In today’s Op-Ed in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, I respond to Nathan Alford’s column about the demise of print media.
Some was unavoidable, but much was and is totally avoidable.
In his Sept. 30 column, Moscow-Pullman Daily News Editor and Publisher Nathan Alford delved into the newspaper’s challenges in navigating the evolving media landscape. He pointed out that since 2005, more than a quarter of daily and weekly newspapers in the U.S. have shut down.
This decline has multiple driving factors, the most prominent being the advent of the internet. The shift to convenient, “free” online news sources has reduced the customer base for print editions.
Second, this online shift significantly affects advertising dollars. Before the internet, approximately 70-80% of newspaper revenue came from advertising while subscriptions and newsstand sales covered the rest. But platforms like Craigslist, Amazon, Google, and Facebook have become the primary destinations for advertisers, slashing revenues for traditional media.
Now, newspapers must rely on digital advertising, subscriptions, events, syndication, affiliate marketing, and classified ads (obituaries, legal notices, etc.). But it’s hard to make up for a loss of three fourths of their revenue.
Third, the availability of free news content makes it difficult for newspapers to sustain subscription-based revenue models. Younger generations are less likely to subscribe to newspapers, relying more on social media and specialized websites for news. Gen-Z prefer to get their news from free TikTok videos rather than actually reading anything.
Fourth, in 2006 TPC Holdings invested $12 million in a German-made MAN Roland Uniset 75 offset press and a 32,000-square-foot Lewiston facility to house it. This allowed The Daily News to shut down its aging 1972 Harris printing press and consolidate its printing in Lewiston.
This was a bold move since newspapers across the country were looking for ways to cut costs or change operations rather than expand traditional methods. But the timing turned out to be particularly cruel. George W. Bush’s Great Recession hit in 2008, putting further financial pressure on the already struggling print-news industry.
Finally, on page 4A of Alford’s commentary, there was a banner quote from Toomas Hendrik Ilves: “Fake news is cheap to produce. Genuine journalism is expensive.” I laughed out loud, not at the Daily News but at the national media.
According to a 2023 Gallup and Knight Foundation survey, trust in national news is at an all-time low. Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead, misinform, and intentionally deceive the public into adopting particular points of view by means of strategic reporting rather than honest reporting.
The media’s role in disseminating fake news has grown significantly during the 21st century. One glaring example was their unquestioning acceptance of Bush’s Weapons of Mass Destruction narrative as a justification for invading Iraq. They not only reinforced the establishment narrative but went so far as to entertain us with “Shock and Awe” coverage every night on TV.
The rise of alternative media has highlighted how legacy media outlets have become more prone to either spreading false narratives or avoiding true ones, particularly over the past decade. For instance, ABC News chose not to cover the Jeffrey Epstein story to avoid offending the British royal family.
Examples of intentionally deceptive stories include claims that Hunter Biden’s laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign, that Trump was a Russian operative, and that National Security Advisor Michael Flynn had Russian ties, and that Russian interference was responsible for Hillary Clinton’s loss in the 2016 election.
The establishment media stubbornly promoted various unprecedented claims related to Covid in particular: settled science; gain-of-function research being misinformation; lab-leak origin was a conspiracy theory; 15 days to flatten the curve; cloth masks would protect the elderly; the pandemic only threatened the unvaccinated; vaccines would entirely prevent Covid transmission; so-called “breakthrough” cases; children could not go to school; not to mention covertly altering the definition of ‘vaccine’ to fit the narrative.
Finally, both legacy and social media were pressured by the Hill to push these false narratives. What’s behind this obstinate lack of critical questioning by the corporate media? It’s as if they would rather go extinct than report the news.
Alford sought advice on boosting the Daily News’ circulation. I have three suggestions. First, avoid merely parroting the establishment narrative. Second, encourage genuine dialogue rather than alienating a significant portion of your potential audience. Lastly, consider how to engage a generation that prefers 30-second video clips to reading.