For years, one of the most widely read sections of any newspaper was the obituaries. But judging by a recent Pew Research Center study, we might soon be reading the obituary for print journalism as a whole.
According to the study, newsroom workforces at print newspapers have been cut in half over the past decade. The primary reasons for the decline are obvious: media bias and the rise of online news sources.
The evidence for the latter effect is overwhelming — employment doubled at digital news outlets over the same period. But as for media bias, although conservatives may take delight in seeing left-wing print news outlets fall apart, the result is a short-term negative for our nation.
When readers replaced newspapers with the websites of their choosing, they didn’t end up reading new, unbiased media outlets that were publishing solid journalism. Instead, left-wing readers began reading sites that fed them the news they wanted to hear. Right-wing readers did the same. Rather than replacing “fake news” with real journalism, the decline of print media increased political tribalism by placing an increasing amount of Americans in their echo chambers.
In addition, when the print media began laying off employees, they also began degrading the quality of the product they were selling. Expensive, long-form investigative journalism was replaced by clickbait stories attempting to chase the “Trump bump.” Biased journalism became full-fledged fake news. As a New York Times editor was captured admitting on hidden camera, “The main objective is to grab subscribers. You do that any way that you can.” For many outlets, this meant publishing anti-Trump fan-fiction rather than actual news.
This business model is shameful for any newspaper that takes itself seriously, but it’s undeniably profitable in the short-term. In fact, the New York Times just passed 3.8 million online subscribers.
But what is the long-term plan? Once President Trump is out of office, how will the Times hold the attention of this rabid anti-Trump audience?
The Times and others would do well to learn a lesson from sports journalism. In an era full of clickbait stories about the NFL, NBA, and NHL, sports site The Athletic has shown that there is a real demand for serious journalism with insightful, long-form stories. The site was founded just three years ago, but it already boasts a value of $300 million, with more than 500,000 paying subscribers. Little by little, The Athletic has expanded coverage on an increasing number of sports by hiring talented, well-known writers with their own followings.
Imagine if political journalism were done the same way — rather than pretending to be unbiased while offering left-wing propaganda, news sites could hire talented reporters from a multitude of geographic locations and political persuasions. These journalists could cover a variety of stories from a variety of viewpoints. And as long as their biases were known and their stories were accurate, no one would begrudge them for having a point of view.
Unfortunately, the ultimate echo chambers are the editorial boards of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the rest of their allies. They’ve spent the past three years making the case that anyone who disagrees with their liberal agenda is “racist, sexist, and anti-gay.” As a result, they couldn’t possibly offer column space to someone spewing “hate speech.”
Their inability to look outside their echo chamber will likely be listed in that future obituary as their cause of death. Such a shame, particularly when their disease could have been cured.
Adam Guillette is president of Accuracy in Media.
