Thank you for sharing this comprehensive overview of the recent challenges faced by media outlets. In a world where trust and credibility are paramount, the role of reputable sources and transparent information becomes crucial. It is sad but the collapse of the middle ground in journalism is real and things are not getting better. Greed is only one of the many contributing factors.
Thank you for reading and for taking the time to comment, Winston. It is sad and hopefully we can -- with increasing awareness -- strive to rebuild journalism globally.
You’ve comprehensively presented the case for the western world and also the global context. Greed is a terrible thing. Imagine how media outlets exists in third world countries like mine. In today,s media world, the reader must be as responsible as the media. But when education and literacy is a problem,, those who control the information are always ready to pounce. 😟
That's quite a topic sentence. I'm not sure I've "comprehensively presented the case for...." but thank you. :) I would be very interested to hear more about how media outlets exist in third world countries. What have you observed?
It's not an isolated situation. Media is controlled by the moneyed and the powerful in here. What is distressing is that most of the population do not have access to proper education. Illetracy is an issue. There is access to information through the internet but when the audience is not literate and mature enough to discern, throw in fake news, then the situation becomes worse. And I think the powerful feeds on this, using today's power of information to mislead and misinform in order to accumulate more. Just my observation. Or maybe I've become eccentric. Lol.
Until we get over the greed problem, we are going to continue to see things collapse. I keep saying journalism is the bees of our democracy...they go it perishes. The reason why thing are failing is because corps and billionaires only know greed. Feed the top and let the bottom starve. But we, as consumers, have to budget in supporting what we like to read. I sub to 3 newspapers and 1 magazine, and my local radio station. That's what I can afford right now. It pains me to see small, local papers fold, because they are so important. I also think that websites need to curate their ads. I try to disable my ad blocker on sites I love, but if you give me a pop-up or a noisemaker, blocked. This can't be that hard. Make good ads. Make readers who don't pay watch those ads for the content. Too simple. So why isn't it being done? Great work, Bryce. Thanks! xo
I agree with you that we, as consumers, have to budget in supporting what we like to read. I applaud you for subscribing to three newspapers, a magazine, and your local radio station. I also subscribe to three newspapers (local and two national).
I agree with you on the local papers. I remember having a conversation with someone older than me in the late 2000s about the newspaper, which was still a daily publication at that time and to which we both subscribed. I looked up the circulation and did the math then and estimated only about ~15% of the population in our metro area subscribed to the paper. In the intervening years, it's gotten worse. They shrunk the paper and it now only gets printed four days a week.
Curious, I just spent a few minutes looking up circulation and population information and did some quick math and it's truly frightening when you think about an informed citizenry being the basis of democracy.
Consider:
- 1950: 41.7% of the population subscribed to the primary paper and 78.6% did if you include the other major paper at the time (which was merged into/shut down in 1982)
- 2006: 18.3% of the population subscribed to the daily edition, 21.5% to the Sunday edition
- 2016: 8.3% of the population subscribed to the Sunday edition
- 2024: 4.1% of the population subscribes to Wed&Fri; 3.4% to Saturday and 7.0% to Sunday edition
(data based on Wikipedia and population from MacroTrends.net)
Okay, but maybe everyone is reading online now you might say. The only published circulation number I could find for the digital edition is from the editor in 2022, which suggests:
- 2022: 0.9% of the population subscribed to the digital edition
The editor indicated a desire to double this, which would get us to 1.8%
And to think of the many places that no longer have ANY local journalists keeping watch on city council hearings, etc. I'm not sure the solution but this is definitely a problem. There are a handful of journalists who have built local news focused subscriptions on Substack (something I was to include in the piece but ran out of time and space) so that may be part of the solution.
I'm with you on bad ads. The simple economic reality is you can either pay with your time or your money.
Thank you, Sandra, for chiming in and sharing your perspective, which I appreciate. And thank you for choosing to vote with your pocketbook and support those sources that are important to you. It's what we all need to do.
I've only made it to the end of the first paragraph so far, but wanted to comment! Media needs a sustainable business model. Yes, it does. Just like people need a sustainable working model. Without it we don't survive the workplace, our voices also get 'lost' as we leave, and the diversity of perspectives in the world of work is diminished. I'm sure you'll say much about that in the context of the media as I continue the article, but it seems to me there are many parallels already. Back to the reading...
I'm so glad you did! I agree with you that people need a sustainable working model. While I was writing with a focus on journalism and media, it's not limited to that and actually much more generalizable as you correctly noted. Everything needs to be sustainable. Our schedules. Our budgets. Our lives....
Thank you again for taking a moment to share the parallels -- and please feel free to chime again if anything else in the piece moves you. :)
You are to blame for this. As am I. We are greedy and lazy and have no integrity. We want a free product, or a cheap product and we don’t want to have to leave our sofas to get it. This applies not only to journalism but all commerce. That said, I thought this was a great article and proved the value that is to be had in trusted curation. But who can we trust?
Thank you for taking time to share your perspective. I agree that the desire to get something "for free" creates all sorts of peverse incentives. I'm glad you thought it was a great article and took the time to read it and comment. As to who can we trust, well, that is the question. :)
Thank you for sharing this comprehensive overview of the recent challenges faced by media outlets. In a world where trust and credibility are paramount, the role of reputable sources and transparent information becomes crucial. It is sad but the collapse of the middle ground in journalism is real and things are not getting better. Greed is only one of the many contributing factors.
Thank you for reading and for taking the time to comment, Winston. It is sad and hopefully we can -- with increasing awareness -- strive to rebuild journalism globally.
You’ve comprehensively presented the case for the western world and also the global context. Greed is a terrible thing. Imagine how media outlets exists in third world countries like mine. In today,s media world, the reader must be as responsible as the media. But when education and literacy is a problem,, those who control the information are always ready to pounce. 😟
That's quite a topic sentence. I'm not sure I've "comprehensively presented the case for...." but thank you. :) I would be very interested to hear more about how media outlets exist in third world countries. What have you observed?
It's not an isolated situation. Media is controlled by the moneyed and the powerful in here. What is distressing is that most of the population do not have access to proper education. Illetracy is an issue. There is access to information through the internet but when the audience is not literate and mature enough to discern, throw in fake news, then the situation becomes worse. And I think the powerful feeds on this, using today's power of information to mislead and misinform in order to accumulate more. Just my observation. Or maybe I've become eccentric. Lol.
Until we get over the greed problem, we are going to continue to see things collapse. I keep saying journalism is the bees of our democracy...they go it perishes. The reason why thing are failing is because corps and billionaires only know greed. Feed the top and let the bottom starve. But we, as consumers, have to budget in supporting what we like to read. I sub to 3 newspapers and 1 magazine, and my local radio station. That's what I can afford right now. It pains me to see small, local papers fold, because they are so important. I also think that websites need to curate their ads. I try to disable my ad blocker on sites I love, but if you give me a pop-up or a noisemaker, blocked. This can't be that hard. Make good ads. Make readers who don't pay watch those ads for the content. Too simple. So why isn't it being done? Great work, Bryce. Thanks! xo
Greed is a problem. One of the articles I didn't include hits on this very theme: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2024/01/greed-killed-sports-illustrated.html
I agree with you that we, as consumers, have to budget in supporting what we like to read. I applaud you for subscribing to three newspapers, a magazine, and your local radio station. I also subscribe to three newspapers (local and two national).
I agree with you on the local papers. I remember having a conversation with someone older than me in the late 2000s about the newspaper, which was still a daily publication at that time and to which we both subscribed. I looked up the circulation and did the math then and estimated only about ~15% of the population in our metro area subscribed to the paper. In the intervening years, it's gotten worse. They shrunk the paper and it now only gets printed four days a week.
Curious, I just spent a few minutes looking up circulation and population information and did some quick math and it's truly frightening when you think about an informed citizenry being the basis of democracy.
Consider:
- 1950: 41.7% of the population subscribed to the primary paper and 78.6% did if you include the other major paper at the time (which was merged into/shut down in 1982)
- 2006: 18.3% of the population subscribed to the daily edition, 21.5% to the Sunday edition
- 2016: 8.3% of the population subscribed to the Sunday edition
- 2024: 4.1% of the population subscribes to Wed&Fri; 3.4% to Saturday and 7.0% to Sunday edition
(data based on Wikipedia and population from MacroTrends.net)
Okay, but maybe everyone is reading online now you might say. The only published circulation number I could find for the digital edition is from the editor in 2022, which suggests:
- 2022: 0.9% of the population subscribed to the digital edition
The editor indicated a desire to double this, which would get us to 1.8%
And to think of the many places that no longer have ANY local journalists keeping watch on city council hearings, etc. I'm not sure the solution but this is definitely a problem. There are a handful of journalists who have built local news focused subscriptions on Substack (something I was to include in the piece but ran out of time and space) so that may be part of the solution.
I'm with you on bad ads. The simple economic reality is you can either pay with your time or your money.
Thank you, Sandra, for chiming in and sharing your perspective, which I appreciate. And thank you for choosing to vote with your pocketbook and support those sources that are important to you. It's what we all need to do.
I've only made it to the end of the first paragraph so far, but wanted to comment! Media needs a sustainable business model. Yes, it does. Just like people need a sustainable working model. Without it we don't survive the workplace, our voices also get 'lost' as we leave, and the diversity of perspectives in the world of work is diminished. I'm sure you'll say much about that in the context of the media as I continue the article, but it seems to me there are many parallels already. Back to the reading...
I'm so glad you did! I agree with you that people need a sustainable working model. While I was writing with a focus on journalism and media, it's not limited to that and actually much more generalizable as you correctly noted. Everything needs to be sustainable. Our schedules. Our budgets. Our lives....
Thank you again for taking a moment to share the parallels -- and please feel free to chime again if anything else in the piece moves you. :)
You are to blame for this. As am I. We are greedy and lazy and have no integrity. We want a free product, or a cheap product and we don’t want to have to leave our sofas to get it. This applies not only to journalism but all commerce. That said, I thought this was a great article and proved the value that is to be had in trusted curation. But who can we trust?
Thank you for taking time to share your perspective. I agree that the desire to get something "for free" creates all sorts of peverse incentives. I'm glad you thought it was a great article and took the time to read it and comment. As to who can we trust, well, that is the question. :)