ByWillAtkinson.com

I wrote a paper on Philip Meyer’s excellent book “The Vanishing Newspaper.” Meyer employs quantitative methods to approach the multitude of problems facing papers. He attempts to prove, and comes very close, that good journalism means good business.

In fact, Meyer comes so close at proving the worth of good journalism, his book can be taken as a call for other industry analysts to finish where Meyer started and prove good journalism can mean profits. Anyone with a passing interest in the present plight of print media should read Meyer’s book.

Report: “The Vanishing Newspaper: Saving Journalism in the Information Age”

In “The Vanishing Newspaper: Saving Journalism in the Information Age,” journalism professor Philip Meyer attempts to prove quality journalism is good business. With a background in computer-assisted reporting and statistical prowess, Meyer makes a convincing case.

Meyer acknowledges the difficulty of his task: “it is very difficult to show that quality journalism is the cause of business success rather than its by-product” (Meyer 1). The book presents a difficult challenge but one Meyer finds important. With fragmented mass media audiences, “out capacity to understand one another is diminished” (Meyer 5).

Newspaper’s response to other technologies has been inadequate, Meyer contends. Papers are responding to competitive challenge by cutting costs and raising prices (Meyer 9). This “harvesting strategy” has been fueled by investors and money managers who care more about short-term profits than quality journalism (Meyer 9). The book cites an excellent example. In 1986 on the day the Pulitzer Prizes were announced, the value of Knight Ridder’s shares fell. Market analysts reasoned the company wins “too many Pulitzer Prizes” and the money spent on those projects “should be left to fall to the bottom line” (Meyer 6). The harvesting strategy is indicative of a stagnant industry, Meyer writes, and puts a newspaper’s “precious community influence in peril” (Meyer 10). This observation is significant because it shows newspaper companies seem to have accepted that further growth is impossible and decided to increase bottom lines by selling off current portions of the business.

Investor pressure is prompting newspapers to “convert the influence increment into cash” (Meyer 14). This is correlated with the steadily declining confidence in the press since 1972 (Meyer 15) that is also correlated with the decline in daily newspaper readership (Meyer 16). Meyer comes to a startling conclusion with this information: newspapers are going to be “running out of daily readers late in the first quarter of 2043” (Meyer 16). Clearly, something has to be done in order to save newspapers from disappearing altogether.

The fall in credibility, which is associated with the decline in readership, is important. An American Society of Newspaper Editors found 75 percent of all adults “have some problem with the credibility of the media” (Meyer 18). The study found factual, spelling, and grammatical errors as common concerns. Harvesting market position has caused a cutback in quality, which in turn negatively impacts society influence (Meyer 20). Both of these factors will “eventually destabilize circulation and advertising” (Meyer 20). Newspapers need to find the equilibrium point at which the “optimal compromise between demands of profitability and public service” are met (Meyer 31).

Newspapers used to enjoy an information monopoly (Meyer 35). This monopoly led to high profit margins, which has bred an “easy-money culture” of bad habits (Meyer 35). The warning signs were around long before the Internet, Meyer contends. Cheap computer typesetting, low postage rates, and computerized mailing lists all attacked newspapers’ market position long before the Web (Meyer 39). A newspaper’s market position can be protected by a high “perceived quality” (Meyer 46). Accurate, quality coverage boosts a paper’s reputation.

All new technologies merely deal with information but there are other, more important, factors at play, Meyer writes. “How the information is moved – copper wire, cable, fiberglass, microwave, a boy on a bicycle – will not be nearly as important as the reputation of the creators of the content” (Meyer 46). A paper’s influence “is a real or potentially real factor in determining the value of advertising” (Meyer 56). Meyer says researchers need to do two things to link influence and business success. First, “find a way to measure a medium’s influence” (Meyer 64). Second, “establish a clearer relationship between its influence and the value of its advertising” (Meyer 64).

Credibility exerts an influence on a newspaper’s influence. Credibility has two main components, Meyer writes. One is the “solid inner core that doesn’t change from day to day” and the other is the “variable outer shell that is subject to the shifting winds of public mood as the news changes” (Meyer 71). Credibility is affected by how newspaper readers perceive their paper to be “accurate, honest, intelligent, experienced, informed,” and whether the paper “represented knowledge and understanding” (Meyer 81). Meyer cites a Northwestern University study that found “credible newspapers get more readers” (Meyer 82). Newspapers need to be able to show investors “credibility is good business” (Meyer 82).

Accuracy affects credibility. A 1980 study found “about half of all straight news stories contain some type of error” (Meyer 85). Readers are noticing the errors and “perception of any kind of error undermines credibility” (Meyer 95). It is crucial to get source information correct, Meyer writes (Meyer 96). Sources are often opinion leaders and spread information (Meyer 96). If sourced information is incorrect, word will spread of the paper’s inaccuracies and leads to credibility problems (Meyer 97). The top source-perceived errors are that the “reporter didn’t fully understand the story,” there was “pressure to get the story done on time,” or not enough research was done (Meyer 100). Meyer compares papers with differing accuracy rates and concludes, “Accuracy improves robustness and population credibility” (Meyer 103). Again, he found good journalism means good business.

Readability is also killing newspapers. Many stories are too hard to read (Meyer 115). Today’s generation reads less and on top of that, “most people like to read below their ability level” (Meyer 114). Meyer compared the readability level of 40 newspapers and their market penetration rate. He found that “papers whose editors are pushing the writing down the grade-level scale” are having more success (Meyer 119). As USA Today has shown, “high circulation should be associated with higher readability” (Meyer 121). Meyer notes that increasing readability increases accessible content to readers and to the wider public (Meyer 123). There are “very few cost-free ways of helping society work better, and so [increasing readability] ought to be done” (Meyer 123).

Meyer finds many other interesting conclusions. Local news can actually harm a paper. “As the proportion of local stories in a newspaper increases, household penetration declines” (Meyer 136). In juxtaposition, editorial vigor is related to higher circulation (Meyer 137). The size of a paper’s news hole also has a relationship with circulation. The “percent news correlates positively with household penetration” (Meyer 139).

There are still other factors that have a relationship with a newspaper’s circulation. Robust papers tend to have larger staffs (Meyer 166). Investors are a negative influence in terms of staff strength. Independent and privately owned newspapers have the best staffing (Meyer 166). This is significant because it strengthens Meyer’s view that investors and money managers have negatively affected the journalism trade.

Newspapers need a better relationship with Wall Street, Meyers believes (Meyer 200). The journalism industry needs to change its habits. Accurate reporting, readability, staffing, quality indicators, and trust need to be improved (Meyer 201-202).

Meyer provides a crude business plan for newspapers to follow in the new information age. First, “it is necessary to earn at least as much as you spend” (Meyer 207). This would seem common knowledge but in the dot-com craze of the late 1990s, it did not appear as if anything was common knowledge in the business world. Second, “the return on investment will be at least as much as whatever the bank on the corner pays for certificates of deposit” (Meyer 207). This is the core economic idea of opportunity cost. Third, an investment in a newspaper should grow (Meyer 207). He suggests newspapers can grow by “making the product better and charging more for it, finding new customers, and locating undervalued properties and making them more productive” (Meyer 207).

Throughout the book, Meyer confirms what many journalists suspect. Good journalism positively affects business success. Even with that established, measuring quality in journalism is difficult. Meyer likens measuring quality journalism to measuring love (Meyer 159).

With the Internet, information is readily available. What will be important is the “filtering, refining, decorating, and packaging” of information (Meyer 230). Unlike 100 years ago when information was a scarcity, “the attention of the public has become the scarce good” (Meyer 231). Successful papers will recognize this and package their information in a professional, readable format appealing to readers.

Meyer still has more suggestions for journalists. He advocates increased professional education of journalists. This will differentiate them from everyone else writing on the Internet (Meyer 234). Competence certification, like computer engineer, and enforceable ethics regulations will not only help a journalists get employed but will increase credibility for the journalism profession in the public’s eye (Meyer 243).

The book reads as a wakeup call for newspapers. In order for this venerable medium to survive, serious changes need to be made before its credibility is lost and the industry is forever lost.