A sobering moment arrives the other day, on a visit to a local college whose name absolutely will not be revealed here, under threat of torture, except to say that it is located on North Charles Street at Cold Spring Lane.
“How many of you read a daily newspaper?” I ask a class of about 20 young scholars there whose studies include mass communications.
Not a hand goes into the air.
“How many of you watch local TV news?”
Not a hand goes into the air. (You would think they would fake it, at least.)
The first response is not entirely surprising, as we’ve all been reading about the dying of newspapers. Where do we read about this dying? In newspapers, of course, which have become the only voice in history to issue regular medical bulletins on the progress of their own decay.
The other day, we had the latest circulation figures from newspapers across the country. They’re down about 5 percent from a year ago, and advertising figures are sometimes worse. The Washington Post, down 14 percent in print-ad revenue. The New York Times, down 18 percent.
At the Audit Bureau of Circulations’ annual conference last week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg wisecracked that the New York Times “now costs $1.50, and it’s about an inch-and-a-half narrower. I think you must have misunderstood — in this economy, I’ve asked New Yorkers to do more with less, not charge more for less.”
The reference was as clear as the stories that arrive like casualty figures from a war zone: the downsizing of newsroom staffs, the closing of bureaus in Washington and overseas and, astonishingly, in suburban counties — and the steady drumbeat of predictions that hard-copy newspapers are headed the way of the quill and scroll.
Just last week, the venerable Christian Science Monitor announced it will shut down its weekday print editions next spring.
But the college kids’ response about television news might surprise some people. Television was once declared the news medium of the future. For the past several decades, all the surveys said the majority of Americans were turning to television as their primary source of news. And, even in the age of the internet, it has been believed that TV news still held onto a large and loyal audience.
But I’ve asked this question at three local colleges in the past few months and gotten the same reactions in all: Not many are tuning in.
During the past 10 years, network TV news has lost about one-third of its audience. Partly, that’s because cable news stations have stolen away lots of viewers. And, partly, it’s because young people who once clicked on the news as they came of age now seem increasingly oblivious to it — in any form.
A quarter-century ago, on the evening I started doing nightly TV commentaries for WJZ-TV’s Eyewitness News, and nervously slipped into a studio seat, a studio cameraman said, “Relax. There’s only half-a-million people gonna be watching you tonight.”
In those days, and for years thereafter, WJZ’s ratings were higher than their competitors’ — combined. They were hitting somewhere around a quarter-million homes for their 6 o’clock news, and even more for their 11 o’clock show.
But, in the modern era, newspapers aren’t the only ones in trouble.
In the October ratings released the other day, the local TV news leader for the prestige evening broadcasts is WBAL, which hits about 78,000 homes at 5 o’clock, about 86,000 at 6 o’clock and about 100,000 at 11 o’clock (placing it slightly in second place at the late hour.)
Not a quarter-million homes at 6 o’clock, but 86,000 — and they’re the leader.
WJZ, meanwhile, hits about 52,000 homes at 5 o’clock, about 60,000 at 6 o’clock, and about 97,000 at 11 o’clock. WMAR hits about 10,000 homes at 5 o’clock, 15,000 at 6 o’clock, and 38,000 at 11.
All, just fractions of what they used to draw. All, victims of the changing media landscape.
But here’s the kicker: When I asked those three college classes how many of them got their news from the Internet, there were no hands raised in two classes. In one class, about a dozen students raised their hands.
“And how many get that news from local Web sites?” I asked.
Not a hand went into the air.
In other words, in three college classes, there was a general obliviousness to local news, to the business of the communities in which they live.
This week, the nation was heartened to see so many young people go to the polls and elect a new president. Clearly, they were quite stirred by the national election. But, news about their own cities and towns? That’s a different story — in any medium.
