit and everyone is corrupt or a killer. This really colours people view of the world and they end up leading a life of fear, whereas the reality is 99% people are actually good.
- iamtew 11y ago
  Likewise, I stopped reading the global news years ago. I only read the local news, as it's nice to know what's happening directly around me.
  - elcapitan 11y ago
    That's interesting, what kind of 'local' is that? Living in a big city and reading city-related news, or more suburban or rural context? (because I live in Berlin and local/Berlin news would be just as messy garbagy as global news)
    - iamtew 11y ago
      I live in Amsterdam, so I mostly read AT5, www.at5.nl
sbmassey 11y ago
Or read blogs by military strategists/economists/scientists that have some actual knowledge of the stuff they are writing about, rather than a bunch of ignorant journalist types.

tempestn 11y ago

I have to say, that's a poor use of a line graph. The line implies a progression. Without reading the axes, it appears to be a graph of readership over time. I only noticed it wasn't because it made no sense that the print line was increasing. A simple bar graph with different colours of bars for print and online would be much more intuitive.

elcapitan 11y ago
I was kind of surprised that they wouldn't show the actual change over time (say the last 10 years). Those snapshot values don't really tell a story.

tempestn 11y ago

Very surprising data. I would have expected that in the two under-35 age groups, online readership would be higher than print. Especially in the youngest age group, although I wouldn't expect either to be particularly high there. Interesting that they're specifically speaking about "in-market" online readership. Does this mean that there's significant out-of-market readership that isn't being counted? I know personally I generally read top national and international papers online far more often than the local paper. Of course, part of the answer is people getting news in different ways. Like HN! But also various social media, blogs, etc. But that doesn't account for the relative popularity of print news over online newspapers among young people. Again, surprising.

elcapitan 11y ago
The up to 25 readership is probably because they still live with their parents to some degree, so they would tick a 'have access to paper news' box in a survey. Also, tabloids might be pretty prevalent in the less educated group, which is pretty big.

douche 11y ago

I used to read the New York Times. And by read, I mean I read the front-page, and then did the crossword puzzle. Then I stopped reading the front-page, and just did the crossword. A dollar a day for a decent crossword isn't the worst, but I stopped having time to do it, so I cancelled.

soyiuz 11y ago

These findings don't account for huge centralizing effects of online readership. We would expect for several winners to take all, since there are no barriers for readers to navigate towards the highest quality content. I am also puzzled by the absence of The New York Times, which I think would be one of those winners eating into local audiences elsewhere. The concept of a "newspaper" itself makes little sense online, where traditional newspapers compete with aggregators like Reddit and Facebook, and mixed content providers like Breibart, Huffington Post, FiveThirtyEight, Vice, BBC, NPR, Al Jazeera and so on. Should we count those as newspapers? The word "paper" suggests that our categories are inadequate to the task. Other studies show that people are reading more news than ever online. This study should simply conclude that readers no longer call their news sources "newspapers." Imagine a paper that would discuss the stagnation in online shopping by looking at traditional retailers, without mentioning Amazon or Alibaba.