All the news in print doesn’t seem to fit any more

Pew Research Center has posted its latest survey of how and where people get their news, and it doesn’t look good the ink on paper crowd.

The write up focused on the fact younger people get their government and political news from Facebook, while older folk get their news from TV. The survey found 61 percent of so-called Millennials say they get political news on Facebook, while 60 percent of Baby Boomers get theirs from local TV.

The words “print” and “newspaper” are nowhere to be found in the account.

If you dig into the survey questionnaire you’ll find print is an afterthought across the board:

Thinking about the news, did you get news in the past week …? Check all that apply.

73 On television

75 On the internet

46 On the radio

32 In print

Thinking specifically about government and politics, do you get most of your news about this topic …? Check one.

45 On television

37 On the internet

12 On the radio

6 In print

Only 6 percent get most of their government and political news from print. Pathetic.

No wonder the newspaper gets no political candidate ads any more.




31 comments on “All the news in print doesn’t seem to fit any more

  1. ronknecht says:

    Sad, Mitch, very sad. Thank you for what you continue to do. You probably know an initiative to repeal the taxes is in gestation, as is statewide war effort for next year’s primaries. Hope to see you soon, RK

    Ron Knecht Economist & Nevada Controller 775-882-2935 775-684-5777

  2. Mitch, the young millennials are the future, like it or not….older generation like you and me WILL NOT BE IN THEIR FUTURE (due to the concept of human mortality). So, deal with it…

  3. I am fully aware of that, Eddie. I’m informing those who think they have a career in print.

  4. I know I am a dinosaur. Hopefully, small weeklies and dailies will survive.

  5. Bruce Feher says:

    I am the ONLY one on my street that gets the paper delivered!

  6. Mitch, you are NOT a dinosaur. You have successfully morphed into NEW JOURNALISM…your ship will come in soon

  7. Remember what Dingy Harry Reid said to the then RJ publisher Sherm Frederick during the Four Seasons luncheon? “I hope you go OUT OF BUSINESS”

    Weeks later Sherm was summarily FIRED ! Only after Reid trounced Sharron Angle in the 2010 election cycle…

  8. Actually, he said it to ad man Bob Brown, later publisher, in August 2009.

  9. I stand corrected…where’s Bob Brown now ?

  10. He’s got ome job with the chamber of commerce

  11. Steve says:

    I know the timing was suspect but, think about it, thirty years at the helm of any major operation is a solid run and retirement is a real possibility. BBM is more of a hobby than anything else at that point. You do it because you want to do it.

    Sherman Frederick actually stepped down and retired for his own reasons. He replied to a comment I made on one of his articles before he left the RJ. And he made no bones about it. They did not fire him, he left for health reasons.
    It is somewhat publicly known about his heart surgery, remember?

    I believe him. I think Tom even mentioned something about being placed into a position that was of little import, instead of being fired or let go…in my opinion, that was more punishing than being downsized or forced out.

    One thing is abundantly clear, as Tom has said before, news papers (and news people) tend not to report on themselves.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Released today in the journal “Science”:
    “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus”
    “Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.”

  13. Steve says:

    OH looky there;

    The IPCC CAN BE WRONG! But only when it’s wrong in the direction of not supporting the enviro-religion extremists.

    But it can be wrong! Progress!

  14. Jeff Ackerman says:

    Tom. We had the same conversation about newspapers dying…I think…15 years ago? Lots of my friends left newspapers during the Dot Com Boom and came knocking on my door when the boom went bust wanting their newspaper jobs back. Those companies realized that profits were kind of important. We are living on borrowed time, but I wouldn’t trade a single day of the past 35 years. Still making papers and trying to make a difference in the community. When the end comes I’ll ride off into the sunset with my head held high. Hope this finds you well. You were one hell of a good newspaperman!

    Jeff Ackerman
    The News-Review

  15. Barbara says:

    My day was not complete until I had read the RJ. Now I feel the quality of reporting and content is lacking, I dropped to just the Sunday edition but have now completely cancelled everything. I really miss the old opinion pages and my Sunday afternoons.

  16. Nyp says:

    Of course. We should accept something called “The Daily Caller” over a peer-reviewed scientific journal paper.

  17. Steve says:

    Of course we should only believe those peer-reviewed scientific journal paper that happen to support our own political preferences.

    In this case I agree, this peer-reviewed scientific journal paper says the IPCC makes mistakes!


  18. Rincon says:

    So who’s wrong, the scientists that produced the first figures or the ones that produce these revised figures? The proper answer for a Conservative is of course, the former. The proper answer for anyone without a crippling political bias: The jury is still out.

  19. Steve says:

    THAT is exactly what conservatives have been saying! STOP BASING POLICY ON KNOWN FAULTY THEORY!

  20. Rincon says:

    Don’t ever get into a leadership position Steve. Leaders are constantly called upon to make their best assessments on limited information. A good leader is right much more often than he is wrong. The poorest leaders stand paralyzed, waiting too long for the truth to become undeniable. Insisting on 100% undeniable proof on scientific issues while following unproven political and social theories (how many conservative theories can you PROVE?) is like the jury that throws out a scientific test of say, 95% accuracy, choosing instead to believe a witness whose accuracy is closer to 80% according to a variety of studies.

  21. Steve says:

    Hmmph…was lead tech in Kodak until they suffered from severe shrinkage. I know what I am saying about this particular issue. Conservatives are saying the data is obviously flawed and it is not even 50% reliable…stop basing policy on such obviously flawed data.

    You guys really are trusting souls.

  22. Rincon says:

    Hmmm…you were a leader at Kodak and then they suffered from severe shrinkage? Proves what I said, right? 🙂

    You just don’t get it. I work with flawed evidence in my business every day and must make decisions based on the available evidence. Waiting for 100% confirmation of most things usually makes it too late to react in a timely manner. But let’s entertain the idea for a moment. Maybe there’s enough unflawed evidence anyway.

    A small bit of unflawed data: We’re radically changing an active part of the atmosphere known to be capable of warming and Earth “coincidentally” warmed significantly during the relevant time frame. Since the chances of Earth significantly warming are about one out of three by chance alone, this evidence, although weak, suggests all by itself that warming is a distinct, although perhaps not great risk. This limited, but accurate evidence does NOT at all suggest that manmade warming is even unlikely, yet somehow, you feel that there is (somewhere) great evidence that manmade warming is (perhaps nearly) impossible. A good leader at least pays more respect to a 2/3 chance than a 1/3 chance. This is true even if we choose to ignore the scientists (except for the satellite temperature, ocean level and CO2 data, which are not controversial).

    I also ask, where is your PROOF of a conspiracy among scientists? Does it exist or not?

  23. Steve says:

    Perfecting film while ignoring the inventions they patented is what caused their demise. I was a lead tech….not a “leader”….. funny….

    Humans are part of the environment and I see no proof exceeding 50% probability that it is ALL human activity at the source.

    I do see severely conflicting data and now that community is showing it more publicly than ever before. OR is it you trying to claim that one report from them is right? (Excluding all the others that don’t happen to support your political position?)

  24. Patrick says:

    Confused? Yes, the industry most impacted by scientific conclusions about the causes of climate change want people to be confused.

    It’s work before, and many of the same people that utilized the strategy then, are employing it today to try to salvage their profits. All the while the damage continues.

  25. Rincon says:

    “…I see no proof exceeding 50% probability that it is ALL human activity at the source.” Of course not. By using the word ALL, you have made it impossible. Would it matter if we were only 70% responsible? Whether it’s ALL or not is IRRELEVANT, so why are you using that word?

    By random chance, the chances are two out of three that it would NOT have warmed ovr the past 100 (or 40) years. That alone is more than 50%. Add to that the fact that greenhouse gases definitely can cause warming and a very large number of scientists consider it’s effects to be a sufficient and likely explanation of the warming, and you say it doesn’t exceed a 50% probability. Great. If you don’t get it, you’ll never understand it. Enjoy your worldview.

  26. Steve says:

    “Whether it’s ALL or not is IRRELEVANT”

    Pretty much says it all.

  27. Steve says:

    HEY! I was RAWNG!
    There have been THREE Filibusters in the last twenty years….

    Bernie Sanders did 11 freaking hours on the floor! BTW, Bernie Sanders is an independent.

    Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders talk about government…NONE of the rest do….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s