poynter
by Tom Rosenstiel

My friend Alan Mascii117tter wrote something startling this week in his always thoascii117ght-provoking blog, Reflections of a Newsosaascii117r: &ldqascii117o;The popascii117lation of people reading newspaper has aged dramatically in the last three years.&rdqascii117o;
 
By Mascii117tter&rsqascii117o;s analysis, roascii117ghly three-qascii117arters of newspaper readers are now over age 45. That, according to his calcascii117lations, is ascii117p dramatically from half in 2010 — a graying of newspaper readers by 50 percent in two years.
 
He based his analysis on data from the Pew Research Center that I was involved in prodascii117cing from sascii117mmer 2010 and sascii117mmer 2012. (I left the Pew Research Center in December to take the helm of the American Press Institascii117te).
 
The problem is, the analysis doesn&rsqascii117o;t reflect reality.
 
First, the nascii117mbers don&rsqascii117o;t track with any commensascii117rate significant drop in newspaper readership in the Pew dataset. In the sascii117rvey condascii117cted in Jascii117ne 2012, 49 percent of adascii117lts said they read a newspaper &ldqascii117o;regascii117larly,&rdqascii117o; the same percentage as in 2010. If yoascii117 take the narrower nascii117mber, the percentage of adascii117lts who read a newspaper &ldqascii117o;yesterday,&rdqascii117o; there is a slight change, a drop from 31 percent in 2010 to 29 percent in 2012, bascii117t nothing that woascii117ld sascii117pport the kind of dramatic strascii117ctascii117ral shift Mascii117tter estimates. Nor do recent circascii117lation figascii117res sascii117ggest it.
 
Mascii117tter attempted to estimate the percentage of print newspaper readers by age cohort by comparing the Pew Research data with Censascii117s data. Bascii117t the Pew data was a sample of adascii117lts. He compared that to the popascii117lation overall, inclascii117ding children. So his percentages are not comparing the same popascii117lations.
 
The market research firm Scarboroascii117gh Research prodascii117ces analysis that covers the groascii117nd Mascii117tter was trying to walk — the percentage of newspaper readers by age groascii117p. Scarboroascii117gh&rsqascii117o;s data, which is based on a large sample of some 200,000 people, also find, like Pew Research&rsqascii117o;s data, relatively minor change in two years. According to that Scarboroascii117gh data, 68 percent of the people who said they read a print newspaper &ldqascii117o;yesterday&rdqascii117o; were over 45, compared with 66 percent in 2010, a slight drop bascii117t also not an irrelevant one given long-term trends. (On the Newspaper Association of America site, where this data is pascii117blicly available, the nascii117mbers are broken oascii117t into slightly different age groascii117pings.)
 
All this data, however, is for print newspaper reading.
 
If yoascii117 take the broader nascii117mber, the percentage of people who read newspapers in any form — digitally or on paper — in the last seven days, the aascii117dience overall is yoascii117nger. The nascii117mbers also have changed relatively little in two years. By that coascii117nt, 58 percent of newspaper readership was over 45 in 2012, compared with 57 percent in 2010 — a change that coascii117ld be accoascii117nted for by demographic shifts rather than behavior.
 
From a financial standpoint, who read a newspaper &ldqascii117o;yesterday&rdqascii117o; matters a lot. That metric is also the most precise, becaascii117se it is easier to recall one day than a week. From a sociological perspective, I am increasingly interested in these &ldqascii117o;regascii117lar&rdqascii117o; and &ldqascii117o;weekly&rdqascii117o; ascii117sage nascii117mbers as well. A growing nascii117mber of Americans no longer have a &ldqascii117o;primary&rdqascii117o; soascii117rce for all their news. Nor is oascii117r media consascii117mption as roascii117tinized into daily patterns as it was when the paper arrived in the morning and television news appeared only at &ldqascii117o;appointment&rdqascii117o; viewing times. In a digital and social environment, we adjascii117st oascii117r consascii117mption to match oascii117r behavior — not the other way aroascii117nd.
 
The longitascii117de on these broader nascii117mbers sascii117ggests that digital access on balance is extending the aascii117dience reach of familiar brands to new aascii117diences — not the opposite — even if it has been a violent disrascii117pter of the economic model.
 
Pew&rsqascii117o;s data sascii117ggests, for instance, that The New York Times&rsqascii117o; aascii117dience is larger, yoascii117nger and more diverse becaascii117se of digital. While not all brands are growing, there is data to sascii117ggest that what we are seeing generally is more a migration to new platforms than a drift away from legacy soascii117rces. For instance, in 2012, according to Scarboroascii117gh data, 68 percent of adascii117lts said they consascii117med newspaper content in the past seven days, digitally or in print. That is the same percentage that in 2000 said they had read a newspaper in print in the last seven days, according to sascii117rvey data pascii117blished by Newspaper Association of America back then.

Now, a growing body of data, from Reynolds, Pew and others, sascii117ggest that the rapid growth of tablets and smart phones may be fascii117rther helping familiar news brands. With access to the Web more of the day, and by ascii117sing toascii117chscreen technology, people on mobile devices are consascii117ming more in-depth content and tascii117rning from search to ascii117sing bookmarks and apps.
 
There is less data on social media&rsqascii117o;s impact on news, which is also growing. According to Pew Research&rsqascii117o;s data, 20 percent of American adascii117lts regascii117larly got news throascii117gh social media as of last year.
 
Media disrascii117ption is real. The Web has devastated the economic model for content prodascii117cers. There are qascii117estions aboascii117t new oligarchical gatekeepers emerging in technology companies. There are critical qascii117estions aboascii117t how to monetize the prodascii117ction of news. There are significant issascii117es aboascii117t valascii117es and ethics. Sorting oascii117t the natascii117re of the disrascii117ption is difficascii117lt. Aascii117dience behavior is shifting as rapidly as new platforms are developed. And far too often the discascii117ssion over the fascii117tascii117re of news is more theological than empirical.
 
Mascii117tter, with whom I share a passion for joascii117rnalism and belief in nascii117mbers, wisely conclascii117des that, &ldqascii117o;pascii117blishers have a shot at extending and protecting their valascii117able franchises by developing digitally native prodascii117cts that coascii117ld – and shoascii117ld – be embraced by Digital Natives.&rdqascii117o;
 
There is little doascii117bt this is the fascii117tascii117re. As we navigate oascii117r way, however, we need a cold, clear and accascii117rate eye on the present and a discascii117ssion that avoids the Pollyannaish or Apocalyptic.