Driving news consumers online

A few months ago, Media Matters released a fascinating report, which documented the way nation’s op-ed pages skew heavily to the right. Shortly thereafter, the Chicago Tribune’s Frank James offered a response, suggesting the ideological tilt is irrelevant: “[T]he growth of the Internet, particularly of blogs, especially of the political variety, suggests that the nation isn’t exactly starved for a diversity of political viewpoints.”

At the time, it seemed like a strange argument, given the industry’s problems. James’ argument seemed to be, “If you want a diversity of viewpoints, don’t bother with newspapers, just go online.” I’m delighted to have news consumers driven online by newspapers that are no longer fulfilling their traditional role, but I was kind of surprised to see a newspaper employee making the argument.

Apparently, consumers are getting the message and going online (via TP).

It could be the new maxim of 21st century politics: To find voters, look online.

They’re there in increasing numbers, in a politically diverse population that’s growing, expanding its Internet activities and highly distinctive, with remarkable levels of political and social engagement. It’s a group with the size and clout to change the way election politics happen in America.

For the first time in polls since 1996, this ABC News/Facebook survey finds the Internet rivaling newspapers as one of Americans’ top two sources of news about the presidential election. It’s also the only election news source to show growth, doubling since 2000.

Now, I haven’t seen the methodology on the survey, but I suspect when the report says the Internet is “rivaling newspapers,” there’s some crossover.

In other words, someone may not be buying the New York Times print edition, but they are reading the New York Times online edition. “Internet rivaling newspapers” doesn’t necessarily mean “blogs rivaling newspapers.”

That said, the online distribution model certainly is moving in the right direction.

One reason is the Internet’s advance overall: Seventy-three percent of adults now go online, the most in polls since the dawn of the Internet age. Forty percent use the Internet specifically for news and information about politics and the election, surpassing the previous high, 35 percent in a 2004 survey.

Television remains predominant; 70 percent say it’s one of their top two election news sources. But while still far ahead, that’s down by 8 points since 2004 and by 15 points since 1996 in Pew polls. Newspapers follow, named by 26 percent as a top election news source — vastly down from 60 percent in 1996. Catching up with newspapers, 23 percent now cite the Internet as a main source of election news — twice the level seven years ago.

Better still, online news consumers are far more engaged than their analog counterparts.

The four in 10 adults who use the Internet for election information are highly attuned to politics; compared with other adults, they’re 22 points more likely to be following the campaign closely, 21 points more apt to plan to vote in an upcoming primary or caucus, 13 points more apt to report having voted 2004 and 10 points more likely to report being registered. That’s engagement.

Other measures of political involvement point the same way. Eighty-three percent who go online for political information say they understand what’s going on in government, and 78 percent feel they have a say in what it does. These comfort levels drop very sharply among other Americans, to 58 percent and 56 percent, respectively 25 percentage points and 22 percentage points lower.

Social engagement is higher, as well: Rebutting onetime notions of isolation in cyberspace, 72 percent of people in the online political population report doing volunteer work for a church, charity or community group; volunteerism drops to 52 percent among other adults.

Online political participation, moreover, extends to in-person political discourse. Fifty-eight percent in the online political population regularly discuss or debate political issues with others in a face-to-face setting. Far fewer other Americans say they talk politics, 40 percent.

I don’t have anything particularly insightful to add to this; I just liked the results.

What the hell is a “newspaper?” I’ve never heard of such a thing.

Seriously, blogs are my only news source. I can’t even stand NPR anymore.

  • The Washington Post columns seem fairly balanced most of the time, though David Broder and the WaPo Editorial staff have lost any semblence of liberalism to my mind.

    And I like to read what the enemy (of all true Americans) write (such as Will) or listen into the intranecine warfare of the conservative ranks (which the Prince of Darkness so openly presents).

    Even Krauthammer is amusing on occasion, like the time he wrote advocating a K&K withdrawl strategy (to Kuwait and Kurdistan) about a week after I suggested it here đŸ˜‰

  • Americans not only want better media, they want the chattering class to STFU.

    From Editor and Publisher:

    Nearly two-thirds of Americans do not trust press coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign, according to a new Harvard University survey, which also revealed four out of five people believe coverage focuses too much on the trivial

    64% of those polled do not trust press coverage of the presidential campaign.

    88% believe that campaign coverage focuses on trivial issues.

    84% believe that media coverage has too much influence on American voting choices.

    92% say it is important that the news media provide information on candidates’ specific policy plans, but 61% say the media does not provide enough coverage of policy plans…

    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003678478

  • It seems to me that if it’s an either-or frame, where the newspapers go, so go the blogs. The blogs, after all, depend on the availability of media companies and their reporters, editorialists, and editors to provide a product that the blogs can then comment on, no?

    I start to wonder what happens when newspapers can no longer afford to subsidize my free reading of their online versions. Somebody has to pay for the occasionally worthwhile reporting the mainstream media provides each day.

    I do doubt it is an either-or frame which we one needs to understand the dynamics of blogs versus newspapers. I don’t know what that grey area is which newspapers will ultimately find themselve in. Has anybody seen any good essays, posts or news stories on this subject?

    Regards,

    Patrick

  • NPR seems to have moved at least to center right so I tend to discount most of what they say accordingly.

    Also, most of my “news” comes from foreign papers. Their reportage is considerably different from that in U. S. papers. Comparing the same issues with eacj other the foreigners are far more accurate about our dometic issues than our own reporters. The same is true, or so it seems, when reporting on international events.

    I have foresworn television long since, and radio only slightly later.

  • I’m with doubtful about the irrelevance of NPR. It’s sad, but I just can’t stand to listen to them anymore. And the Times? I don’t even get the urge to browse the copy in the coffee shop, let alone subscribe (as I used to).

    All of my news sources from a decade ago feel like propaganda now.

    (Thanks CB, for providing, with TPM, at least the beginnings of a real alternative!)

  • With the knuckleheads Bush installed at the CPB, no wonder NPR has hit the skids. Hopefully they will rebounds when their ranks are depoliticized by a new (Democratic, of course) president.

    To read about the rot inside TV news, John Hockenberry, formerly of Dateline, has a tremendous post of his experience with the scurvy dog that is TV news – http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=19845 . It’s a great read.

  • “I start to wonder what happens when newspapers can no longer afford to subsidize my free reading of their online versions. Somebody has to pay for the occasionally worthwhile reporting the mainstream media provides each day.”

    They’ve likely never depended on you paying to view their content. Most newspapers only charge a fee to cover deadtree printing costs; with that out of the equation their only true source of income, as always, is in ads. Viewers are no different than readers: they’re simply there to boost advertising rates.

  • Carpetbagger sez: A few months ago, Media Matters released a fascinating report, which documented the way nation’s op-ed pages skew heavily to the right.

    Actually, depite the insinuation that the editorials ‘skew heavily to the right,’ it turns out that MM claims that “conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts.” They don’t get into editorials – which, given my long experience with the NY Times, the Strib, the LA Times, and most big papers in between, is probably just as well.

    Granting, for the sake of argument, that this is so, my first observation is that newspapers publish stuff that sells newspapers, and it’s just a fact that ‘progressive’ columnists don’t bring the readership that their ‘conservative’ counterparts do. See also radio, talk.

  • Comments are closed.