NDM: The decline of the newspaper industry

Exploring how new/digital technology has impacted on traditional media industries is a critical part of the overall exam topic. We need to learn statistics and examples that illustrate the decline in print media alongside looking at how audiences have changed the way they access and interact with news. Your Ofcom research blog task is a major part of this but now we need to consider whether print newspapers have any kind of future - and if so, who will pay for it?

The future of newspapers

Read this article from the Economist on the future of newspapers.

On your blog, write a paragraph summarising the argument the article makes. Then answer the following questions:

• But in the rich world newspapers are now an endangered species. The business of selling words to readers and selling readers to advertisers, which has sustained their role in society, is falling apart
• irculation has been falling in America, western Europe, Latin America, Australia and New Zealand for decades (elsewhere, sales are rising).
• The Vanishing Newspaper”, Philip Meyer calculates that the first quarter of 2043 will be the moment when newsprint dies in America
• Britons aged between 15 and 24 say they spend almost 30% less time reading national newspapers once they start using the web.
• Classified ads, in particular, are quickly shifting online.
• Newspapers have not yet started to shut down in large numbers, but it is only a matter of tim
• Having ignored reality for years, newspapers are at last doing something. In order to cut costs, they are already spending less on journalism. 
•  Many are also trying to attract younger readers by shifting the mix of their stories towards entertainment, lifestyle and subjects that may seem more relevant to people's daily lives than international affairs and politics are
• They are trying to create new businesses on- and offline

1) Do you agree with its view that it is ‘a cause for concern, but not for panic’?

I agree as i think companies just have to adjust the platform they are operating on, shifting from the print platform to a online, emedia platform. However, i feel like a lot of culture and histroy would be lost in the decline of the loss of the print platform, which may foreshadow the decline of physical copies of book; which i think would be a huge concern for panic.Overall, i think that it isnt a cause for panic but only as long as a few major print platforms remain and the smaller ones shift to operating online only.

2) The article is 10 years old - an eternity in digital media terms. Have the writer's predictions come to pass? Use statistics from your Ofcom research to support or challenge the writer's argument.

There is a correlation but the severity has been over exaggerated with the article, some individuals remaining loyal to the original platforms, reflecting how despite a rapid shift in theological advances it doesn't necessarily mean that human behavior changes in the exact same pace. Its highlighted that certain brands and papers, depending on their audiences, like the economist, remain to be print platforms. 


3) The Economist suggests that high-quality journalism in the future will be backed by non-profit organisations rather than profit-seeking media corporations. Is there any evidence for this? How is the Guardian funded? What do major stories from the last year such as the Panama Papers suggest about how investigative journalism is conducted in the digital age?

it was said to be  'profit-seeking enterprise managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner' yet they are constantly making a loss rather than making profit. This may suggest they are looking to stay ink the market to gain further future profits as the invest on the e-media platform and make a slow yet swift and secure shift in order to create further long term profits. The pajama's seem to make a lot of tax doges. Highligohting the power of investigative journalism on a professional front which would be lost. 

Build The Wall 


section 1 : free content online makes it dangerous to ask for sudden pain subscription. 

2 : Free newspapers are already available making them pain subscription would be rather representative. 

3 : Paid subscription aids the companies gaining revenue helping them to gain long term profit.

4: Its rather late for the news industry to start doing this now but they might just manage to make a little more profit if they do the change now 

the overall argument: 

Davids argument is that the paid subscription scheme should become a necessary for the audience members to pay. This is in order to enable them to make exclusive content only for the paid users whilst covering the various costs of doing so and generating further revenue. This inability on generating further revenue and profit would aid the industry top stay alive for much more years due to the sudden decline in the demand for print. This would be extremely negative for the industry as it would result in lower profits, as well as job cuts, decreased salaries, lower quality articles for readers as well as a overall negative impact on the news industry as a culture. He also states that the news industry is however very late in introducing this scheme as the internet’s been around for so long and they have already sustained a certain type of audience that would be rigid to change. The institutions have already established a certain style making it hard for them to shift and only a few existing institutions have already implemented this.  The overall article voices the negatives of the development of the internet and its impact on the news industry as a while as well as suggesting the law and police reinforcement implications it brings about due to the increased window for crime.

 My opinion:

I do agree in the argument that the news industry is too late in introducing this scheme due to the already established audience which are loyal up until they begin to be charged a premium price for not so premium content. Especially in terms of news, it travels fast across various platforms and exclusive content by no means wouldst remain completely exclusive being available somewhere else even if it is in an illegal manner it doesn't really stop a consumer from going a good or service they truly desire and feel entitled to gaining. However i don't agree that charging a premium fee is the best way to make a profit as you can gain a lot of donations and sponsors by sheer popularity, gain a lot from ad revenue and features; its about finding the right ways for the institutions to gain money through a technically free service. rather like data mining