When people were asked where they found out about news stories in a new Pew Research Center project, their answer was old media, predominantly newspapers. This is the headline table:
| Sector From Which New Information Reported (Six Key Storylines) | |
| Sector | % of All Stories |
| 48% | |
| Local TV | 28 |
| Niche media | 13 |
| Radio | 7 |
| New media | 4 |
| Source: Pew Research Center, January 2010 |
There are a number of potential flaws in this research (self-reporting, the selection of the stories monitored, the lack of distinction between news organisations’ online and offline presence, vested interests of the research organisation), but the gist of the results can’t be ignored. Even if these potential flaws meant new media was under-represented by 500%, it would still lag way behind print. People might find out about breaking stories online, but when they want more information, they don’t do a twitter search or find a relevant blog, they go to the old, trusted sources.
This might be expected to upset or disquiet a new media evangelist like myself. But it doesn’t. I am unsurprised by the figures. To me, it’s obvious:
- Online news is largely unfunded or underfunded or makes use of the resources put into creating offline products.
- Online is very good for niche topics that you won’t find in printed publications – badgers, anyone? Less good for generalist news, outside the online offerings provided by major news organisations as an adjunct to the main product.
- Online journalists don’t get the same access to sources or resources that established old media hacks do.
For most people, twitter and blog feeds, etc are a filter for news information – they point me towards interesting or important stories so I don’t have to do the heavy-lifting of reading all the stuff that isn’t relevant to me to find the nugget that is. That’s really valuable, but a different kind of value to that created by news organisations, a value that we’re still very cautious about putting a price on (hence the lack of investment, etc). Remember when that plane crashed into the Hudson river? And everyone marvelled at how the guy on an impromptu rescue ferry twitpiced his arrival on the scene? But, even if a re-tweet of that tweet was how you learned of the accident, what did you do then to find out more? I’m guessing here, but I don’t think it was a Google Blog Search.
picture credit: DRB62
Share this post:
Good points Ian, but what do you think the interesting “niche” exceptions you mention in passing without naming tell us — anything significant?
At the Online News Association UK event last week, Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes) said research he’s conducted [don’t have any other citation] told him there’s a total audience of approx 800,000 readers for political blogs in the UK. Non-newspaper blogs do break some real news and practice some real journalism, and MSM does a lot of PR regurgitation…
I agree that many people still look to established news brands to a degree to validate and give deeper context to news. But there’s also a lot that those brands don\‘t or rarely do. That’s where — beyond badgers — independent blogs and others online ventures that really plough their furrow can make a play. But as Staines said last week, there’s marginal-to-zero VC cash for such ventures in the UK, compared to what the likes of HuffPo have basked in, so starting up requires some pockets or serious mettle.
On the flipside however, most of our national broadsheets are not very profitable or actually running at a loss. Did you see the piece on Mumsnet on Newsnight the other night? The political parties court them furiously. Interestingly all the profitable UK-based online publishing venures Staines mentioned in his talk (slides: http://www.slideshare.net/guidof/what-the-hell-is-journalism-anyway-what-is-news-2906100 ) are blog / community-based.
Collectively the 7 websites cited in the last slide command more profits (allegedly) than our broadsheets.
So there’s two conflicting trends here: the persisting bedrock of journalism pertaining to newspapers, and the growing power, mindshare and profitability of mainly or partly news-based niche communities. Ergo, trust *is* leaking away from newpapers albeit gradually. The ones that survive the next decade will probably retain a good deal of trust, but it’s a more diffused picture emerging in terms of authority overall, I’d hazard.
On a related note, Staines also mentioned that he thought financial journalism and news was an area where there was really scope to make a dent on the UK\‘s MSM incumbents, even in the wake of the success of the FT’s (http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/) Alphaville blogs. But against this on the finance beat ViewsFlow — from the UK\‘s “http://azeemazhar.com/”>Azeem Azhar and still in early beta — is staking itself as a filter not an original source, and doesn’t currently seem to be overtly seeking a UK audience in the feeds it curates from finance coverage (happy to be corrected though as I haven’t registered for the full service).
So maybe this is a sign that the needle is just twitching not moving, and UK indies’ deep-pockets won’t be deep enough for more than the rarest of journalism players. If so, at least in terms of that niche, you’ll be wholly vindicated :-)
Splendid research showing the circularity of the whole thing: National Survey Finds Majority of Journalists Now Depend on Social Media for Story Research.