Decline of the Printed Word?
Published by michael November 24th, 2004 in tech
In some ways, this is an old story: “Newspapers are less popular since the rise of free online news content.” Yet Wired author Adam L. Penenberg’s article today doesn’t seem like a re-hash. By interviewing various representatives of the younger demographic (18-34 year olds) he makes a pretty solid convincing case for the continued reduction of newspaper popularity. His story seems to suggest that the documented aversion to newsprint of the younger generation, along with an increasingly customizable and accessible digital world will effectively destroy the newspaper empire. He cites one interesting study that,
found that 18- to 34-year-olds are far more apt to log on to the internet (46 percent) than watch TV (35 percent), read a book (7 percent), turn on a radio (3 percent), read a newspaper (also 3 percent) or flip through a magazine (less than 1 percent).
For me it’s internet > radio > books. In theory I value books more, but my attachment (read addiction?) to constantly shifting perspectives on international news leads me to allocate much more time to online reading.
This article somewhat reminds me of this ominously apocalyptic flash animation entitled “Googlezon” created by Robin Sloan that prophetically documents the next decade of media conglomeration. It’s a few minutes long, but it really makes you think. (via Saheli)
3 Responses to “Decline of the Printed Word?”
Leave a Reply
Search
Here’s where my usual lazy blog-reading habits come to the fore: I read a quote from an article or a study, and want to question its methods and assumptions, without going to read the source itself. Silly me.
Nevertheless, I do wonder what those single percentages for each medium mean. Most of us go online and watch TV and read books and listen to radio and read newspapers and magazines.
Also, any study that tries to predict the future based on trends among the young runs the risk of ignoring how habits change over time. A wild conjecture: people who own taxable property are more likely than those who do not to read a local newspaper, a characteristic which peaks at an age over 34.
Which isn’t to say that technology isn’t shaping changes in our media consumption habits, only that it’s hard to tell what the trends mean when we’re in the middle of them.
Finally, one small ray of sunshine which I’ve never heard substantiated but seems like it must be true: the web, IMing, blogging, etc. must be promoting basic literacy among a cohort of kids who wouldn’t otherwise be reading much of anything. I’m not going to contend that “l8ter d00d” IM-speak is a match for spending one’s youth reading great literature, but it’s got to beat just watching TV, which is what a lot of people in my generation did.
Great points Prentiss. I took the liberty of adding a question mark to the title and changing the text of one line to soften the lack of balance your comment highlighted in my post.
While I’ll let you uncover the answer to your question of “what those single percentages for each medium mean,” if you can. I think that as far as predicting the future, Penenberg’s article was more rooted in the present trends, opening with the news that the Washington Post’s sales have been decreasing sharply over time, and they have put together study groups to investigate the causes.
The study he referenced (via the Online Publisher’s Association) can be viewed as a .pdf file here . Below is one of the graphs, in response to the question, “If you could only use two media in your life, which two of the media listed below would you use?”
While I don’t anticipate the extinction of newspapers in the imminent future, I can relate to not wanting them piling up around the house. I’ll be 34 in a couple more years, at which point I can personally respond to your wild conjecture, (if of course I manage to ever afford a home).
There is also the question of immediacy. I know that you read Boing Boing and find pieces that don’t reach the printed news for a day or two.