One of the more self-destructive traits of American journalism is the general disdain of local reporting. In the news biz there is a pecking order, and second-worst place to be is a suburban bureau. The absolutely worst place to be is a newspaper so small that it doesn't have any suburban bureaus.
Writing for Slate, media commentator Jack Schafer piles it on, saying newspapers that focus on local news are "dumbing down" and "targeting a less-educated audience."
Smaller and more locally focused newspapers happen to be the only happy story in print journalism these days.
The bigger the newspaper, the more it stuffs its columns full of wire news that everyone already knows about in this internetworked world we live in, the more likely it is that the paper's having horrendous circulation troubles.
Churn rates at many major metro papers exceed half the subscriber base. In other words, for every 100,000 subscribers, more than 50,000 cancel every year and have to be replaced (at great marketing expense). Many major dailies now reach only two out of ten households in their own circulation areas. They're not treading water; they're sinking fast.
It's the smaller markets that are solid -- the ones where newspapers are full of the local news that allegedly dumbs down the paper so that it appeals to the hicks in flyover country.
Schafer quotes a study by two economists of the effects on local newspaper circulation when the New York Times enters the market with home delivery. I'd like to see a detailed analysis by age cohort. Perhaps this is just evidence that the New York Times is becoming a specialty newsletter for the elite and elderly.
Comments
disdain of local: could there be a reason?
As you note, the big problem facing lots of the metro papers is that readers run into similar content elsewhere. But is it the metros' fault that they face competition? And is small papers' success a sign of our virtue, or just of our (slowly withering) monopoly?
In my experience, good local papers rock. But lots of local papers are lazy about serving readers, delivering timely news, and digging for enterprise. Sure, big papers do too little of all that, but at least they all do some of it.
I'm not saying the big-city attitude toward small papers is fair. Just that it might be rational.
I'm just stabbing in the dark, though. I've looked up a lot of city-dwelling journos' wrinkled noses, too, and never really understood why. I'd love to know.
wire-to-local ratio
I guess my point is that before condemning the metros for stuffing their columns with wire, we should look at the quality and comprehensiveness of their in-house work.
And that small dailies which rely in part on wire content, as mine does, should keep track of the log in our own eye. What's our own wire-to-local ratio?