Don’t know whether this is a new survey but Carnegie says the average age of a newspaper reader is 55 and one cable news channels average age just plummeted to 59. It used too be, it was just the trees that died.
I’m 64, and except for visits to the barber shop and doctor/dentist office, I haven’t touched a newspaper or news magazine in many years.
You know, I’m kind of looking forward to newspapers dying off. They’ve been doing it since I was a kid (and delivered the last issue of my town’s afternoon edition) but now we might actually get something good out of it.
I think one question that will have to be answered by newspapers is: local or national? There’s no reason for the Whereverville Post-Mukluk to have the same national news as if people can’t get the New York Times there. So newspapers will split into two camps: the aggressively local and the aggressively focused. Small papers will get more local, and someone else will start papers for specific ideological or lifestyle niches nationwide that don’t cover local at all. What we won’t have is the five-section behemoth covering a bunch of stuff equally shallowly, which is the somnolent state of the newspaper today and why they’re dying.
I’m 46 and almost never read dead tree editions of newspapers. I get all the national/world news I can possibly eat for free online. Plus loads of commentary from blogs of all flavors.
I _would_ buy (or subscribe to an online edition of) a newspaper with real local news. I quit reading the daily fishwrap years ago, as it was nothing but repackaged AP stories.
One of the problems is that actual local news upsets local advertisers.
I was watching one of the national network news broadcasts and noticed that the ads are nearly all pitching prescription drugs, metamucil, life insurance, etc. At least the advertisers know who’s watching.
But what’s wrong with older viewers? Is the obsession with youth attributable only to disposable income? We’re young and dumb (I’m 27) – why would we be making more money than our wise elders? Maybe we’re not, but our viag-metamuc-ipitor costs are lower?
Did ya ever think that the reason for that is that the Baby Boomers, still the largest sector of the populace, are in the 45-59 age cohort?!? Could that have something to do with the demographic?
Not to mention that, traditionally, the 18-34 cohort does not pay attention to broadcast news unless it is directed specifically to them–remember how Bill Clinton won his first election by pandering on MTV? (yes, I meant to say it that way) He knew the score when it comes to 18-34s and not much has change about them since then (except some of us have turned middle-aged)
There’s alot more to those stats, Jeff, than you really want to admit to.
Stop holding out. “Admit” the real stats to us.
(This is sarcasm for the dim-witted.)
This reminded me of a great Bengali saying. “He’s so old, even his contemporaneous trees and rocks are gone!” Now, of course, that’s true for a lot of people, what with deforestation and mountaintop removal.
So that’s why they there are so many of those drug commericals running every night while I flip through the cable channels (yes, I often vegitate wth my laptop and TV in the living room – but only during prime-time!) I’m the wrong demographic. How about I get an A-Chip to go with my V-Chip. I only want ads that are targeted at 30-something demographic.
Congrats on the cameo appearance in this month’s Vanity Fair.
I cancelled my subscription to the local newspaper years ago, when it became aparent to me that it was all left wing biased. It seems most everyone else has figured out the same thing. Now that we know its all “Fake, but accurate”, why bother subscribing. I want real factual news, not fabricated propaganda. With the advent of AP’s (Associated Phables) story during last years campaign season which said that the crowd at a Bush pre-election rally Boo’d when Bush wished Clinton a speedy recovery from his impending heart surgery, when in fact they cheered, I stopped getting any news from the TSM (Terrorist Supporting Media), and especially the AP. Its been the smartest move I’ve made in years. Now I actually have a chance of finding out what really factually happened rather than some opinion based upon fabricated lies by a tin foil hat wearing, kool-aid siping, moonbat from the fever swamp suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). The best news I’ve had in months has been that the NYT is laying off 500 employees. Lets hope the trend continues. It can’t happen fast enough for me.
Laptop on my kitchen table — TV off to the side: best (and worst) of all news worlds. But I have to admit that I get that warm fuzzy feeling when I pick up a print ed. of the NYTimes.
I read USA Today everyday, but I wish the Life section was more slaezy.
Bob….Bravo, well said!
Your type of experience was what justified my reasons as well!
And the average age of people who can read is now 48.
I find this news very sad. We’ll see newspapers die so younger people can get their McNews from the Internet. Very sad. Books are next?
Books are next?
When a light, comfy simple way to easily read ebooks becomes more popular, perhaps hard copy books will diminish a bit. Hope not.
Fiction books will always be popular.
Hmmmm, that format should be a good fit for the journalistic fakery of today.
sorry morris, the internet has the exact same Mcnews the newspapers have, and a whole lot more, get with it wouldja. name one newspaper article anwhere that isn’t on the internet, i challange you.
and if your reply is that I spelled anwhere and challange wrong, you are a tool.
Buy my new book and get clickable footnotes and links.
Buy my new Kindle Single on Amazon.
Now out in paperback!