“Newspapers” Items

Demographic Wake-Up Call for Newspapers, 2003

In a 2003 commentary published in the Newspaper Association of Amereica‘s Presstime magazine, demographics expert Peter Francese offers a sobering but forward-thinking look at the structural challenges facing newspapers. Delivered at the NAA Future of Newspapers Conference, the piece outlines how changing lifestyles, shifting work patterns, and demographic transformations have deeply disrupted traditional readership models. [Summary created by AI]

Francese argues that the real threat to newspapers is not just the Internet—but the failure to adapt to evolving consumer behavior. Fewer Americans are buying newspapers, especially among those under 45. Even older readers—historically the industry’s loyal base—are spending less time at home, traveling more, and increasingly relying on digital alternatives.

Compounding the issue are demographic shifts: cities are getting younger and more diverse, while suburbs age and fragment. Women, especially, are more professionally engaged than ever, leaving less time for shopping and local community involvement—factors that impact advertisers and newspaper engagement alike.

Francese doesn’t just diagnose the problem—he issues a call to action. Newspapers must invest in understanding their readers, rethink delivery models, and modernize how they connect with new generations. He warns against clinging to outdated one-size-fits-all publishing strategies and urges publishers to embrace consumer data and feedback more aggressively.

He closes by championing Newspaper In Education (NIE) programs as essential for introducing young people to the value of a trusted news source. Without strategic outreach and content tailored to changing lifestyles, newspapers risk losing not just a generation—but their entire place in the cultural fabric.

“We have met the enemy, sir, and he is us,” Francese quotes. The future of newspapers, he insists, depends on recognizing—and acting on—this truth.

Source: Published in Presstime Magazine, May 2003

A View of News from the 1940s

In cleaning our storage unit, I came across a series of books titled “Building America” that belong to Kate Finberg’s family in Michigan. They were published in the late 1930s and early 1940s by the National Education Association (NEA), through its Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development.  One of the books was about “news.” The section is an interesting history lesson as how the public viewed the press and provided a look at the technology used to create and distribute information at that time.

From the booklet:

This study unit of Building America takes up important questions dealing with news:

  1. How did Americans get news in the past?
  2. How do modern papers gather and distribute news?
  3. Are modern newspapers too sensational?
  4. Does America have “freedom of the press”?
  5. How can we make sure that newspapers, the radio, and newsreels give us important and truthful news?

The books are really bound copies of pamphlets that probably were distributed to schools and other locations.  The next “chapter” of this volume is about “Farmers”.

Here’s what Chat GPT wrote:

 “The Building America series reflects the NEA’s emphasis on civic education, democracy, and national identity.”

“The Building America series was more than just a history book—it was a carefully designed educational resource aimed at shaping young Americans’ understanding of their country’s past and future. By publishing this series, the NEA sought to:
✔ Provide a structured, standardized history curriculum.
✔ Reinforce democratic and civic ideals, especially in a time of global conflict.
✔ Highlight key industries

I also asked Chat GPT whether this series is propaganda. Here’s its response:

While the Building America series may not have been pure propaganda, it likely contained ideological framing that emphasized American exceptionalism, democracy, and civic duty—especially in the context of WWII. It served both an educational and nation-building function, shaping how young Americans understood their country.

Newspaper Circulation Report, 1988

It is striking how far circulation numbers have fallen.  I found a page from Editor & Publisher from 1988 that reported on the top 25 newspapers in the U.S. in terms of circulation. The decline is striking. Here’s the start of the story:

By Mark Fitzgerald
When the year began, numerous newspaper advertising analysts declared that 1988 would be a banner year.

Midway through this lackluster year, they revised their projections downward.

Much the same thing seems to be happening with newspaper circula­tion, according to the results of the latest FAS-FAX report from the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

When the FAS-FAX for the six months ended March 31, 1988, came out, daily circulation seemed a special bright spot in a dull year.
With the release of the FAS-FAX for six months ended Sept. 30, 1988, however, the other shoe has dropped.

Here’s a look at five newspapers, 1988 versus 2023-24 daily circulation data:

Newspaper                1988                Most Recent               Decline (%)
Wall Street Journal 1,869,000       609,654     2023      ~67%
New York Times       1,116,334         296,329     2023      ~73%
Los Angeles Times   1,112,344         118,760       2023     ~89%
Chicago Tribune       1,098,127          73,000       2024    ~93%
Arizona Republic      320,409            67,510        2023     ~79%

The complete list of 25 is available in the article. It includes Sunday circulation numbers.

         
         
         
         
         
         

The complete list of 25 is available in the article. It includes Sunday circulation numbers.

 

Future of Journalists in 21st Century ( via 1994)

In 1994, the American Society of News Editors (ASNE) in partnership with the Freedom Forum  provided a report on journalism’s evolution into the 21st century. The document contains insights regarding the anticipated transformations within the industry, particularly in response to technological advancements and shifting audience behaviors. However, some projections were either only partially realized or did not materialize as expected.

Key Insights the Report
  1. Digital Transformation & the Internet
    The report correctly foresaw the growing importance of digital platforms, predicting that online news consumption would reshape journalism. It acknowledged the potential of the internet to expand access to news and create new journalistic formats.
  2. Ethical Challenges & Credibility Concerns
    There was a strong emphasis on maintaining journalistic integrity in an increasingly fragmented media landscape. Concerns about misinformation, the speed of news dissemination, and editorial responsibility were highlighted—issues that have become even more pronounced in today’s digital age.
  3. Changing Audience Expectations
    The report predicted a shift in audience engagement, recognizing that readers would demand more interactivity, customization, and multimedia elements in their news consumption.
  4. Corporate Ownership & Commercial Pressures
    There was an awareness of the growing consolidation of media ownership and the risks of editorial independence being compromised due to commercial interests.
Assumptions That Did Not Materialize

Just as interesting as to the insights, were the assumptions that did not come to pass.

  1. Sustained Dominance of Print Media
    While the report acknowledged the rise of digital media, it underestimated the rapid decline of traditional print journalism. It assumed newspapers would remain a primary news source, supplemented by digital rather than largely replaced by it.
  2. Public Willingness to Pay for Quality Journalism
    The expectation that consumers would sustain journalism through paid subscriptions proved only partially correct. While paywalls and digital subscriptions exist, the widespread reliance on free content and advertising-based models was not fully anticipated.
  3. Journalists as Gatekeepers of Information
    The document maintained the assumption that professional journalists would retain their role as the primary arbiters of truth. However, the rise of citizen journalism, social media influencers, and decentralized news distribution has significantly altered the landscape.
  4. The Role of Traditional News Organizations in Shaping Public Discourse
    While legacy media outlets were expected to remain central to public discourse, they now compete with a vast array of alternative news sources, many of which operate outside traditional journalistic norms.

The summary was produced using ChatGPT and reviewed by a human [Howard Finberg].

Attracting and Retaining Readers, 1986

For as long as I was in the newspaper industry, I’ve heard the refrain “we need to attract new and retain our current readers.”

Mostly, in the “olden days” that meant a new promotion or some kind of circulation push [cut the prices and retain them when the full-cost renewal hits].

The American Press Institute held a seminar in November 1986 and invited 21 editors, publishers, circulation directors and other executives to focus on:

• Meeting the needs of a changing newspaper audience.
• Increasing household penetration.
• Reader retention.
• Fresh methods for marketing and promoting the newspaper.

While the report on the conference focus on aspects of the newspaper industry that are revenue driven — advertising and circulation– there was some discussion about improving the overall editorial product.  From the section titled “Relating to Readers,” Chris Anderson, editor of the Orange Country Register urged an upgrade of the quality of content:

“Quality sells newspapers. But it doesn’t come easily, and it doesn’t come free.” It is increasingly apparent, he said, that newspapers must make long-­term investments in editorial content that arc not immediately cost-­justifiable – but will have long-term benefit. He listed these as primary ingredients in a newspaper’s quality: 

  1. We are specific to our own set of readers. We “belong” to them.
  2. There are things for lots of different readers. Our readership is a coalition of special-interest groups
  3. We make things easy to find and to read. Consistency and packaging arc especially important. 
  4. A good newspaper is compelling and personal. “Readers have no obligation to take the rubber band off. It’s easier to watch TV.”
  5. We involve our readers, and help them tell their stories.
  6. Professionalism is painstaking attention to detail.

There was one page on the potential of computers, at least when it comes to circulation, to help newspapers understand their market and where their subscribers live.

The booklet about the conference has recommendations are well past their “sell by” date. The marketplace has upended advertising and circulation revenue streams. And that left many newspaper readers, or the remaining newspaper readers, high and dry.

Here’s a summary generated by AI about the seminar
Attracting and Retaining Readers: What the Industry Was Saying in 1986

📅 American Press Institute Curtis Seminar, November 1986
📍 Reston, Virginia

In the fall of 1986, a select group of newspaper editors, designers, and media scholars gathered at the American Press Institute for the Curtis Seminar on Attracting and Retaining Readers. The purpose: to examine declining readership trends and explore strategies that might reverse them. Though digital disruption had not yet arrived, there was already a strong sense that change was needed.

The seminar materials read like a cross between a strategic workshop and a newsroom therapy session. Titles such as “Understanding Reader Behavior,” “Packaging the Paper,” and “Reversing the Downward Trend” reflect a growing awareness that traditional newspaper practices were losing traction with modern audiences. Participants tackled tough questions about design, content hierarchy, service journalism, and how to make newspapers more relevant—especially to younger readers and women, demographics that were already disengaging.

There’s a notable urgency in the recommendations: trim excess verbiage, lead with utility, give readers navigational tools, and design with intention. The themes of clarity, connection, and relevance emerged again and again, with a shared belief that newspapers needed to better align with the everyday concerns of readers—not just editorial priorities.

What’s especially striking is the vocabulary of experimentation and evolution—terms that feel contemporary but were clearly part of the industry’s discourse nearly 40 years ago. Participants acknowledged that reader expectations had changed, and that the paper’s design, structure, and tone needed to evolve as well.

The Curtis Seminar offers a revealing snapshot of a profession in self-reflection. It shows that even before the rise of the internet, journalism leaders were grappling with how to hold onto their audience, adapt to shifting habits, and make newspapers more useful, relevant, and readable. Many of those questions remain just as pressing today.

Front Pages from the Kennedy Assassination

The United Press International published a collection of front pages from the four days following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Sixty years later it is remarkable look at American journalism and the power of the front page. And it is also a reminder of how many newspapers have been lost [closed, merged] since that time.  The magazine’s publisher wrote this about the collection:

FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER
The responsibility of the American Newspaper to give its readers accurate, swift, and in this case, tragic and appalling news, was never met with greatwr skill and devotion than on the four days of November 22, 23, 24, and 25, 1963.

Despite the awesome pressure of meeting deadlines under such sorrowful conditions, millions of words poured from reporters’ typewriters, thousands of copy editors checked stories they never wanted to see. In the so-called “back shops” of newspapers, large medium and small, linotype operators punched keys which rec­orded for all to read a story which even the typesetters could hardly believe. Pressmen assembled plates which should never have been needed, and pushed the button which triggered the high whine of a high-speed press.

Deliverers delivered newspapers to newsboys and news merchants who sold them to readers who didn’t want to believe the headlines they saw were true.

Other items are listed here.

Looking to the Future: 1986 to 2001

In the past, journalism conventions serving management and editors, such as the Associated Press Managing Editors conference, were major events.  Hundreds of participants, dozens of panels and speeches.  So important that the APME published what the called the “Red Book.”  This was a record of the proceedings so those who could not attend would learn what was discussed.

In 1987, the Red Book reported on a panel held in Cincinnati, OH, on “Newspapers After 2001.”  The panel was tasked to look ahead 15 years.  Among the participants:

  • James K. Batten, president, Knight-Ridder, Inc.
  • Louis D. Boccardi, president and general manager, The Associated Press
  • John J. Curley, president and chief executive officer. Gannett Newspapers
  • Katherine W. Fanning, editor, Christian Science Monitor
  • Jeff Greenfield, media critic and columnist, ABC
  • James Hoge, president, New York Daily News
  • C.K. McClatchy, president, McClatchy Newspapers
  • Burl Osborne, president, Dallas Morning News
  • Eugene C. Patterson, chairman and chief executive officer, Times Publishing Company, St. Petersburg, Fla.
  • William O. Taylor, chairman and chief executive officer. Boston Globe
  • Chris Urban, Urban and Associates 

Reading over this edited transcript of the discussion, I was struck how little the panel got right. In fact, I think most of them missed the speeding “technology bus” that was about to crash into their newsprint based business and scatter their profits and employees to the wind. There was discussion about the declining readership — one panelist suggest the industry encourage literacy — and the fragmented advertising market. There were a couple of notable mentions of technology.  Here’s one from Kay Fanning:

We’re being increasingly bombarded by trivia and through the progress of technology it will get worse and worse. With all the world coming to our back door in terms of satellite communications and transportation, the link-up of the global stock market, all aspects of computer networking, newspapers will need a content that offers the citizen a pathway through this hail of trivia. That content will require more substance, more quality, offer more understanding rather than just a lot of information. I believe in the simple bromide of the better mousetrap. If we have a quality that is relevant to the citizens and to the public interest we can easily raise the numbers from 40 to 60 percent. 

I did like the comments from John Curley about improving the visuals of newspapers to make them more appealing:

Presentation is part of it too. Color, graphics, and our ability to do more in that area will be important. I don’t mean to pick on the Cincinnati Inquirer, since we own it, but in yesterday’s paper we went 11 pages in the Life Section without a graphic or photo. and a lot of the contents suggested that there could have been some there. I don’t think that is atypical of most newspapers, and it’s a weakness in a lot of our newspapers too.

Curley was the first editor of USA Today, hence he knew about color and graphics. USA Today was launched four years earlier, in 1982. in 1988, the American Press Institute had a major design seminar looking at the future of newspapers. It was called Design 2000.  Details are elsewhere on this site.  Lots of graphics and color in those prototype newspapers.

TV News’ Future

Also at the convention was Lawrence Grossman, president of NBC News. He gave a talk on “Television News After 2001.” He was sort right when he said:

My thesis is that if you look 15 years ahead to the year 2001, it will be much like what we see now in television news, just as when you look back to 1970, television news was basically like what you’re seeing now.

But take that out a few more years and he was very, very wrong.  He got a few things right.  It was an interesting read.

Social Contract with Readers, 1978

The American Society of Newspaper Editors asked Ruth Clark to look at the issues between readers and editors.  She refers to this as the “new social contract.” The study, done in 1978, discussed one of the most important issues, behavior influences and “the changing relationship between readers and their newspapers.”  From the summary:

We know very little about the subtle forces that seem to be weakening the emotional ties of many readers, making newspapers less wanted, less needed or, in extreme cases, resented. Analyzing the chemistry of individual relations is difficult enough; explaining group attitudes is even more challenging.

The present pilot study is an attempt, nevertheless, to provide some preliminary insights into what might be called “The New Social Contract between Newspaper Editors and Readers.” It is an effort to deepen our understanding of findings that have been emerging from major reader surveys of the Newspaper Readership Project.  As a by-product, it is also a demonstration of techniques that editors can use  to establish a direct dialogue with readers and non-readers as part of a continuing search for new ways to increase newspaper reading.

The work was commissioned by the American Society of Newspaper Editors and funded by the Readership Council. It was carried out by Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc., under the direction of Ruth Clark.

More that 120 regular readers, occasional readers, and non-readers were interview­ed in informal focus group sessions in 12 different daily newspaper markets, both competitive and non-competitive, chain and non-chain. As a special feature, editors not only observed all the sessions but participated part of the time. 

Being Part of the News

While in journalism school at San Francisco State University, I was stringer for United Press International. UPI was the second largest wire service in the U.S. during the 1970s.  It was a tradition that one of the college newspaper editors would be a UPI stringer and so I was.  A former SFSU graduate worked as a reporter at UPI and he would often call and ask for a bit of “string” for national stories.  String was just another way of saying comments from around the country that could be woven into a large round-up story.

One such story that not only did I provide string but provide a quote that was in the story involved the firing of Lt. Gen. Lewis B Hershey in 1969.  Hershey was the head of the selective service  system, the draft, and a hated official during the Vietnam war. 

Here’s my quote:

“It’s great that Hershey as a personality is finally getting out,” said Howard Finberg, 20, a student at San Francisco State College. “But the system is still wrong, and that’s what needs to be corrected.”

The image is the wire service teletype copy that was set to newspapers and other subscribers of the UPI national wire. 

This was an interesting period to be a journalist and cover the Vietnam war era turmoil on your own campus.

Michael Bloomberg on Newspapers

Michael Bloomberg, president and founder of Bloomberg Financial Markets gave a keynote speech at the International Winter Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in 1997.  His speech was about the future of electronic devices and he spent a lot of time talking about newspapers and whether there’s an electronic solution that would make consumers give up on print. [That’s why I’m posting his speech]. An excerpt:

And if we are going to build consumer products, if our businesses are going to grow and let electronic devices replace newspapers they are going to have to provide the same functionality. Now another answer to the problem would be don’t let radio and television become the substitute for newspapers. But find some way to make newspapers more valuable, more economic. And if you think about it, it is a very easy thing to do. Right now we go and we chop down an awful lot of trees in Canada, we haul them to the mill, we grind them up into paper, we put ink on it, we deliver it to the comer newspaper stand or the newspaper boy or girl throws it on your doorstep. You read it once and you throw it away. It is a phenomenally inefficient thing screaming for a technological solution.

Bloomberg also so the coming of streaming television:

No matter how many times people tell you that broadcast is here to stay, the feet of the matter is it is not here to stay. It is so compelling to be able to get what you want, when you want it, independent of everybody else that we are going to give you video on demand no matter what it costs and no matter who’s axe gets gored and people will try to protect their industries. They will try to protect their jobs, but the feet of the matter is, if you look at the public, the public has the interest in getting a movie they go to Blockbuster, they want to see it when they want to see it. The public even goes to the comer movie theater to see it when they want to see it. The public wants to be able to jump over commercials, which is going to be a very big problem. Who is going to pay for all of this? The public wants to be able to stop that football game for two minutes when the phone rings or when the diaper needs changing. And we are going to have to deliver those kinds of products, those facilities, those attributes for television.

His speech had some good visionary moments.