Fall 2008

Peering Into the Future of News

Bob Papper

Professor and Chair, Department of Journalism, Media Studies, and Public Relations

Return to Table of Contents

...previous

The Future of News

I also supervise periodic national research on the future of news funded by the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation and the Ford Foundation. Although that research focuses on broadcast and new media, it also takes a look at the larger media marketplace. One of the interesting findings in those nationwide surveys is that people have a remarkably similar definition of what news is.

The question was to what extent adults (18+) understood the difference between opinion programs like The O’Reilly Factor or The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or Entertainment Tonight as opposed to the evening news. Using a 5-point scale, where 5 meant a program was definitely news and 1 meant that a program was definitely not news, we found that people really do perceive clear differences in the various programs. At the top were the programs that people identified as definitely news:

• Local evening news on TV...........4.4
• Newscasts on cable like CNN, Fox, MSNBC .....................4.4
• Network news on ABC, CBS and NBC ..............................4.4
• Local radio news ..........................4.0

Then we drop to a second tier that may be news:

• Programs like 60 Minutes and Dateline ........................................3.7
• Sunday morning interview shows like Face the Nation .....................3.5
• Morning shows like Today and GMA ......................................3.4

And the bottom group that, overall, people said was not news:

• Cable shows like The O’Reilly Factor, etc...............2.9
• Radio programs like Rush Limbaugh, etc......................2.4
• Programs like Inside Edition, etc. .......................2.3
• The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ...................................2.1
• Talk shows like Oprah and Ellen.......................................2.1
• Blogs.............................................1.9

Keep in mind that the data doesn’t tell us what people like or watch or listen to ... only how they define news.

Interestingly, there was absolutely no difference in how young people or older people scored Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. Young people are more familiar with it and are far more likely to watch it, but both groups know it isn’t news.

So as we try to figure out the future of news – and media in general for that matter – what do we know and what don’t we know?

When I asked a national sample of adults (2006) where they got most of their news, this was their answer (respondents could pick up to three choices):

1. Local TV news........................65.5%
2. Local newspaper ....................28.4%
3. National network TV news .....28.3%
4. Local radio new ......................14.7%
5. On the Internet ........................11.2%
6. National newspaper...................3.8%
7. Someplace else..........................1.3%

One of the most interesting things to me about those numbers is how similar they were to the same question I asked of a national sample three years earlier. Here are some of the critical points that I would argue that we don’t know. We don’t have a good handle on TV news viewing. While many people have noted that viewing for the network evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC is down substantially over the last 10 to 15 years, that’s really more meaningful to ABC, CBS and NBC than to society. The bigger question is to what extent people get national and international news from recognized national/international news organizations. When we include such upstarts as CNN, Fox and MSNBC, we find that the national/international TV news audience hasn’t dropped at all. What about local TV news? We don’t know. Whenever the figures have been run, they’ve been so flawed with omissions that we really don’t know whether the local TV news audience is going up, down or holding steady. I’ve been working with the Project for Excellence in Journalism on this, and I’m hoping that we have the answer sometime in spring 2009.

I would also argue that it’s still unclear how the Internet figures into our news consumption patterns. We know that the vast preponderance of Internet news consumption takes place between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. I can confirm from my own research that most of Internet news consumption takes place at work, during the work day. If employers start to clamp down on non-business Internet use, will that change the pattern or just move the location? Since TV news still dominates in the home, does the fact that the Internet news usage is from work rather than home make the usage secondary, or is that irrelevant? Even if that usage is secondary, does its existence mean that people will consume (view, read or listen) less news at home? Too early to tell.

So what do we know?

• As I noted above, there is a surprisingly consistent view of what news is ... across all demographics.
• People want their news right up to the minute.
• Almost three-quarters of adults say it’s very or somewhat important to be able to watch TV news when they want.
• People want anchors for the news, especially 18-to 34-year-olds (which was a surprise to me). That’s relevant because on demand and assemble your own are harder to accomplish with anchors.
• People are slow to connect with small screen news. That could change as it becomes more widely available, but the reality is that people want to watch video on the largest screen available.
• More than 40 percent of adults say they would like to assemble their own newscasts. The results break down based on education. The more highly educated, the more likely people are to say they want to assemble their own newscasts.
• More than 60 percent of adults say they would like to interact with TV news. That breaks down by age. Younger adults are far more likely to say they want to interact ... a carryover from video games, I suspect.

The bottom line question I asked (2006) was simple:

If you could get exactly the same news – whenever you wanted – in a traditional newspaper, on the television, on the radio, online or on a handheld electronic device ... which would be your first choice?

1. TV news..................................63.3%
2. Newspaper...............................17.8%
3. Computer online .....................11.1%
4. Radio news................................5.8%
5. Handheld electronic device.......2.0%

Notice how similar the results are to the results for where people say they now get most of their news. I think that’s a critical point as we figure out where – and how quickly – we’re going.

So here’s some of what I see:

• There’s a huge appetite for news and information. There are no credible numbers out that suggest otherwise.
• The Internet has clearly led to a greater demand for greater user control and convenience.
• The Internet’s force as a news vehicle is less clear. We can hypothesize all we want, but we’re just going to have to let it play out for a while yet.
• Just because a technology is new doesn’t mean people will care. It’s easy to get caught up in the latest whatever, but over time, we see widespread technological adoption not based on the invention itself, but on the invention’s ability to let us do what we already do (or want to do) cheaper, easier, faster and more conveniently.
• Look for an ever-increasing number of niche markets developing in news and information. Many of those won’t be financially viable – at least not on a stand-alone basis – but will be adjuncts of established media companies and brands. That’s where things like small screen news are likely to reside.
• There’s a lot of loyalty and attachment to traditional media, including newspapers. But newspapers face three related, very real problems: 1) Young people aren’t reading newspapers; 2) Newspaper circulation is dropping and penetration per population is plummeting; and 3) The drop in classified advertising is devastating. Without changes, I think we’ll start to see some dailies become less than daily; others will become boutique subsets of their Web sites; others may disappear.
• People love TV, and I think it will continue to dominate the media landscape for the foreseeable future ... as will TV news, which will develop its own semi-niche markets in part via one or more digital channels aside from the main channel.
• As TV and the computer merge – as they surely will – audience will follow established local brands. That means local stations will have an advantage in surviving a changing media landscape – if they can adjust how they structure the business side.
• The biggest threat to traditional media isn’t declining readership or audience; it’s an outdated business model. Companies that insist on having content people on the cutting edge of technology need to get their sales and marketing people into this century. The mass circulation magazines didn’t go out of business because of declining readership; they were actually at peak readership when they went under. They folded because they lost their advertising base. That’s the biggest threat to newspapers right now, and it’ll be a growing threat to TV soon enough.
• Progress and change always happen faster when looking back than when you’re living it. The fact that people identify current media consumption patterns as their preferred media consumption patterns suggest that we’re not dealing with a vast pool of dissatisfied consumers, desperately searching for something new. That doesn’t mean they won’t change. But they won’t unless and until the alternatives allow them to do what they want to do better, faster, cheaper or more conveniently. And while our children’s children’s children will look back in awe at how communication and media changed in the 20th and 21st centuries, those of us actually living it will be surprised at what seems like a slow but steady pace.