Customer Reviews

The Vanishing Newspaper: Saving Journalism in the Information Age

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

You should give this book to anyone considering a career in newspaper journalism. If the person still decides to go into journalism, you know he or she is dedicated and belongs in the business!

With both anecdotes and detailed numbers and charts, Meyer describes the 'harvesting' of media properties in the 80's, 90's and beyond. Just as a landowner can harvest trees that have grown over many years, a publisher can pull out greater profits by reducing the expenses that produced quality and reputation over many years (like reducing the number and quality of reporters and editors).

Thus, this book is the equivalent of a VH1 'behind the scenes' docudrama explaining in painful detail the travesties we all saw in 80's and 90's newspaper management. Just as the rock band members look like heck by the end of an episode, newspapers are showing the effects of abusing their bodies. A carefully explained survey and analysis show that as many as three out of five newspaper stories are inaccurate in one form or another (Meyer's descriptions of this whole subject are considerably nuanced and a joy for anyone who has tried to quantify newspaper accuracy).

Much of the talk about journalism, quality and respect has been very fuzzy. We used to say stories were 'good' or 'bad' based on whatever was the criteria of the biggest editor in the room. We had no idea where individual stories or overall patterns of story quality fit into the newspaper's future. Meyer has detailed chapters quantifying whatever can be established about the role of profit and accuracy, profit and and credibility, and profit and the role of the various kinds of editors. To give just one example of the helpful level of detail in the book, Meyer writes that trouble may ensue once copy editors manage more than 14 stories a shift. That and other statistics will be useful for anyone who wants to manage for quality and growth.

The good news is that there is at least some connection between quality and profit. As just one example, an analysis in the book shows that for every percentage point of gain of credibility in the community, newspapers seem to command 2.5 percent more in their asking price for advertising.

That sort of thing matters because newspapers compete with targeted advertising vehicles like Google and blogs and standalone classified advertising sites. For most people, the newspaper is more portable; but that's a temporary advantage. Long term, what will distinguish papers from other advertising vehicles is the public's belief that newspapers are a more useful place to spend attention. Meyer's thesis is that newspapers must embrace this thirst for credible information. Newspapers must manage for both credibility AND for profit.

But keeping newspapers afloat with any sort of quality will be difficult. When everyone seems to focus on quarterly earnings reports, it's not easy to manage with long-term quality AND profitability in mind. So that's why I suggest giving this book to someone contemplating a future in journalism. Perhaps this book will prove to be as true about the future as it is true about the past. If so, the young journalist can go into work with eyes open and brain brightly illuminated.

Philip Meyer has written an excellent book concerning the state of the American newspaper industry from the vantage point of spending a working lifetime within it. As an author and professor of journalism at one of the nation's most respected j-schools, Meyer offers a plethora of interesting facts and data concerning a societal shift away from the printed news page and the why's and how's of a slow (but not so certain) business demise. Is the American newspaper really sliding into the abyss? Will Wall Street abandon the printed news trade for more fertile economic ground? Should journalism students seek safer career havens?

Utilizing a wealth of contemporary studies and surveys, Meyer's The Vanishing Newspaper answers many questions and suggests that successful newspapers have positive influences in their respective communities through (among other factors) clear and accurate writing and social responsibility. By embracing new technologies - especially the ubiquitous Internet - newspapers can remain a respected source of information and viable business enterprise. Does accuracy and readability have a direct impact on circulation and ad revenue? What are the consequences of a newspaper's content? And just why are fewer people reading newspapers? Read and find out.

As an experienced newspaper publisher/managing editor/reporter, I highly recommend this insightful book for anyone involved in journalism - including students, teachers, writers, business managers and investors. No class, seminar, or casual conversation can supply the resources and suggestions found in The Vanishing Newspaper. Above all else, Meyer provides a realistic and positive outlook for those who love the profession and choose solutions over indifference.

Final word: This should be a mandatory read at every newspaper and j-school in America.

While Meyer has conducted many studies, this book remains unengaging and void of useful evaluation. Kovach and Resenstiel's "Elements of Journalism" offers more insight to emerging journalists about the state of the profession of journalism. Meyer's book has more to do with the theory of social science studies than journalism. Meyer took 250 pages to say what could have been said in one chapter or one magazine article.

This book is a unique and excellent work attempting to statistically discover relationships between newspaper characteristics, newspaper circulations (and changes thereto), and communities. The newspaper industry was behind other U.S. companies that directly serve consumers for decades in conducting rigorous research. Now, with scholars like Phil Meyer and organizations such as the Newspaper Management Center at Northwestern U., the newspaper industry might finally find out what it needs to know to survive--as long as it is not already too late.

As for the other reviewer's charge that Phil wants papers to become more liberal, the reviewer has had to stretch to find what he found and then takes it out of context. The entire claim that newspapers are liberally biased is nonsense; in 23 out of 25 presidential elections in the 20th century, the majority of U.S. newspapers endorsed the Republican candidate for president. That is a fact. Check it yourself. Daily news coverage is heavily biased toward the status quo, whatever it might be, as reporters interview governors, senators, CEOs, etc.; they rarely interview union presidents and almost never interview true leftists, while constantly interviewing extreme right-wingers. The "liberal bias" charge is manufactured by the right-wing to try to make much of U.S. news media--which overwhelmingly is conventional, traditional, slowly changing--as reactionary and regressive as those making the charge.

Here's a book that should be must reading for any journalist who hopes to stay in the business beyond his or her next annual review.

The book is impelled by the shrinking news hole that besets newspapers and broadcast journalism alike, and by evidence that investors actually punish news media that pay for quality work. Seeking a remedy, Meyer tests the claim that quality journalism actually pays off on the bottom line.

He concedes that he hasn't found the proof he sought, but he does find hopeful indicators for all of us who believe in journalism as a bulwark of democracy. His final chapter is a call to individual and collective action by the entire journalistic community.

Mr. Meyer's bok includes much valuable information and statistics concerning the newspaper industry. However, having spent most of his life in the industry and in academia teaching about the industry, he may be too immersed in the culture to realize what is the industry's major problem, i.e., liberal bias.

On page 71 Meyer lets the cat out of the bag. According to the editor of the Grand Folks Herald, his newspaper's credibility amongst its readers dropped after the paper had endorsed a proposal to drop "Fighting Sioux" as the nickname of the University of North Dakota. Meyer concludes, "It was a classic example of a newspaper's being a bit ahead of its community."

Meyer also writes, "In Wichita, the Eagle had been a step ahead of its highly conservative community in the 1990s with its aggressive reporting of controversial issues inclusing the death penalty and abortion. That cost it some credibility, but it was only a temporary cost."

Note that Meyer equates a newspaper's liberalism with being ahead of its community. Mr. Meyer may have missed this, but conservatives won control of Congress in 1994 and we elected a conservative president in 2000 and 2004. A Democrat won the presidency in 1992 and 1996 after convincing enough voters that he actually was a "New Democrat" (i.e., not a liberal one).

In my opinion, newspapers' household penetration rates are dramatically falling because thet are behind the times--they simply haven't accepted the fact that reporting with a liberal bias turns off many of their readers. The same phenomenom has occurred with cable television, where the overhwhelming liberal CNN and MSNBC have ratings far below Fox News, which offers a much more balanced presentation of the news.

In Lawrence, Kan., we have a daily newspaper that has won national praise. However, its editorial page is dominated by liberal columnists and cartoonists. Lawrence is the county seat of Douglas County, which voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, and the Journal-World may be trying to cater to that population. However, it seems to ignore the fact that the number of voters in Douglas County who voted for Bush in 2004 surpasses the Journal-World's total circulation by about 2,000. The Journal-World's look has improved considerably since 1980. However, its household penetration rate in the market has dropped from 63 percent to 33 percent during the past 25 years. I have to think that many conservatives have simply decided to get their news elsewhere.

Mr. Meyer has done an excellent job of identifying the problems with daily newspapers. However, I think its going to take someone like a Robert Ailes (who referenced "The Vanishing Newspaper" in a recent speech) to offer a prescription that will get people back to the newspaper-reading habit.