Too many people are tuning out of the news
By Richard Lambert
Published: November 1 2006 02:00 | Last updated: November 1 2006 02:00
The traditional news media in the US are in a state of turmoil. Some of the biggest newspaper chains - first Knight Ridder and now Tribune Company - have put themselves up for sale. Network news broadcasters are slashing their budgets, the latest and most savage example being the cuts heralded by NBC Universal two weeks ago. No wonder there is a siege mentality in newsrooms around the land. Investors seem to be concluding that this is an industry with no future.
As is often the case, though, the mood swing has gone too far. It is true that revenue growth is stagnating, as readers and viewers spend more time with digital media and advertising is spread across a wider range of media outlets. Even among an older audience readership is falling: 10 years ago, 70 per cent of Americans aged 65 or more were regular newspaper readers, whereas the figure today is 58 per cent.
ADVERTISEMENT
But these are still very profitable businesses. The US newspaper industry boasts daily sales of 55m copies, profit margins well into double digits and strong cash flows. There are indications that the long-term decline in readership may have stabilised in recent years and most people use the internet as a supplement, rather than a substitute, for newsprint.
So the big question is not whether the traditional news media will continue to exist in the foreseeable future. Most of them clearly will. But what kind of service will they provide to the public as they adapt their business model - and with it their editorial content - to a much more competitive environment?
With a few exceptions, the big newspaper publishers in past decades operated in metropolitan or regional markets and were not accustomed to head-on competition. Back in the early 1980s, the three network news broadcasters shared a combined audience of around 60m for their nightly shows, more than twice the current figure, and provided a shared experience for American families - a "nightly national seance" in the words of one contemporary.
This was a profitable world in which it was possible to run enormous editorial budgets, with large numbers of foreign correspondents for even quite modest metropolitan dailies. Most newspapers were privately owned, free from the pressures of the stock exchange. Owners were driven as much by civic pride and political influence as by the bottom line.
Competition is changing all that. The television networks have closed down most of their expensive foreign bureaus and have become subsidiaries of much bigger businesses that are driven in good measure by the need for quarterly earnings progress and an unsentimental view of the news business. The result is that viewers have a lot greater chance of learning about the latest health fad than about what is going on in Putin's Russia. There are plenty of willing buyers for newspapers. But most new owners will want to maximise their returns rather than take a broader view of their public role.
Here is the worry. It is true that the new digital media have made available an extraordinary cornucopia of information and ideas for those people who want to look for it. But what about those people who are not willing or not capable of making the effort?
A few decades ago, you could hardly avoid exposure to the network news or the daily paper. Today, you can find a myriad of other forms of entertainment. There is already evidence that Americans with relatively modest educational attainments are simply tuning out of the news altogether. A quarter of all Americans with a high school education or less take in no news of any kind - online or otherwise - on a typical day.
In an effort to catch their attention, news publishers are becoming more partisan and more strident. The Iraq war has not been a triumph for judicious journalism. The early stages were presented as a cross between July 4 and Halloween with flags fluttering, martial music, and no unpleasant images of mayhem and death to disturb the viewer. Some senior reporters were compromised by their unwillingness to challenge the White House line.
In today's competitive environment, what commercial interest would a news publisher have in seeking to interest a poorly educated and uninterested person in what is happening in the world? And will market forces, left to themselves, be enough to support that vital component of democracy - an informed citizenry?
The writer is director-general of the CBI, the employers' organisation. This article is based on the annual Wincott Foundation lecture.
网络时代 传统媒体怎么办
作者：英国《金融时报》前任总编辑理查德?兰伯特(Richard Lambert)
2006年11月3日 星期五
美
国传统新闻媒体正处于骚动之中。一些规模最大的报业连锁企业――先是Knight Ridder，现在又有Tribune Company――已将自己挂牌出售。各大新闻广播网正大幅削减预算，其中NBC环球(NBC Universal)两周前率先采取的行动是最新、也是力度最大的一次。难怪全美各地的编辑们都在承受着精神折磨。投资者似乎得出了这样的结论：这是个没有前景的行业。
不过，与过去常有的情况一样，人们的情绪波动有些过头了。的确，由于读者和观众花费在数字媒体上的时间更多，同时广告正在更大范围的传媒途径中分散，传统媒体的收入增长正陷入停滞。甚至连岁数比较大的读者人数也在下降：10年前，65岁（含）以上的美国人中，70%的人都是忠实的报纸读者，但如今这一比例已降至58%。
但传统媒体仍然是很赚钱的生意。美国报纸行业的日销量高达5500万份，利润率达到不低的两位数，同时拥有强劲的现金流。有迹象显示，长期下降的读者数量近年来可能已趋平稳，同时多数人都将互联网视为印刷媒体的一种补充，而非替代品。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
因此，传统新闻媒体能否在可预见的未来继续存在下去，并不是什么大问题。它们中的大多数显然将继续存在。但在它们为了适应一种竞争更为激烈的环境，对业务模式和内容进行调整的时候，它们将向公众提供什么样的服务呢？
除少数例外情况，大型报纸出版商过去数十年都在大都市或地区性市场运营，不习惯于激烈竞争。追溯到上世纪80年代早期，美国三大新闻广播网晚间节目的观众人数合计约6000万人，是目前的两倍多，成为了美国家庭的一个共有体验――当时那一代美国人所说的“每晚全国着迷”(nightly national seance)。
传统媒体曾是个赚钱的行当，即便是很普通的都市报纸，要维持巨额的编辑预算，拥有大批海外记者，也都是有可能的。多数报纸都不是上市公司，没有股票市场的压力。对于报纸的所有者而言，公民自豪感和政治影响力与业绩一样，有着同样的推动力。
竞争正改变着这一切。电视新闻网关闭了大部分费用高昂的海外分社，并转而成为大公司的附属机构。而这些规模更大的公司，在很大程度上受到季度盈利增长的需要，而且对新闻业务不带任何感情色彩。其结果是，观众们有了更多机会来了解最新的健康时尚，而不是知悉普京领导下的俄罗斯正发生什么。有很多人愿意购买报纸，但多数新老板都会更希望利润最大化，而不是以更广义的视角去看待自己的公共角色。
这就令人感到担心了。不错，新的数字媒体为那些主动的读者提供了极其丰富的信息与创意。但那些不愿意或无法得到这些信息的人怎么办呢？
几十年前，你几乎不可能避开广播新闻网和日报。而今天，你能找到无数其它形式的娱乐。已经有证据表明，教育水平相对较低的美国人正变得完全不关注新闻。通常情况下，四分之一高中或以下学历的美国人，每天完全不接触新闻――无论是网络还是其它形式的新闻。
为了努力吸引他们的注意力，新闻出版商正变得更具派性、也更为尖锐。有关伊拉克战争的新闻报道一直都不理想。在早期的报道中，这场战争被描绘得像美国国庆和万圣节一样，只有飘扬的旗帜、雄壮的音乐，没有令人不快的伤亡形象来招惹观众。一些资深记者因不愿挑战白宫的权威而受累。
在当今的竞争环境，新闻出版商有什么商业利益去吸引教育程度较低、对世事不感兴趣的受众吗？而单凭市场力量，是否足以维系民主政治的关键组成部分――知情的公民阶层呢？
