The gauntlet's thrown

Here comes the e-tablet at a subscription price.

(Visit http://www.newsandtech.com/whats_new/article_a042946a-eb6a-11df-bce8-001cc4c002e0.html)

Full text from News and Technology magazine;

News International will launch a digital paper before year-end that's available only on tablet computers.
The paper, called The Daily, will cost $1 per week, Murdoch told the Australian Financial Review in an exclusive interview.
AFR said that Murdoch believes he needs a circulation of 800,000 to make The Daily financially viable, but that he's optimistic about the growth of tablet computers.
"I believe every single person will eventually have one, even children," he told AFR.

Getting better all the time

Plastic Logic, the backbone of the e-reader, e-tablet and other future platforms for content, is growing.

(visit: http://paidcontent.org/article/419-plastic-logic-gets-second-chance-with-russian-funds-to-make-business-re/)

Full text by Robert Andrews:

E-reader maker Plastic Logic may finally have benched its long-awaited, first-generation monochrome Que tablet this August after 18 months of delays - but could a second life be on the cards?

See more of our latest coverage.

The firm says it’s taking “a significant investment” from Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies (Rusnano) to make a factory in Russia for a second-generation device.

Plastic Logic, spun out of England’s Cambridge University in 2000, has long worked on using polymer transistors in electronic displays, creating a low-energy, low-quality tablet screen. Its website says it had already taken over $200 million in venture funding. But the Que, slated for launch in January 2009, faced delays and was overtaken by the high-colour iPad and even the Kindle, before the firm conceded an eventual launch would be worthless.

The company says it will maintain its Cambridge R&D facility, its Mountain View HQ and its Dresden factory but will open a second production centre.

In the joint funding announcement, Plastic Logic boasts about its plastic electronics IP, which it says has “many economic, manufacturing, form factor and environmental benefits, and will ultimately replace traditional silicon semiconductor glass-based display products in a variety of devices in the future.”

That may sound like Plastic Logic is merely touting some of its work-to-date for other uses. But it’s also being specific about a new reader: “The display is at the core of Plastic Logic’s first commercial consumer electronics product, a next-generation electronic reader for business that is currently under development.”

The pair say the new factory will be “capable of producing hundreds of thousands of units a month”. Right now, that kind of place at the tablet table may look optimistic for Plastic Logic.

But it has been in this technology’s space for a decade and, though it has been Apple’s, and not its own, technology which has lit the blue touch paper under this new opportunity, the enthusiasm shown by the likes of News Corp (NSDQ: NWS) toward the form factor means that there may yet remain a significant share to be won with the right product.

Robert Andrews
@robertandrews
Nov 9, 2010 6:15 PM ET


Share

Hope

Hope springs eternal.

Visit http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/08/the-independent-i-sales

Independent's i 'selling 125,000 copies'
Cut-price paper's circulation has dropped off since launch and staff are feeling the strain of producing it, according to sources


Mark Sweney
guardian.co.uk, Monday 8 November 2010 09.16 GMT

The Independent's cut-price spin-off i is thought to have attracted average daily sales of about 125,000 copies, with circulation thought to have halved since launch.

Staff on the paper have been working "extreme and unsustainable hours" since the launch, according to the National Union of Journalists, which is planning to lodge an official complaint that the launch was "recklessly" planned and executed.

Alexander Lebedev's 20p weekday daily launched on 26 October with a flurry of media coverage helping to drive paid-for sales of about 180,000, according to several sources. However it is understood that sales have steadily fallen away, with numbers thought to have dropped to under 100,000.

It is early days for the paper and daily sales are likely to be volatile until circulation settles.

Industry sources estimate average daily sales at between 125,000 and 150,000, with the majority picking the bottom end of the range.

"The sales have dropped off and they are trying to work out if the numbers at the beginning or its current figure reflect its appeal," said one source. "I'm sure they will be optimising their distribution model, analysing which areas and which newsagents are generating more sales, and moving copies away from areas where they are generating fewer sales."

"Wholesalers give competitors the percentage of copies that are returned but they don't tell them how many copies we distribute in the first place," said Andrew Mullins, the managing director of the Independent, Independent on Sunday and the London Evening Standard. "As a result, any numbers being talked about are purely conjecture as they do not know how many copies we have printed and distributed each day. Our numbers will remain confidential for the foreseeable future, but we can say that sales of the Independent at £1 are unaffected."

The stress of the launch, both for staff and for the Independent's balance sheet, has become starkly clear, with pay negotiations now linked to the performance of the i.

At a meeting of the Independent's National Union of Journalists chapel earlier this month members passed a motion complaining about their workload since the launch.

"The chapel is concerned about the extreme and unsustainable hours expected of some staff to produce i, and fears the problem is likely to persist due to management's reckless planning and execution of the project," the NUJ said. "Members are clear that everyone fully supports the success of i. However, members explained that they are not prepared to put up with extreme hours becoming the norm."

The chapel voted almost unanimously in favour of holding a ballot for industrial action – 105 for with one against and two abstentions – over the failure to conclude a pay deal for 2010.

The launch of i has been backed with 100,000 giveaways, about 55,000 of those thought to be targeting the London market. Before launch the longer-term target was for a combined circulation for both i and the Independent of 400,000.

The Independent has a total net circulation of 182,000, with about 89,000 sold at full rate, meaning the i needs to get to well over 200,000 copies to achieve this goal. In addition the aspiration is for i to be successful enough to have a completely paid-for customer base.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

ONA una

The Online News Association annual event in Washington is fascinating for its breadth and depth. You can watch all the livestream video from the event.

(Go to http://jeffsonderman.com/2010/10/video-watch-the-sessions-from-ona-2010/)

Or you can focus on one of the presenting groups: Treesaver.

(http://www.treesaver.net/)

In their own words:

Treesaver is a new design for the web. It’s made for people who like to read. It’s for great narrative experiences — text and pictures.

Treesaver divides content into pages, automatically adjusting the layout to the size of the screen. It works on any device that has a web browser: Desktop PC or Mac, notebook, netbook, iPad and iPhone. It’s produced with web standards — HTML, CSS and JavaScript. You can embed video or Flash in it, just as you can with any web site. There is no app to download. No plug in to install.

Treesaver provides a cost effective platform for writers and publishers. You get to leverage your existing resources and systems, instead of building and maintaining separate applications for each platform. Plus, it provides a friendlier format for advertising.

For more information, email Roger Black, Filipe Fortes and Jock Spivy, follow @trsvr, or sign up for the Treesaver newsletter:

Now that's getting personal.

More direct from Tribune

There but by the grace of Prosper go us. Is the Tribune's purchase of a Kodak Prosper press a breakthrough? You can watch the video from Graph Expo 2010.

Go to http://www.kzonelive.com/10-4.html

Here's Lou Taziola, president, Tribune Direct: “The justification for Prosper was based on Tribune Direct, but we are owned by one of the largest newspaper companies in the country, and another opportunity we see for Prosper would be on short run, niche publications.”

What is Tribune Direct? A national full-service, direct mail marketing company – headquartered in Chicago, with locations in five markets around the country, owned by Tribune Company.

Here's Tim Klunder, Vice President of Sales and Client Relations, Tribune Direct: “Variable data publishing helps us drive personalization that can integrate electronic media with the paper-based publications which we are seeing increase exponentially today. How do those two mediums interact with each other? The conversation focuses around ‘How can we harness the power of our data to actually drive personalization . . . make a reality of ink on paper.”

Taziola explains that current Tribune Direct does shared mail to 3.5 million homes on Wednesday and 2 million on Saturday, basically pre-print fliers for the Chicago Tribune non-subscribers. That's 60 million pieces of advertisement each week
And in solo mail about 25 million pieces a month in Chicago, nationally double that – postcards, self-mailers, letters, etc.

Klunder again: “Customers today have a need to talk in a personalized fashion with their clients. A few short years ago they may not have had the data to support that, today, they have been making investments in data capabilities, so they have those capabilities today.

“The variable data volumes we push through every month continue to increase exponentially. . . Digital is a great way for us to serve our clients’ needs. Prosper allows us to run long run, highly personalized, high quality at a cost effective price that’s really unprecedented in the print industry today.”

Taziola calls the Prosper press "A game changer for the industry". Taziola praises the press' speed and quality and variability.

Woe is us

Once again the confusion sets in: is print dead or is one size fits all dead?
Read this.

(go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/17/newspaper-abcs-websites-internet-news)

From the guardian.co.uk


We thought the internet was killing print. But it isn't
There is no clear correlation between a rise in internet traffic and a fall in newspaper circulation. Some papers are growing in both formats, others are succeeding in neither, according to new research.

by Peter Preston, The Observer

The woe, as usual, is more or less unconfined. September's daily newspaper circulation figures, as audited by ABC, are down 5.31% in a year: Sunday totals are 6.7% off the pace. And, of course, we all know what's to blame. It's the infernal internet, the digital revolution, the iPad, laptop and smartphone taking over from print. Online is the coming death of Gutenberg's world, inexorable, inevitable, the enemy of all we used to hold dear. Except that it isn't.

A fascinating new piece of research this week looks in detail at the success of newspaper websites and attempts to find statistical correlations with sliding print copy sales. As one goes up, the other must go down, surely? These are the underpinnings of transition.

But "in the UK at least, there is no such correlation", reports the number-crunching analyst Jim Chisholm. "This is true at both a micro-level in terms of UK newspaper titles and groups and at a macro-level comparing national internet adoption with circulation performance. Indeed, the opposite case could be argued: that newspapers that do well on the web also do better in print… Understandably worried traditional journalists should know that the internet is not a threat."

Chisholm's aim is to prod British publishers into renewed web action – citing the Guardian, Telegraph and Independent particularly for producing the highest ratios of monthly unique visitors to their sites when compared against print circulations. (The Guardian, with a 125 unique-visitor-to-print ratio, is far higher than any other European paper he can find, and also generates over three times the number of UK page impressions relative to its circulation). Moreover, UK national papers as a whole score well on such tests, clear top of the EU league and walloping German performance nine times over.

Could they, and British regionals, do better, though? Indeed they could. "The issue is not one of total audience, but of frequency and loyalty – and online, as in print, newspapers are great at attracting readers from time to time, but they don't attract them often enough, and they don't hang around."

At which point, perhaps, it's time to look at the flipside of Chisholm's findings. If the name of one game is frequency and loyalty – via investment, innovation, constant linkages and promotions – might that not also be an answer to drooping print sales as well? If you reject the net as an agent of newsprint doom, then reverse scenarios also apply.

Go back to ABC circulations before newspaper websites really began – say September 1995 – to make the point. One, the Daily Star, is doing better than 15 years ago with no net presence to speak of: 757,080 copies in 1995 against 864,315 last month. The Daily Mail, at 2,144,229 this September against 1,866,197, is well up, with a website growing by more than 60% a year. Some – say the Mirror, down from 2,559, 636 to 1,213,323 – have suffered direly. See: no correlations?

The Guardian, Times and Telegraph are all down by around a third, and the Sun has lost more than a million: but again there's no mechanical relationship here. Price matters. It always does. But investment and innovation matter as well. They always do. And you can't help by being struck how little of that goes on in print these days. A pull-out section vanishes, and comes back. Single-theme front pages come and go at the Indy. The Telegraph still looks for somewhere else to put its features. Nothing much changes. Another researcher (at Enders Analysis) calculates that papers have lopped 20% of the pages they put in a decade ago in order to bulwark sharply rising cover prices.

No correlations here, either? Nothing to prove that the more effort and talent you put in, the more you get out? More, more, more ... and more research, please.

Origon of the species

People often ask me what is the definition of variable data publishing.

I turn to no other trusted source than wikipedia:

The term variable-data publishing was likely an offshoot of the term "variable-data printing", first introduced to the printing industry by Frank Romano, Professor Emeritus, School of Print Media, at the College of Imaging Arts and Sciences at Rochester Institute of Technology.[citation needed] However, the concept of merging static document elements and variable document elements predates the term and has seen various implementations ranging from simple desktop 'mail merge', to complex mainframe applications in the financial and banking industry. In the past, the term VDP has been most closely associated with digital printing machines. However, in the past 3 years the application of this technology has spread to web pages, emails, and mobile messaging.


Check it out yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_data_publishing

Prospering in Chicago

I've had several requests from blog readers to follow up with more details about the Chicago Tribune Direct's purchase of a Kodak Proper press for direct mail and potential niche publications use (see blog entry "Flatfooted No More" Sept.29, 2010).

Following up with Tim Street (director of Tribune Direct Marketing), here are a few more details about their plans.

Although they have purchased the Kodak Prosper 1000 they expect to have the 5000Xl in place hopefully by Q1 2011.

They have had a lot of success in the past few years with Kodak presses in their direct mail business, which has grown 100 percent, although they have visited with and analyzed many of the other digital presses available on the market.

Now they want to follow their recent success into new opportunities for their customers, including the ability to print on multiple substrates and go as quickly as possible, in the 650 feet per minute range. (Tribune Direct is strictly a digital printing company with no offset presses.)

When asked about reference to potential "niche" publications, Street deferred to Paul Lynch (senior manager/quality/commercial printing, Chicago Tribune) as someone who is more focussed on such solutions, but Street posited that possibly Tribune Direct:
1. Could use the Prosper pressed to print publications with tiered advertising directed at different audiences.
Or
2. Could, for instance, print publications for attendees at events at McCormick Place with targeted offers for the attendees such as local restaurants.

Speaking of events at the McCormick Place, Tim pointed out that during Graph Expo 2010, starting on Sunday, the Kzone will live stream discussions of the Tribune developments including from 10:30-11 a.m. Central Time on Monday, Oct. 4 this program, called "Owning the Competition with Digital Print":

The gloves are off. And Tribune Direct is taking it to the competition with the Kodak Prosper Press platform. How? By bringing new, exciting direct mail capabilities to its customers nationwide. Learn how the revolutionary combination of quality and variability at the speed of offset is helping Tribune Direct knock out the competition.
Moderator
Dave Zwang, Zwang & Co.
Panelists:
• Lou Tazioli, President, Tribune Direct • Tim Klunder, Vice President of Sales and Client
Relations, Tribune Direct • Ronen Cohen, Kodak


Visit http://www.Kzonelive.com for the discussions.

Flatfooted no more

Many newspaper and magazine companies were caught flatfooted with this development: a major publishing company buying a variable data inkjet press and claiming to use it, at least in part, for niche publications. Flatfooted, no more. You can find out as much as you want because executives from Tribune Direct will discuss their plans during a live interview in the K-Zone, scheduled for Monday, Oct. 4, at 10:30 a.m. CST at Kodak’s Graph Expo booth (#1227). The session will be streamed live over the Internet at www.kzonelive.com.

And here's the full press release with contacts.
Media Contacts:
Don Stuart, Kodak, +1 585-724-7735, Donald.Stuart@kodak.com
Shannon Rumble, Eric Mower and Associates, +1 585-389-1817, KodakPR@mower.com
Kate Mersman, Chicago Tribune, +1 312-222-3165, kmersman@tribune.com

KODAK PROSPER Press to Expand and Enhance Tribune Direct Marketing’s Capabilities in One-to-One Communications

ROCHESTER, N.Y., Sept. 27—Tribune Direct Marketing is the first direct marketing company to use the KODAK PROSPER Press Platform to offer unique capabilities for producing personalized, full-color direct mail solutions that meet customers’ requirements in today’s digital marketing environment.
“We believe that the PROSPER Press will be a game-changer for our industry,” said Lou Tazioli, President, Tribune Direct. “The PROSPER Press brings flexibility to vary both the images and content of every single mail piece to achieve maximum relevancy and ROI for our clients.”
Tribune Direct Marketing selected the PROSPER Press because of several features that make it ideally suited for direct marketers looking to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Those features include speed, productivity and substrate flexibility. The PROSPER Press will offer speeds up to 650 feet per minute, while providing offset printing image quality on a broad range of paper. In addition, the press boasts an advanced ink formulation to further enhance print quality, durability and the unique ability to print on glossy coated substrates.
“Our clients are utilizing transaction-level data along with traditional RFM (Recency, Frequency, Monetary), demographic, and lifestyle models to drive a more targeted one-to-one communications strategy,” said Tim Klunder, Vice President of Sales and Client Relations, Tribune Direct. “The PROSPER Press helps us to meet client needs by offering high quality, lower cost personalized print solutions in ways that were not possible before. With the PROSPER Press, fully personalized marketing campaigns are available to clients in ways that are consistent with today’s economic realities and the pressure to improve returns on marketing investments.”
Along with direct marketing solutions, Tribune Direct will produce niche publications and other highly targeted printed material with the PROSPER Press.
“Tribune Direct is one of the leading thought leaders and practitioners in direct marketing that has built its reputation for developing outstanding programs that get results in a number of ways, including embracing the latest technology,” said Ronen Cohen, Vice President, Inkjet Printing Solutions, Kodak. “We look forward to working with Tribune Direct on taking its direct marketing capabilities and solutions to even greater heights with the support of the PROSPER Press.”

Fat lady

As they say it's not over until the fat lady sings. Well she must still be in the back room drinking hot tea and loosening up her voice with an announcement like this: Reuters and the International Herald Tribune are combining to create a new weekly section in the paper -- on the Middle East, expanding insight into that region.

Check it out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/sep/28/reuters-middleeast

Reuters and International Herald Tribune launch new supplement
Badge Greensblade blog

Reuters and the International Herald Tribune are jointly launching a special supplement that will be inserted into IHT's Middle East editions on a weekly basis.The first four-page issue of Middle East with Reuters, to be published on Thursday, will contain regional news, opinion and coverage of culture.

It will draw on the output of more than 200 Reuters journalists who cover the Middle East at a local and international level.

IHT's publisher, Stephen Dunbar-Johnson, said: "We are excited to be expanding our collaboration with Reuters to provide even more analysis and fresh insight for our readers in the Middle East.

"There is a thirst here for the IHT's brand of high quality, independent journalism as reflected in our growing circulation numbers."

IHT has a new regional headquarters in Dubai. Meanwhile, over the last 18 months, Reuters has recruited dozens of new journalists to its Middle East bureaus, doubling the amount of original Arabic-language news it produces.

The joint launch emphasises the way in which large media organisations are now prepared to team up in order to reach wider audiences.

Just on a smile

It's hard to get by just on a smile. The tipping point for analog print newspapers (to change to digital, variable data print) may never come according to PRIMIR. Projections are wonderful. But what about people, I ask?
Books are here, thank God, which means the digital presses will continue to come, even with a frown.

Check it out: http://www.piworld.com/article/primir-study-identifies-tipping-points-digital-printing-applications-2014/1

Since 1993 when Indigo first introduced their digital press, the printing industry has debated the merits of the technology, which markets it would best serve, which applications would eventually go all digital, and when we would see the demise of conventional printing as we know it. Here it is 17 years later and the sky still hasn’t fallen in—at least not due to this new technology. So PRIMIR members asked the folks at IT Strategies to investigate this marketplace and provide some insights into why the much anticipated tipping point hasn’t occurred, when it might, and where opportunities exist today.

The key objective of the "PRIMIR Megatrends in Digital Printing Applications" study was straightforward: evaluate major print applications and determine which (if any) will migrate from analog to digital production printing, when and why?

Over the course of eight months, IT Strategies conducted extensive research with experts, printers and customers via e-mail surveys and personal interviews—in all, over 900 respondents. The study focused on 12 applications: books, catalogs, direct mail, labels, magazines, manuals, marketing collateral, newspapers, packaging (folding cartons & flexible), and specialty printing such as calendars, photo books, etc.). The research was limited exclusively to production printing, excluding any equipment under $50,000 in acquisition cost akin to desktop printers and copier/MFP devices. Using equivalent letter-size simplex impressions/pages as the lowest common denominator, this study quantifies the page volume and rate of transition from analog to digital production printing for each application.

Tipping point = unstoppable momentum.
A surprise finding of the research: few of the studied 12 applications will tip within the time period of the study (by 2014), some have momentum to possibly tip by 2020 or later, but the tipping point for most of the applications is decades away, if at all.

However, digital printing has made some serious inroads in the non-publishing related applications, especially where there is opportunity to add value through complex variable-data content. Book printing, however, is the one publishing application that has embraced digital printing and will continue to see positive growth.

According to Marco Boer, vice president, IT Strategies, and principal researcher on this study, “A more important finding is that the analog production page volume is shrinking independent of digital production print volume growth. In fact, while digital production printing in North America is forecast for a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.5% thru 2014, it is from a very small overall volume base (22 billion in 2009 to 33 billion pages in 2014). Despite the relatively small volume, the value of those North American pages, including valueadded services is much higher than analog. Analog printing will see a negative CAGR (-5%) for the same period. Digital production printing would have to grow about 200% per year to even approach an overall market tipping point.”
And, although not a focus of this particular study, let’s not forget that many digital pages are bypassing digital production print entirely and shifting to decentralized selfprint in the office in very short runs using copier/MFP or desktop printers.

Digital printing is a very attractive offering for print service providers from a revenue and profit perspective especially in niche applications where the value of the pages is much higher. The research reconfirmed the fact that digital production print thrives with smaller run length, complex (variable data), rapid response jobs. In 2009 in North America those jobs represented 1.5% of production print volume (if one excludes newspaper, catalog, and magazines digital production print it represents a 7% share). (Figure 2)

As production run length per job continues to decrease, digital production print eligible share of jobs will grow proportionally. Figure 3 identifies the CAGR for the applications specifically covered in the study. Established applications for digital printing have lower projected growth rates, while those that are not established may have significant potential and high growth rates. Still, these growth applications currently represent relatively limited volumes. The report also identifies conditions under which digital printing adoption could accelerate even in the high analog volume segments such as magazines and catalogs. Despite that, the threat to analog is not digital printing.

The true threat to analog is habit change and pages migrating to electronic displays/readers. A point in fact from the research—print specifiers reported that investment for design and marketing for electronic display is nearly equal for most production applications to investment in production print.

Opportunity abounds formanufacturers serving both analog and digital print markets. The published report will detail threats and opportunities, as well as provide a thorough analysis of findings from both the printer and specifier for each of the 12 applications. The report will be published in mid-fall and available to both NPES and PRIMIR members.

Evolving Print

John Dowd has summed up one of the key elements of this question of personalization of print in pointing out that the problem with newspapers (dwindling circulation) has nothing to do with platform and everything to do with giving people choice (of content).

Visit http://www.evolvingprint.com to see graphics that go with this text.

The full blogs:

Before leaving the Why Print theme I want to toss out a couple of additional data points that suggest that the widely held wisdom that Print Is Dead is off the mark.

Consider The Economist, my favorite magazine. Though serving higher-income readers with above-average penetration rates of both smart phones (judging by how frequently the iPhone is advertised on the back cover) and broadband internet the magazine has managed to double its print circulation over the last six years. Here’s the chart:

That’s quite remarkable, isn’t it? Across a recession and in spite of the introduction of Facebook, iPhones, YouTube, etc here is a print publication that can’t stop growing!

Oh, and lest you conclude that The Economist has been boosting sales by catering to gray hairs among us, consider that the average age of its readers is 39 years old – younger than that of any other major news magazine (source).

One more interesting data point is worth mentioning. The Radio and Television News Director’s Foundation took the simple approach and just asked people whether they prefer to read in print or online (full report here). Intentionally or not they very usefully (for my purposes) asked the question in a manner that isolates the impact of the media – print vs. online – without clouding the issue by considering the differing content each offers. Here’s what they found:

Notably, the answer from the 18-34 year old cohort was remarkably similar to that of older respondents: 76.5% of the former group preferred print to 77.5% of the latter.

This data suggests that the culprit behind the unambiguous shift from print newspaper reading to online reading (of principally non-newspaper sites) is not the paper on which the newspaper is printed but rather the content which it includes.

The idea that content is king (or culprit) explains why some print (The Economist and college newspapers) continue to thrive while others, despite the reader’s preference for print, do not.

But more on that in a later post.

Why print?
Posted on August 11, 2010 by John Dowd
A blog on print? Really? Wasn’t there a memo…something about online killing print?

Yup, heard all that before. But the truth is print retains a lot vitality, despite the rumors of its impending demise. I hope to share some of that story in this blog, along with my own thoughts on how print ought to evolve so that the rumors remain just that.

Entry #1 on the “why print” ledger comes from what should be ground zero for the death of print – the college campus. ”Ground zero” because college campuses have all the ingredients that are allegedly connected to print’s death at the hands of the internet:

Young people
Free WiFI
Ubiquitous laptops and smart phones
So, what do you get when you mix those nasty ingredients and stir? Well, Alloy Marketing+Media did some research on 550 campuses to find out – their results may surprise you.

That’s right, the printed edition gets more traction in a single day than the online edition gets in a month! (30% read print daily, 20% read online monthly)

Both are free and have identical content. The online edition is probably more available given that students have their laptops and smartphones with them at all times.

Hmmm…so much for the perfect storm, right?

Now don’t get me wrong. Newspapers have a huge problem. In fact, they have two. The first is declining ad sales. Left unresolved this will lead to dramatically lower profits (and under-staffed newsrooms and other follow on effects). The second and larger problem is declining circulation, especially among younger readers. Left unresolved this will lead not to lower profits but rather to oblivion for the industry.

My concern is that the industry is misdiagnosing the first problem and largely ignoring the second (or at least not treating it as the burning platform that it really is).

The problem, however, is not print, as the campus newspaper illustrates. In fact, in a future post I’ll elaborate how – in the parlance of web developers – print is actually a feature, not a bug, of the current model.

Breakthrough

Now here's a press announcement worth remarking: The Chicago Tribune has bought a Kodak digital inkjet press in order to do variable data printing.

Visit: http://newsandtech.com/dateline/article_27a441e8-ca63-11df-a1f2-001cc4c03286.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

From a News and Tech magazine twitter:

The Chicago Tribune’s Tribune Direct Marketing unit put into operation a black-and-white digital press from Kodak for its direct-mail and niche printing, becoming one of a handful of U.S. newspaper publishers to deploy digital printing within their operations. It plans to upgrade the press to a full-color model next year.
The Tribune’s Prosper 1000 is part of Kodak’s family of digital presses. The line, introduced earlier this year, is driven by the vendor’s Stream Inkjet technology, which uses air deflection and silicon nozzles to produce sharp images at speeds of up to 650 feet per minute, Kodak said.
“We believe the Prosper press will be a game-changer for our industry,” said Lou Tazioli, president of Tribune Direct, in a statement.
In addition to direct mail pieces, Tribune Direct will use the press to produce niche publications and other highly targeted printed materials, Tribune said. It will upgrade the platform to a full-color Prosper 5000XL, capable of producing magazines and inserts as well as direct-mail, next year.
Other U.S. publishers with digital printing presses are Investor’s Business Daily parent O’Neil Data Systems, which last year ramped up an HP Inkjet Web Press at its Los Angeles facility to print direct-mail pieces, and Newsworld, which produces a number of international papers for distribution in the New York region on a Screen Truepress Jet520.

Hear hear

How about hearing your newspaper, instead of reading it? Would that personalize the experience for you. Check it out. It's already happening.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LI24Df04.html

The full text from the Asia Times:

Adventure of the talking newspaper
By Raja Murthy

MUMBAI - As with over two million others in India, I got a shock on Tuesday morning when I opened my daily newspaper and heard a voice from within its pages. I dropped the newspaper in surprise, and the voice stopped. On opening it again, a male voice bleated about German engineering.

It was my eerie moment of history, the era of speaking newspapers had dawned, with no advance warning, and I had become part of all its attendant wonderful and nightmarish possibilities.

Using a small, ingenious, light-sensor activated, voice-recorded device glued to the newspaper page, the Times of India and The Hindu carried an audio advertisement launching a new Volkswagen car model on September 21. The two leading Indian



dailies, both over 100 years old, became the world's first multimedia newspapers of a kind perhaps never imagined by Johannes Gutenberg, inventor of the printing press in around 1441.

The talking paper launched the Vento, a premium entry-level sedan and the latest offering from top-selling Volkswagen India Group that markets the Audi, Skoda and Volkswagen brands. Volkswagen India reported growth of 120.7% in its latest sales figures for January to July 2010.

The newspaper audio continued Volkswagen India's reputation for innovative marketing - such as "Roadblocked" last November, when it took over the entire advertising space in all of the 16 Times of India editions across India, for its Polo hatchback model.
Volkswagen releasing the first-ever audio page in print media opened up a Pandora's box of ideas: will the next James Bond movie have newspapers singing out the theme? Will cash-rich political parties be demanding votes through talking newspapers next elections? Worse, imagine sitting inside a train or an aircraft with a babble of audio papers.

Given the responses the next day, on September 22, there may be a hundred other duplicate ideas of yakkety-yak magazines and newspapers. But now that it is known that paper can be made to speak, that first pristine moment of utter astonishment has passed. Memorable, though, is the inaugural experience of what I had never thought of before: a newspaper talking.

For a few seconds, I had rarely been more bewildered than on hearing a voice coming from the newspaper in the early morning. My first confused thought was that somehow a cell phone had found its way into the pages by mistake - but then, even cell phones can't start talking by themselves, and I don't own a cell phone. When I saw what the voice was, I couldn't help smiling: a full-page car advertisement on a back page, with a two-inch black rectangular box glued to it doing the talking.

The astonishment was more because there were no advance warnings or teaser advertisements in days leading up to the caper. The edition with the voice carried a small note to "Our Readers: The Times of India and Volkswagen have created four pages of content as a sort of a special media innovation. Don't miss reading and listening to this 'speaking newspaper'!"

But I found this message only after looking for it.

"Best in class German engineering is here," announces the male voice. "The new Volkswagen Vento. Built with great care and highly innovative features, perhaps that's why it breaks the hearts of our engineers to watch it drive away. The new Volkswagen Vento, crafted with so much passion, it's hard to let it go. Volkswagen. Das Auto."

The message repeats itself, until the news page is folded sufficiently to block the pinhole-sized perforation on the black audio box through which lights travels to sensor to trigger the recorded disk.

Varied, colorful responses were reported across India to opening a newspaper and hearing it talk. They ranged from frightened children to a Mumbai police bomb squad rushing to investigate suspicious noises coming from a litter-bin near S L Raheja Hospital in suburban Mahim - some irritated reader had chucked away the black chatterbox, which can continue talking for nearly two-and-a-half hours.

A startled housemaid reportedly picked up the talking newspaper and screamed "ghost", an understandable reaction given the stories I heard as a kid about ghosts violently slapping people opening the front door at dawn - probably as grouchy farewell before the spooks vanish at sunrise.

Hundreds of messages about the morning newspaper experience flooded social networking sites like Twitter. "The Volkswagen talking ad in today's TOI [Times of India] scared the hell out of me!" tweeted one. "It's both funny and weird."

More proof of how the astonished mind can produce any thought came with one startled reader revealing he had thought the wall behind his newspaper was talking.

Not everyone was startled or impressed. Bangalore resident Rani Venugopal scolded the Times of India for creating an environmental problem with all the plastic that will be thrown away with the newspaper.

The bearded, bear-like Prahlad Kakkar, a prominent Mumbai-based advertising filmmaker, complained of an intrusive, unwelcome advertisement before breakfast. "When a man gets up in the morning, he wakes up with the newspaper and this is the only time of peace and solace in the day," Kakkar told a Times of India reporter. "The voice box intruded into this space and I did not know how to stop it."

Even so, I bought an extra copy to relish again the childhood habit of dismantling fascinating toys to explore the innards. The two-inch, featherweight, hollow rectangular "voice box" contained two button cells wired into a disc about an inch wide that produces the repetitive message.

I thought it was lighter pressure of fingers or of folded newspaper pages that activated the voice - but the Times of India declared the next day that a light-sensitive device worked the moment the pages were even half open.

The iPod-sized gizmos with the speaker, chip and batteries are made at a Volkswagen factory in China. Mumbai resident and Volkswagen India manager Lutz Kothe said his 14-year-old niece, Beatrix Madersbacher, gave him the idea during a business trip to Munich.

Beatrix may have had a brainwave or seen the idea on the Internet. In early 2009, Lalit Pahwa, director of a small Mumbai-based publisher, Pioneer Book Co, had talked about a pre-recorded audio chip embedded in a newspaper or magazine page. It would start playing when the reader opened the page and stop when page was turned. But Pahwa could not implement the idea for the two women's magazines he publishes.

The German connection though was appropriate in enabling the world's first speaking newspapers. Apart from Gutenberg, another German, Johann Carolus (1575-1634), published the first-ever generally acknowledged newspaper - his "Relation", or Relation aller Furnemmen und gedenckwurdigen Historien (Collection of all distinguished and commemorable news) was published from 1605.

It took nearly six months of working logistics for the September 21 edition of the Times of India and The Hindu to carry the talking page - 2.5 million copies of the edition were selectively distributed in Mumbai, Pune, Delhi, Bangalore and Chennai.

The copies had become collectors' items in Mumbai by the next morning, the concluding day of the city's biggest annual festival of Ganesha, the charismatic god of enterprise and adventure.

(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Defining content

In many ways the difference between print and online is not a platform difference but an ecosystem difference.
Print content is content in context.
Online content is content in network.
In other words with print whether it's actually printed or digital, the material is in an atmosphere that is not related to an outside world.
With online content the material is related and draws its secret sauce from links to the outside world.

Even in death

Personalization is showing up in medicine, in athletic gear and now in death. Yes the Catholic Church has recognized personalization in modern incarnations of wakes and other mortuary traditions of the church.

Check this out: http://catholickey.org/index.php3?gif=news.gif&mode=view&issue=20100917&article_id=6420

The full story:

Catholics have new options to honor loved ones
By Marty Denzer
Catholic Key Reporter
KANSAS CITY — When a loved one dies, it is left to the living to honor their memory and the memories shared through the years. Through the centuries, Catholics have devised many ways of doing this before the funeral Mass and after.
The vigil kept by the family before the Mass, whether the evening before or in the hours leading up to the liturgy, is as much a celebration of this life as the Mass is a celebration of eternal life in heaven. This may be one reason why the Catholic Church prefers the sharing of memories — eulogies — be a part of the visitation or wake.

Deacon Ralph Wehner, diocesan director of the Office of Worship, said, “The funeral liturgy is the central celebration of the Christian community for the deceased. At the funeral Mass, the community gathers with the family and friends of the deceased to give praise and thanks to God for Christ’s victory over sin and death, to commend the deceased to God’s tender mercy and compassion and to seek strength in the proclamation of the paschal mystery.”

Catholic funeral directors are beginning to suggest ways of personalizing the visitation, to make it unique and memorable. Steve Pierce, president of Muehlebach Funeral Home, said that as baby boomers age and find themselves having to plan funerals for loved ones and even themselves, “they are making funeral choices based on values that are different than in previous generations. Baby boomers see the visitation and funeral as part of the grieving process and are seeking ways to make them meaningful. In fact 64 percent of those surveyed said they wanted visitation and funeral services to be unique and personalized.”

If the person has written down his or her wishes for the visitation, funeral Mass and burial services, it can make it easier for surviving family members and make the services more personal. Often though, it is left to the family to plan the services.

The funeral service consumers of the 21st century are planning services that are as unique as the person who died, Pierce said. “The idea of personalization has resulted in an explosion of unique visitation services that reflect the hobbies, passions and interests of the person who died.”

Photographs and videos of the person, items relating to the person’s job, hobbies or interests, and blank journals where visitors can jot down their own memories of the person are some of the suggestions for personalization, he said.

Funeral liturgies are also personalized. Family members work with the parish priest or counselor to plan the readings from Sacred Scripture, the liturgical music and the intentions. The Order of Christian Funerals forbids eulogies during the Mass, but some information about the person is often worked into the celebrant’s homily. According to Diocesan policy, a brief homily should dwell on God’s compassionate love and on the Paschal Mystery of the Lord, how this mystery was present in the life and death of the deceased and that this mystery is active in the lives of those present as well.

The planners also can designate who will do the readings, who will bring up the gifts at the Offertory and any extraordinary ministers of communion. Working with the parish ensures that a Catholic funeral Mass will stay within diocesan guidelines.

Pierce also said that sometimes pallbearers and readers are asked to wear clothing reflecting the deceased’s personality. For example, pink was the person’s favorite color. So at the funeral Mass, the pallbearers and readers might be asked to wear pink shirts or blouses.

The personalizing can continue to the cemetery. After the committal services are concluded, Pierce suggested that balloons could be released to represent both the soul’s flight to heaven and the joys the person felt in life.

Family planners work with cemetery staff to select a headstone or marker, or the marker preselected by the deceased. The inscription, engravings and medallions containing photographs or religious, cultural or occupational symbolism on the headstone or marker may say as much or as little about the deceased as is desired.

Pierce said another option for Catholics is an online obituary. To enhance their obituary offerings, in the last month Muehlebach Funeral Home has partnered with Tribute.com., an online resource for local and national obituaries. “Families served by Muehlebach will now be able to create beautiful online multimedia tributes that honor their loved ones’ lives with photos, videos, music and more to create a permanent record on our website www.muehlebachchapel.com and on Tributes.com,” he said. “This establishes a special place where family and friends can go to celebrate a loved one, leave a condolence or share a memory or a photo at any time of the day, no matter where they live.

“Through personalization,” Pierce said, “funeral services can be more meaningful. Funeral directors can offer ideas on how families can personalize their loved one’s funeral and are open to suggestions and creativity. The National Funeral Directors Association encourages funeral service consumers to discuss their ideas with their funeral director to ensure an individualized ceremony befitting the person who died.”

Long time coming

It's been a long time coming. But it's here. The first local website to become a local print publication that I've heard about. Why has this been so hard to see? Targeted print publications have always had the same DNA as websites, so why hasn't this happened many times before. Why have the creation of websites from print publications come in droves, in millions, in billions, in zillions, before a local print publication from a website. It should have been a two-way street from the beginning, but I guess the construction crews arbitrarily -- or rather the culture police arbitrarily -- decided it was a one way street.

To see the full story visit http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2010/sep/16/hyperlocal-blog-hu17-beverley-paul-smith-print

Or here it is:

Hyperlocal blogger expands into print publishing
Website publisher launches full colour weekly

A hyperlocal news site owner has launched into print with a low cost advertising weekly for Beverley.

Paul Smith is known to many bloggers for campaigning to clear his name after the Hull Daily Mail accused him of activity in the porn industry and questioned his fitness to run the website HU17.net in high-profile coverage in the area.

But several stressful months on – and with a partially upheld PCC complaint against the paper behind him – Smith has stepped up his local publishing venture by launching in their backyard.

He told me how the new venture was progressing:

"The first edition was just sport with no other editorial, it was more as a promotional idea though has evolved since then. Now it is 28 pages in full colour on A4 pages.

"It is for everyone in the town though it seems to appeal to those who are out and about – ie who use the shops, bars and or play sport in the area".

Competition

The newspaper competes for its readers, and advertisers, with the Johnston Press's Beverley Guardian as well as the Hull Daily Mail's own Beverley Advertiser.


Cover Photograph: Paul Smith/guardian.co.uk
What Smith calls his "magic formula'' is a mixture of pictures capturing local events under the strapline 'it's all about Beverley' and low cost advertising - £5 per week for a good sized advert.

"I am told people like to see who is in it, I think it also helps that the content is exclusive and very niche. Having an established web site has helped, people know the brand too."

The print version hits the streets each Tuesday and is distributed to drop off places in Beverley such as bars, barbers and social clubs.


"Local shops have been very supportive with many signing up to advertising package that is realistic and very affordable, something that was certainly needed in the area.

"We still only make a limited number up to 100 copies but each one gets seen by lots of people."


HU17 can also be accessed online at HU17.net and on Facebook.

E-ink Forever

If you haven't seen this video of a hacker challenged to destroy the cover of the famous Esquire Magazine 75th anniversity issue -- with blinking E-ink screen: "The 21st Century begins now," check it out.

http://gizmodo.com/5054022/esquire-e+ink-cover-hacked-to-death-with-knives-and-fire

Always heartening

Always heartening to read the details of America's escalating love of media. I can't help but be reminded of one of Marshall McLuhan's dictums that new media doesn't replace old media, it just expands usage.

Here's the Pew Center's newest research.

Check it out http://people-press.org/report/652/

Here's the full text:


There are many more ways to get the news these days, and as a consequence Americans are spending more time with the news than over much of the past decade. Digital platforms are playing a larger role in news consumption, and they seem to be more than making up for modest declines in the audience for traditional platforms. As a result, the average time Americans spend with the news on a given day is as high as it was in the mid-1990s, when audiences for traditional news sources were much larger.

Roughly a third (34%) of the public say they went online for news yesterday – on par with radio, and slightly higher than daily newspapers. And when cell phones, email, social networks and podcasts are added in, 44% of Americans say they got news through one or more internet or mobile digital source yesterday.

At the same time, the proportion of Americans who get news from traditional media platforms – television, radio and print – has been stable or edging downward in the last few years. There has been no overall decline in the percentage saying they watched news on television, and even with the continued erosion of print newspaper and radio audiences, three-quarters of Americans got news yesterday from one or more of these three traditional platforms.

In short, instead of replacing traditional news platforms, Americans are increasingly integrating new technologies into their news consumption habits. More than a third (36%) of Americans say they got news from both digital and traditional sources yesterday, just shy of the number who relied solely on traditional sources (39%). Only 9% of Americans got news through the internet and mobile technology without also using traditional sources.

The net impact of digital platforms supplementing traditional sources is that Americans are spending more time with the news than was the case a decade ago. As was the case in 2000, people now say they spend 57 minutes on average getting the news from TV, radio or newspapers on a given day. But today, they also spend an additional 13 minutes getting news online, increasing the total time spent with the news to 70 minutes. This is one of the highest totals on this measure since the mid-1990s and it does not take into account time spent getting news on cell phones or other digital devices .

The biennial news consumption survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 8-28 on cell phones and landlines among 3,006 adults, finds further evidence that the combination of digital and traditional platforms is leading to increased news consumption.

The groups that are driving the increase in time spent with the news – particularly highly educated people – are most likely to use digital and traditional platforms. Fully 69% of those with some post-graduate experience got news through a digital source yesterday; this also is the group that showed the largest rise in time spent with the news from 2006-2008 to 2010 (from 81 minutes yesterday to 96 minutes). There also has been a modest increase in time spent with the news among those 30 to 64 – but not among older and younger age groups.

Digital platforms are supplementing the news diets of news consumers, but there is little indication they are expanding the proportion of Americans who get news on a given day. The vast majority of Americans (83%) get news in one form or another as part of their daily life. But even when cell phones, podcasts, social networks, email, Twitter and RSS feeds are accounted for, 17% of Americans say they got no news yesterday, little changed from previous years.

Moreover, while young people are most likely to integrate new technologies into their daily lives, they are not using these sources to get news at higher rates than do older Americans. Rather, those in their 30s are the only age group in which a majority (57%) reports getting news on one or more digital platforms yesterday.

The integration of traditional and digital technology is common among those in older age groups as well. Nearly half (49%) of people in their 40s, and 44% of those between 50 and 64, got news through one or more digital modes yesterday – rates that are comparable to those 18 to 29 (48%). Digital news consumption is low only among those ages 65 and older, just 23% of whom used one or more digital modes for news yesterday.

Print Newspaper Decline Only Partially Offset by Online Readership

Only about one-in-four (26%) Americans say they read a newspaper in print yesterday, down from 30% two years ago and 38% in 2006. Meanwhile, online newspaper readership continues to grow and is offsetting some of the overall decline in readership. This year, 17% of Americans say they read something on a newspaper’s website yesterday, up from 13% in 2008 and 9% in 2006.

But the online audience is only partially stemming the decline in the share of Americans who turn to newspapers; even when all online newspaper readership is included, 37% of Americans report getting news from newspapers yesterday, virtually unchanged from 39% two years ago, but down from 43% in 2006. (These percentages still may miss some people who access newspaper content indirectly through secondary online sources such as news aggregators or search engines.)

In general, daily newspaper readers tend to be older on average than the general public, but the regular readership of some of the major national newspapers – USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and especially the New York Times – defy this trend. More than half of regular USA Today and Wall Street Journal (55% each) readers are younger than 50 – a profile that largely matches the nation as a whole (roughly 55% of all adults are between 18 and 49). Fully two-thirds (67%) of regular New York Times readers are younger than 50, with a third (34%) younger than 30 – making its audience substantially younger than the national average (55% younger than 50, 23% younger than 30).

The young profile of the regular New York Times readership is undoubtedly linked to the paper’s success online. Nearly one-in-ten of internet users younger than 30 (8%) – and 6% of all internet users – volunteer the New York Times when asked to name a few of the websites they use most often to get news and information.

Cable News Audiences in Flux

Overall, cable news continues to play a significant role in peoples’ news habits – 39% say they regularly get news from a cable channel. But the proportions saying they regularly watch CNN, MSNBC and CNBC have slipped substantially from two years ago, during the presidential election.

Only Fox News has maintained its audience size, and this is because of the increasing number of Republicans who regularly get news there. Four-in-ten Republicans (40%) now say they regularly watch Fox News, up from 36% two years ago and just 18% a decade ago. Just 12% of Republicans regularly watch CNN, and just 6% regularly watch MSNBC.

As recently as 2002, Republicans were as likely to watch CNN (28%) as Fox News (25%). The share of Democrats who regularly watch CNN or Fox News has fallen from 2008.
 
In terms of specific programs, Fox News hosts Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly have succeeded in attracting conservative and attentive audiences. This is also the case for radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Most of those who regularly watch O’Reilly (63%) and Hannity (65%) are 50 or older; 44% of the public is 50 or older. By contrast, the Daily Show and Colbert Report have the youngest audiences of any outlet included in the survey. Large majorities of those who say they regularly watch the Colbert Report (80%) and the Daily Show (74%) are younger than 50; 55% of public is 18 to 49.



News Audiences’ Political Views

Ideology continues to be closely associated with people’s choice of certain news sources. Eight-in-ten Americans (80%) who regularly listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Sean Hannity are conservative – roughly twice the national average of 36%. And at the other end of the spectrum, the New York Times, Keith Olbermann, the Daily Show, the Colbert Report and Rachel Maddow have regular audiences that include nearly twice the proportion of liberals than in the public.

News audiences also vary widely when it comes to opinions about current issues and topics. For instance, those who describe themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement make up disproportionately large proportions of the audiences for Limbaugh’s radio show and Fox News opinion programs. This also is the case for supporters of the NRA (National Rifle Association).

By contrast, supporters of gay rights make up large shares of regular New York Times readers, viewers of the Colbert Report and NPR listeners. Several ideologically divergent news audiences – including Wall Street Journal readers and viewers of the Colbert Report and Glenn Beck show – include larger-than-average percentages of self-described libertarians.



News Outlets’ Appeal: From Breaking News to Entertainment

News audiences are drawn to different sources for different reasons. A substantial majority (64%) of regular CNN viewers say they turn to the network for the latest news and headlines; far fewer say they turn to CNN for in-depth reporting (10%), interesting views and opinions (6%) or entertainment (4%). Similarly, the main appeal of network evening news, USA Today and daily newspapers is the latest news and headlines.

Regular Fox News viewers offer somewhat different reasons for tuning into that network: 44% say they go to Fox for the latest news, but a sizable minority (22%) volunteers several reasons or say that all apply.

Regular readers of the Wall Street Journal and New York Times are drawn particularly by in-depth reporting; 37% and 33%, respectively, say they mostly read those papers for in-depth reporting, the highest percentages for any new outlet.

For the audiences of evening cable programs – whether liberal or conservative – interesting views and opinions are the primary appeal. That is the case for regular listeners of Rush Limbaugh as well, although many Limbaugh listeners cite multiple reasons or say that all apply.

For some news audiences, such as regular NPR listeners, no single reason stands out as to why people watch, read or listen: 28% of regular NPR listeners cite several, or all, of the reasons listed, while nearly as many say they listen for the latest news (21%) or for in-depth reporting (20%).

Entertainment is by far the biggest reason why regular viewers of the Colbert Report and the Daily Show tune into those programs; 53% of the regular Colbert audience and 43% of the Daily Show audience say they mostly watch those programs for entertainment. Yet entertainment also is a factor for many regular viewers of morning news shows (18%), readers of USA Today (16%) and other audiences.

Fewer Liberals Enjoying the News

Overall, the share of Americans who say keeping up with the news is something they enjoy a lot has dipped, from a consistent 52% in recent biennial news consumption surveys, including 2008, to 45% in 2010.

The decline is linked to partisanship and ideology: in 2008 67% of liberal Democrats said they enjoyed the news a lot, compared with just 45% today. By contrast, about as many conservative Republicans say they enjoy keeping up with the news today as did so two years ago (57% now, 56% then). This has resulted in a switch in news enjoyment. Today, conservative Republicans enjoy keeping up with the news more than any other ideological and partisan group; just two years ago it was the liberal Democrats who held that distinction.

Other Key Findings

• While 26% of all Americans say they read a print newspaper yesterday, that figure falls to just 8% among adults younger than 30.

• Far more men (50%) than women (39%) get news on digital platforms, such as the internet and mobile technology, on any given day. Men are more likely to get news by cell phone, email, RSS feeds or podcasts than are women. But men and women are equally likely to get news through Twitter or social networking sites.

• More people say they mostly get news “from time to time” rather than at “regular times.” The percentage of so-called news grazers has increased nine points (from 48% to 57%) since 2006.

• Search engines are playing a substantially larger role in people’s news gathering habits – 33% regularly use search engines to get news on topics of interest, up from 19% in 2008.

• About three-in-ten adults (31%) access the internet over their cell phone, but just 8% get news there regularly.

• Most Facebook and Twitter users say they hardly ever or never get news there.

 
• One-in-four adults (25%) who have Tivos or DVRs say they program them to record news programs.

• About eight-in-ten (82%) say they see at least some bias in news coverage; by a 43% to 23% margin, more say it is a liberal than a conservative bias.

• Roughly a third (35%) read a book yesterday, which is largely unchanged over the past decade. Of those, 4% read an electronic or digital book.

• The public struggled with a four-question current events quiz – just 14% answered all four correctly. But about half (51%) of regular Wall Street Journal readers aced the quiz, as did 42% of regular New York Times readers.

• Among news audiences, Obama gets his highest approval ratings among regular viewers of Keith Olbermann (84% approve) and Rachel Maddow (80%); his rating is nearly as high among regular readers of the New York Times (79%). Obama gets his lowest ratings among regular Sean Hannity viewers (7%) and Rush Limbaugh listeners (9%).

• Partisan gaps in media credibility continue to grow, with Republicans far more skeptical of most major news sources than Democrats. The one exception is Fox News, which twice as many Republicans believe all or most of (41%) than Democrats (21%).

SECTION 1: WATCHING, READING AND LISTENING TO THE NEWS

When asked if they had a chance to read a daily newspaper yesterday, just 31% of Americans say they read a newspaper, the lowest percentage in two decades of Pew Research Center polling. When online news consumers are later probed separately if they happened to read anything on a newspaper website, the total rises to 37%, but even this more inclusive measure of newspaper readership is on a downward trajectory. Four years ago 43% reported some kind of newspaper reading, in print or online. These percentages still may miss some people who access newspaper content indirectly through secondary online sources such as news aggregators or search engines.

Daily audiences for TV and radio, by contrast, are holding steady. Television remains the most prevalent source of news; 58% of Americans say they watched the news or a news program on television yesterday, a percentage that has changed little over the past decade. About a third (34%) say they listened to news on the radio yesterday, which is little changed from recent years, but far lower than during the 1990s.

The proportion turning to the internet for news continues to grow – 34% say they got news online yesterday in the latest survey, up from 29% in 2008 and 23% in 2006. And the overall reach of digital technologies is even broader – 44% say they got news yesterday from the internet, cell phones, social networks or podcasts.
The vast majority of Americans (83%) get news in one form or another as part of their daily life. But even with the availability of news over a wide range of new technologies, 17% of Americans say they got no news yesterday, a figure that is virtually unchanged from previous years. In the 2008 survey, 19% said they got no news yesterday – and that survey did not ask about getting news on a given day via cell phones or other digital technologies. Currently, 27% of adults under age 30 get no news on any given day; among the very youngest, ages 18 to 24, the number going newsless yesterday is 31%.

The Array of Digital News Platforms

The share of Americans getting news on mobile devices or through online social networks on any given day is substantial, though far more people continue to get news from traditional news sources. Roughly one-in-ten Americans (9%) got news over a cell phone or smartphone yesterday, and the same percentage says they got news through a social networking site such as Facebook or Twitter.

A similar number (10%) says they got news through RSS feeds or a customizable webpage like My Yahoo or iGoogle. Email has a somewhat broader reach – 14% get news by email on any given day.
 
That about a quarter of adults (27%) under age 30 get no news on any given day – even when the array of mobile and online news sources are accounted for – is not new. The number of young people getting no news yesterday was comparably high in 2008 (29%) and 2006 (26%).

Even with their widespread adoption of modern communications technology – internet usage among those younger than 30 is nearly universal, 80% have profiles on social networking sites and 58% go online using their cell phones– fewer than half (48%) of young people got news over any kind of digital platform yesterday. In fact, more of those younger than 30 (57%) got news from traditional sources yesterday.

Instead, it is people in their 30s (30 to 39) who are the most likely to use digital technologies to get news. Fully 57% of those in their 30s say they got news through a digital platform yesterday – either online or mobile – the highest percentage of any age group. And 21% of those 30 to 39 say they got news through social networking or Twitter yesterday, which is higher than other age groups.

Many older Americans also use new technologies to get the news. Nearly half (49%) of people in their 40s got news yesterday through some internet or mobile source, as did 44% of those ages 50-64. Digital news drops off as a source only among those ages 65 and older (23%), largely because older Americans remain less likely to go online or use mobile technology. In many cases, seniors who do have the technology are just as likely to use it to get news as their younger counterparts (see Section 2: Online and Digital News).
 
While men and women are equally likely to get news from one or more traditional platform on a given day (75% of men, 74% of women), men are far more likely than women to get news digitally. Overall, half of men (50%) get news over some kind of online or digital platform on any given day, compared with 39% of women. Specifically, men are twice as likely as women (12% vs. 6%) to get news using cell phones, and more men than women also get news from email, RSS readers and customizable webpages. However, there is no gender gap in the percentage getting news through social networks or Twitter on any given day.

These gender differences persist across all age groups, but are particularly wide among younger adults. While 56% of men under 30 get news digitally on any given day, just 41% of young women do so. In fact, 20% of men in their late teens and twenties got only digital news yesterday – without any television, radio or print newspapers – compared with just 11% of women the same age.



College graduates and higher income Americans typically express the greatest interest in news, and also have the broadest access to new technology in both their personal and work lives. Thus, not surprisingly, there are large educational and income differences in the use of internet and other digital technologies to get news. Two-thirds of college graduates (66%) got news through a digital source yesterday, compared with 27% of adults with no more than a high school degree. Similarly, 64% of people with family incomes of $75,000 or more get digital news on any given day, compared with 27% of those with incomes of less than $30,000.

Television Still Has Broadest Reach

Even with the array of digital technology, the traditional news platforms of television, radio and print newspapers continue to reach a much broader segment of the public on any given day. Fully 75% of Americans report getting news from one or more of these mediums yesterday: 58% watching television news, 34% listening to news on the radio, and 26% reading a print newspaper. This compares to the 44% who got news over the internet or another digital platform. Even among the very youngest adults age 18-24, as many get news from television, print or radio (53%) as from a digital platform (48%) on any given day.

Among these sources, television stands apart not only because more people get news there, but also because people continue to spend more time getting news there than any other source. People getting TV news on any given day spend an average of 55 minutes doing so. This compares to 38 minutes among people getting news online and 37 minutes among people reading a newspaper. Measured another way, 56% of television news watchers spend an hour or more with television news, compared with 40% of radio news listeners and just 25% of online news consumers and 19% of print newspaper readers.

And television remains the dominant source for older Americans – 75% of people age 65 and older watch television news on any given day, while just 23% are getting news online or from any kind of digital source.

Print Newspapers’ Decline

While there has been no decline in the share getting news on television, the percentage saying the read a newspaper yesterday continues to slip. Overall, 37% of Americans report reading any kind of newspaper –in print or online – yesterday. That compares with 39% two years ago and 43% in 2006. The decline since 2006 represents a steep dropoff in print newspaper readership that is only partially offset by growth in online newspaper readership.

This year, 26% of adults report reading a print newspaper on any given day, down from 30% two years ago and 38% in 2006. The decline over the past four year spans all age groups. Looking at all Americans under age 50, the share reading a print newspaper on a given day has fallen by nearly half, from 29% in 2006 to 15% today. Among those ages 50 and older, print newspaper readership fell from 50% to 40% over the same time period.

Meanwhile, online newspaper readership has grown, though not enough to counterbalance the print decline. Currently, 17% of Americans say they read a newspaper online yesterday or visited a newspaper website. This is up from 13% two years ago and 9% in 2006, but is still lower than the 26% who read the newspaper in print. People in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s are all about equally likely to read newspapers online. The rate falls off among those ages 65 and older because fewer use the internet. Among seniors who use the internet, 17% read a newspaper online yesterday; that is comparable to the percentage of those under 65 who are online and read a newspaper (21%).



Time with the News

On average, the typical American spends 70 minutes watching, reading and listening to news on any given day. That is the highest level since the 2004 survey, which was conducted during the presidential campaign and amid rising violence in Iraq. The largest share of that time (32 minutes) is spent watching television news, 15% listening to news on the radio, and – reflecting the drop in overall readership – just 10 minutes reading a print version of the newspaper.



There is a consistently large gap in time spent on the news by age. Those who are younger than 30 spend just 45 minutes with the news on any given day. That compares with 68 minutes for people in their 30s, 74 minutes for people in their 40s, and more than 80 minutes for those people 50 and older.

Much of this is based on the fact that fewer younger people are getting any news on a given day, which brings down the average substantially. But even when younger people get news, they spend less time doing so than do older people. Those younger than 30 who got news yesterday spent, on average, 64 minutes doing so, compared with 85 minutes among those 30 and older.



Regular Sources of News

The relative stability in the number of adults who report getting television news on any given day is consistent with the trend in how many say they “regularly” get news from various types of television news programs. Following steep declines during the 1990s, the share who report regularly watching the national nightly network news programs has remained flat in recent years. Currently 28% watch the evening news regularly, little changed from 30% ten years ago. Roughly four-in-ten (39%) regularly watch cable news outlets, and half of Americans (50%) regularly watch the local TV news. Of these major TV news sources, only local news has experienced a significant decline over the past 10 years, from 56% in 2000 to 50% today.



By contrast, every year the number of Americans who describe themselves as regular readers of newspapers continues to fall. Currently, 40% say they regularly read a daily newspaper either in print or online, down from 46% two years ago and 52% in 2006. The share regularly reading local weekly community newspapers has fallen from 35% in 2006 to 33% in 2008 to 30% today. And fewer are reading news magazines such as Time, U.S. News or Newsweek; just 8% now say they read news magazines regularly, down from 12% in 2008 and 14% in 2006.

Meanwhile, consistent with the measure of use yesterday, the internet continues to grow as a regular source of news. In the latest survey, 46% say they get news online either every day (32%) or three-to-five days a week (14%). This is up from 37% two years ago and 31% in 2006, and just 2% when the question was first asked in 1995. Much of this reflects the continued growth in the share of Americans who have access to the internet.

Search engines have seen a particular surge in usage as a source of news over the past two years. A third (33%) of adults today say they use search engines to search for news on a particular topic at least three days a week or more, up from 19% in 2008 and 14% in 2006. But political blogs have seen no such increase – just 9% of Americans say that they regularly read blogs about politics or current events, virtually unchanged from 10% two years ago.

More Regularly Watching Fox News than CNN



For the first time in over a decade of tracking both audiences, more Americans say they regularly watch Fox News (23%) than CNN (18%). From 2002 through 2008 Fox News and CNN had run about even in the size of their regular audience, and in 1998 and 2000 CNN had the larger audience. But over the past two years, CNN’s regular audience has declined by six points while Fox News’ has remained stable. MSNBC and CNBC, which have consistently had fewer regular viewers than the other two cable networks, have also seen substantial drop-offs over the past two years. The share that regularly watch MSNBC fell from 15% in 2008 to 11% in 2010, and over this period CNBC’s regular audience fell from 12% to 8%.

The decline in regular CNN viewership – from 24% in 2008 to 18% today – spans many demographic and political groups. Fewer younger (under 30) and older people (50 and older) now say they watch CNN regularly. Notably, significantly more people age 65 and over now watch Fox News regularly (30%) than CNN (21%). Two years ago, those 65 and older were about as likely to regularly watch CNN (30%) as Fox News (29%).

The proportion of Democrats that reports watching CNN regularly has fallen from 33% in 2008 to 25% currently. As in 2008, about twice as many Democrats as Republicans regularly watch CNN (25% vs. 12%).

Meanwhile, regular viewership of Fox News, which was already politically polarized, has become even more partisan. Currently, 40% of Republicans say they regularly watch Fox News, compared with just 15% of Democrats. Two years ago, the partisan gap was narrower (36% of Republicans vs. 21% of Democrats). Independents continue to watch both cable news networks at about the same rate (17% regularly watch CNN, 20% regularly watch Fox News). (See Section 4, Who Is Listening, Watching, Reading – and Why, for a detailed look at the demographic and political profiles of the audiences for CNN, Fox News and other news sources.)

Opinion and Comedy Programming

A number of talk shows focusing on political opinions and humor appeal to relatively few regular viewers. One-in-ten Americans (10%) say they watch the O’Reilly Factor on Fox News regularly, unchanged from two years ago, but up from earlier in the decade. Glenn Beck’s program, which airs earlier in the day on Fox News, is watched regularly by 7%. About the same percentage regularly watches Sean Hannity’s program, which follows O’Reilly’s program. Reflecting the network’s smaller audience overall, talk and opinion shows on MSNBC have fewer regular viewers. Just 4% say they regularly watch Hardball with Chris Matthews, and 3% watch Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann regularly.

Seven percent of Americans say they regularly watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central – a regular audience which has grown over the past decade. Roughly the same number (6%) regularly watch the Colbert Report, which airs immediately following.





What Young and Old Watch Regularly

One characteristic of the talk and opinion shows on both Fox News and MSNBC is that they tend to appeal to older audiences. The gap is particularly wide for the O’Reilly Factor, which is watched regularly by 16% of people 65 and older, and 5% of those under 30, but the same pattern applies to his fellow Fox News hosts Beck and Hannity. At MSNBC, Chris Matthews is watched regularly by 8% of older adults, and just 1% of 18-29 year olds, with smaller age differentials for Maddow and Olbermann.

Not surprisingly, the age pattern is the reverse for Comedy Central’s programs. Among those younger than 30, 13% watch the Daily Show regularly, and the same number says they regularly watch the Colbert Report. Among people 65 and older, the figures are just 2% and 1%, respectively. Young people are about as likely to regularly watch these comedy shows as they are to regularly watch the network evening news, weekday morning news shows, or CNN.





Partisan News Choices

While many of the most widely used news sources – such as local TV news, network evening news programs and daily newspapers, reach about as many Republicans as Democrats, the same cannot be said for many other news sources, which have become increasingly politicized over the past decade.

As discussed above, 40% of Republicans regularly watch Fox News, compared with just 15% of Democrats. And this general partisan divide is magnified when political ideology is taken into account. Nearly half (48%) of conservative Republicans regularly watch Fox News, compared with 27% of moderate and liberal Republicans. Among Democrats, just 7% of liberals are regular Fox News viewers, compared with 18% of conservative and moderate Democrats.

Fox News is a top news source among conservative Republicans; the proportion saying they regularly watch Fox News (48%) is about equal to the percentages of conservative Republicans who watch local TV news (50%) or read a daily newspaper (47%).
No single news network ranks among the top sources for other partisan groups.

The partisan tilt in viewership of Fox News is even greater for individual programs on the network. Over a quarter (27%) of conservative Republicans say they regularly watch the O’Reilly Factor, compared with 9% of moderate and liberal Republicans, 9% of independents, 4% of conservative and moderate Democrats, and 1% of liberal Democrats. Viewership patterns for Hannity and Beck are comparable.
 
There also are differences in the other direction when it comes to MSNBC and its programs. For example, 7% of liberal Democrats say they regularly watch Rachel Maddow’s program, compared with 3% of conservative and moderate Democrats, 3% of independents, 2% of moderate and liberal Republicans, and 1% of conservative Republicans.

There is a sharp partisan divide when it comes to reading the New York Times regularly – 8% of Democrats and just 4% of Republicans do so. Among liberal Democrats, 13% regularly read the Times, compared with 5% of conservative and moderate Democrats, 6% of independents, 4% of moderate and liberal Republicans, and just 1% of conservative Republicans. The Wall Street Journal is read more regularly by Republicans (6%) than Democrats (3%), though the ideological differences are less pronounced.

When it comes to radio, Democrats (14%) and independents (14%) are more likely than Republicans (6%) to say they regularly listen to NPR. Nearly a quarter of liberal Democrats (23%) regularly get news from NPR, compared with 10% of conservative and moderate Democrats, 8% of moderate and liberal Republicans and 6% of conservative Republicans. By contrast, 13% of Republicans (including 17% of conservative Republicans) say they regularly listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio program; that compares with just 4% of independents and 2% of Democrats.

September 12, 2010
Americans Spending More Time Following the News


SECTION 2: ONLINE AND DIGITAL NEWS

The internet is a regular news source for a majority of Americans – 57% regularly get news from at least one internet or digital source. Over the past several years, there has been a rise in the use of more traditional online technologies, like search engines, and a proliferation of new technologies, like news applications for mobile phones, and tablet computers, such as the iPad.

Nearly half (46%) of the public says they get news online three or more days a week, up from 29% in 2004 and 37% just two years ago.
About a third (32%) gets news online every day, which is double the percentage that reported going online for news daily four years ago.

The use of search engines to find news has also increased substantially. A third (33%) of the public employs search engines, such as Google, Yahoo or Bing, three or more days a week to search for news on a particular subject of interest. That is up from 19% in 2008 and has tripled since 2004, when only 11% used search engines for news that frequently.

The public turns to other online technologies for news far less often. About one-in-ten regularly get news or news headlines by email (12%), through a customizable webpage or RSS reader (10%), or read blogs about politics or current events (9%). When it comes to newer technologies, 8% regularly get news on their cell phone or smartphone, 7% regularly get news through social networking sites and 5% regularly watch or listen to news podcasts. Only 2% of the public regularly gets news through Twitter, and 1% uses their iPad or other tablet computer for news regularly.

Regular Online News Consumption

There continue to be age, education, gender and racial differences in online news consumption. Although young adults are often on the leading edge of internet and digital technology adoption, those in their 30s and 40s – who are the most avid news consumers – are also the most likely to get news online. A majority (58%) of those ages 30 to 49 get news online at least three days a week, compared with 48% of those under 30 and 46% of people ages 50 to 64. Just 22% of those 65 and older regularly get news online.

College graduates continue to go online for news at much higher rates than do those with less education. About seven-in-ten (69%) college graduates get news online at least three days a week (including 53% who do so every day). By comparison, only 27% of those with a high school education or less regularly get news online at least three days a week.

More men than women regularly get news online (51% vs. 41%). Non-Hispanic whites (49%) also are significantly more likely than non-Hispanic blacks (31%) to get news online at least three days a week. Many of these demographic patterns partly reflect variations in internet use; still, there are substantial educational, racial and gender differences in going online for news even when internet use is taken into account.



Online News Sources

Many familiar names dominate the list of websites people go to most often for news and information. More than a quarter (28%) mention Yahoo – the most frequently mentioned website – and another 15% cite Google and 14% name MSN as one of the websites they use most often. Fewer mention AOL (7%) and their internet service provider (4%) as their top online sources for news.

Cable television news organizations also are among the most common websites for news and information – 16% cite CNN, 8% mention FOX, and 7% name MSNBC among the websites they use most often. Far fewer cite BBC (2%), ABC (2%), NBC (2%), NPR (1%) and CBS (1%).

Online news consumers also turn to the websites of national newspapers; 6% name the New York Times website, but USA Today (2%), the Wall Street Journal (2%) and the Washington Post (1%) are mentioned less often.

Only 2% cite the Drudge Report and 1% volunteer the Huffington Post as one of the websites they go to most often for news and information. And 1% mention Facebook as one of their top sources for news.



Searching for News Online

Not only are Yahoo and Google among the most frequently mentioned websites for online news, but two-thirds of the public say they use search engines to find news on a particular subject. And Americans are using search engines more frequently than they were just two years ago. About a third (34%) of the public now use search engines at least three days a week, up from 19% in 2008. The increase is evident across most demographic groups.

Similar to two years ago, far more college graduates than those with a high school education or less use search engines at least three days a week (50% vs. 20%). Those 65 and older are the least likely to use search engines.

Far fewer regularly get news through a customizable webpage or RSS reader than search for news. One-in-ten (10%) regularly get news through a customizable webpage, such as iGoogle or MyYahoo, or through an RSS reader. About two-thirds of the public (67%) never gets news through a customized webpage or RSS reader.

People under 50 are more than twice as likely as those 50 and older to regularly get news through a customized webpage or RSS reader (14% vs. 6%). And 14% of college graduates get customized news through a webpage or RSS reader, compared with 6% of those with a high school education or less.



News on the Go

About a third of the public (34%) and 42% of cell phone owners access the internet or email on their cell phones or smartphones. But far fewer people are getting news on their cell phones; 8% regularly get news or news headlines on their cell phones; 6% sometimes do this. About one-in-ten (9%) say they got news on their cell phone yesterday.

Among those who access the internet on their cell phones, 24% regularly and 18% sometimes get news on their cell phones. More than a quarter of this group (27%) say they used their cell phones to get news yesterday.

Fewer than one-in-five (16%) Americans have downloaded an application or “app” to access news or news headlines on their cell phone, but 44% of cell phone internet users have downloaded a news-related application for their phone.

More men than women regularly get news on their cell phone. College graduates are more likely than those with less education to use their cell phone for news. And although Americans under 50 are more likely than those ages 50 and older to regularly get news on their cell phones, much of this reflects that those over 50 are far less likely to use the internet on their cell phones. There are no significant age differences on this question among cell internet users.

 



Getting News from Social Networking Sites

Nearly half (45%) of the public has created a profile on a social networking site like MySpace, Facebook or LinkedIn. Far fewer use Twitter (9%). Not surprisingly, more get news through social networking sites than from Twitter.

About one-in-five (19%) regularly (7%) or sometimes (12%) get news or news headlines through social networking sites. By comparison, only 3% of the public regularly or sometimes gets news from Twitter. Similarly, 9% say they got news yesterday through social networking sites, compared with only 2% who got news-related tweets yesterday.

However, among users of each of these sites, there are fewer differences in news consumption. As many Twitter users say they regularly get tweets about the news as social networking users who regularly get news through social networking sites (17% vs. 16%). But more social networking users get news sometimes than Twitter users (26% vs. 15%). Similarly, 18% of Twitter users got news yesterday through Twitter, while 19% of social networking users turned to these sites for news.

Twitter users are more likely to follow news organizations or individual journalists; 24% of Twitter users do this compared with 16% of social networking users. And, as is the case with cell phones and news consumption, far fewer send news through social networking sites or Twitter than receive news; 21% of social networking users regularly (4%) or sometimes (17%) send news through these sites. Somewhat fewer Twitter users send news tweets: 15% of Twitter users regularly (6%) or sometimes (9%) send news or news headlines through Twitter.

As with other types of online news consumption, there are demographic differences in the use of social networking sites and Twitter for news. Combining those who get news through social networking sites or Twitter, Americans under 30 are the most likely to get news through these sites at least sometimes (36%). About a quarter (26%) of those ages 30-49 also gets news through these sites regularly or sometimes. But far fewer (6%) who are 50 and older turn to these sites for news. However, among social networking or Twitter users, these age differences are smaller – only those 65 and older lag far behind other age groups in getting news through these sites.

Women are slightly more likely than men to get news through social networking sites or Twitter – 22% of women get news through social networking sites or Twitter regularly or sometimes, compared with 18% of men.

More college graduates (13%) regularly get news through social networking sites or Twitter than those with a high school education or less (4%). But both groups are equally likely to sometimes get news through these sites.



Little Partisan Difference in Blog Reading

About one-in-ten (9%) Americans regularly read blogs about politics or current events, another 19% sometimes turn to blogs for their news and 22% hardly ever read blogs. About half (49%) never read blogs or do not use the internet. Among internet users, 35% regularly (11%) or sometimes (24%) read political or news blogs. This is similar to 2008, when 14% of internet users regularly read blogs and 20% sometimes turned to blogs for news.

There are virtually no partisan differences in blog reading; 10% of Republicans, 10% of Democrats and 9% of independents regularly read political blogs. Conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats are slightly more likely than their moderate counterparts to regularly read blogs about politics or current events.

There are only modest age differences in blog reading; those under 30 are the least likely to read blogs. And although far fewer people age 65 and older engage in many online activities, seniors who go online are just as likely as their younger counterparts to read blogs. Similar to the pattern for other online behaviors, college graduates (13%) are more likely to regularly read political or news blogs than those with some college experience (9%) and those with a high school education or less (7%).



Emailing News

About a quarter (27%) of the public regularly (12%) or sometimes (15%) get news or news headlines by email. Another 20% hardly ever receives news in their inboxes and 54% never get news by email or are not online. Meanwhile, 14% say they got news or news headlines by email yesterday. And 10% of the public says they get news emailed to them directly from news organizations or journalists.

Fewer send news by email than receive it; only 3% regularly and 11% sometimes send news by email. About two-thirds of Americans (67%) never send news by email (49%) or do not use the internet (18%). Even among internet users, only 4% regularly send news by email, compared with 14% who receive news in their inboxes regularly.

 



Young People Most Likely to Happen Across News Online

A majority of the public (62%) and about three-quarters of internet users (76%) say they come across news online even when they are on the internet for purposes other than getting news. The proportion of internet users who happen across news online is virtually unchanged over the last six years.

Young people are the most likely to come across news when online for other purposes – 85% of those under 30 say this, compared with 70% of those ages 30 to 49 and 56% of those ages 50 to 64. Seniors are the least likely to happen across news online (29%). These age differences are similar but less pronounced when looking only at internet users.

Far more college graduates (82%) come across news when online for other purposes than those with some college education (68%) or those with a high school degree or less (46%). And 67% of men happen across news when online for other reasons, compared with 58% of women.



Regular News Consumption Among Young People

While nearly half (48%) of those younger than 30 get news online regularly (three or more days a week), many young people also continue to rely on traditional news sources – particularly television. About three-in-ten (31%) regularly watch local news and nearly as many (29%) watch cable news.

Among specific television outlets and programs, 17% say they regularly watch Fox News while 13% say they regularly watch CNN.
About as many young people regularly watch the Daily Show (13%) and the Colbert Report (13%) as watch the national network evening news (14%) and the morning news shows (12%).

After local TV and cable news, newspapers are near the top of the list. About a quarter (23%) of those under 30 read a daily newspaper regularly and 17% are regular consumers of weekly community newspapers.

Young people also regularly turn to many online or digital sources for news; 16% get news on a customized webpage or through an RSS reader, 13% use their cell phones for news and 13% get news through social networking sites or Twitter. About one-in-ten (11%) young people regularly get news by email.

 
Gender, Age and Online News Consumption

Among young people, men are more likely than women to regularly get news online and to use many online technologies for news. More than half (54%) of men under the age of 30 get news online at least three days a week, compared with 41% of young women. Similarly, 48% of young men use search engines to find news on a particular subject while 33% of women under 30 get news by using search engines.

More than twice as many young men as young women get news through a customizable webpage or a RSS reader (20% vs. 9%). Men under 30 also are more avid consumers of news on their cell phone or smartphone than young women. About one-in-five (19%) young men get news or news headlines on their cell phone, compared with only 7% of women under 30. Men under 30 also are more likely to regularly read blogs about politics or current events. But there are no significant differences among young men and women in their use of social networking sites or Twitter and the use of email for news.



Recording the News

More Americans have the technology to digitally record television programs – 45% now have a TiVo or DVR, up from 35% just two years ago, and nearly double the proportion that had one in 2006. But only 24% of those with a TiVo or DVR have programmed it to regularly record any news programs. This is little changed from two years ago (22%), even though the share of Americans who have a TiVo or DVR has grown.
 
There are very few demographic differences among those who program their TiVo or DVR to regularly record news programs. Men are as likely as women to regularly record news programs and similar proportions of whites and blacks have programmed their TiVo or DVR to record news programs. There are only modest differences by age – those 65 and older are slightly less likely than those in other age groups to record news programs using a TiVo or DVR.

More college graduates (31%) regularly record news programs using a TiVo or DVR than those with some college (24%) and people with a high school education or less (17%). And there is a similar pattern by income – those with the highest family incomes are the most likely to have programmed their TiVo or DVR to regularly record news programs.

About a quarter of Republicans (23%), Democrats (24%) and independents (26%) regularly record news programs with a digital video recorder. And there are no significant differences among Republicans or Democrats along ideological lines.
 
SECTION 3: NEWS ATTITUDES AND HABITS

Most Americans say they enjoy keeping up with the news, but the proportion saying they enjoy following the news a lot has declined. Currently 45% say they enjoy following the news a lot, while 36% say they enjoy this a little and 18% say not much or not at all. In each of the past three news consumption surveys (2004, 2006 and 2008), 52% said they enjoyed following the news a lot.

The falloff in the number saying they enjoy the news a lot has come across many groups, but the declines have been particularly large among Democrats – particularly liberal Democrats – young people and those with no more than a high school education.

The percentage of liberal Democrats who say they enjoy keeping up with the news a lot has fallen 22 points, from 67% in 2008 to 45% currently. The decline is 12 points among conservative and moderate Democrats (58% to 46%). By contrast, opinions among Republicans and independents have shown little change.

Those younger than 30 have consistently been less likely to say they enjoy keeping up with the news than have older age groups. The falloff since 2008 is also larger for young people than for other age groups. About a quarter of those ages 18 to 29 (27%) now say they enjoy keeping up with the news a lot, down 12 points from 39% in 2008.

The percentage of those with a high school diploma or less who say they enjoy keeping up with the news a lot dropped from 49% in 2008 to 39%; there has also been a slight decline among those with some college experience (from 51% to 45%). The views of college graduates are largely unchanged (59% in 2008, 55% today).

Fewer Getting News at Regular Times

With the availability of the internet and 24-hour news channels, nearly six-in-ten Americans (57%) say they are the kind of people who check in on the news from time to time, as opposed to getting the news at regular times. That is up from 51% in 2008 and 48% in 2006.

The percentage saying they are more likely to get their news at regular times has dropped from 50% in 2006 to 45% in 2008 to 38% today.

Young people have long been more likely than older Americans to say they check in on the news rather than getting news on a regular schedule. That remains the case today, but “news grazing” has become much more common among older age groups.

Among those 50 to 64, about as many say they get news from time to time (49%) as at regular times (46%). Just two years ago, a majority (55%) of this age group said they got news at regular times. Those 65 and older are still most likely to get their news at regular times (57%), but that is down from 64% in 2008. The percentage that says they get news from time to time rose from 31% to 37%.
 
Among those ages 30 to 49, 63% say they are more likely to get news from time to time than at regular times (32%). Two years ago, the divide was more narrow (57% from time to time, 41% at regular times). A substantial majority of those younger than 30 continue to say they get news more from time to time (74% now, 70% in 2008).

People with no more than a high school education also are now more likely to get news from time to time. Among this group, the percentage that says they get news from time to time increased from 49% in 2008 to 58%, while the number saying they get their news at regular times dropped from 47% to 36%. Majorities among both those with some college experience (59%) and those with a college degree (54%) say they seek out news from time to time. That also was the case in 2008.

 
Most See Some News Sources as More Trustworthy

Most Americans say they trust certain news sources more than others. Currently, 57% express this view, up slightly from 53% in 2008. About four-in-ten (39%) say they see all the news media as “pretty much the same.” That is down slightly from 43% in 2008 and 45% in 2006.

About three-quarters of conservative Republicans (76%) and 69% of liberal Democrats say they trust a few news sources more than others. Smaller majorities of other political groups express this view.

While there has been little change among Democratic groups on this question since 2008, an increasing number of conservative Republicans say they trust a few sources more than others; 76% express that view currently, compared with 65% in 2008.

Those with a college degree or more education are more likely than those with less education to say they trust certain sources more than others. Three-quarters (75%) of those with at least a college degree say they trust certain sources more, up from 69% in 2008. About six-in-ten (59%) of those with some college experience say this, as do 43% of those with a high school diploma or less education. Those numbers are little changed from 2008.


More Prefer News with No Point of View to their Point of View

About six-in-ten (62%) say they prefer getting political news from sources that do not have a particular point of view. A quarter (25%) says they prefer getting news from sources that share their political point of view. That is down slightly from 2008 when 66% said they preferred getting news from sources that do not have a specific point of view.

About four-in-ten conservative Republicans (41%) say they prefer to get news from sources that share their political point of view – the highest percentage of any political group. That compares with a third of liberal Democrats (33%) and only about one-in-five conservative and moderate Democrats (22%), moderate and liberal Republicans (20%), and independents (19%).

Roughly seven-in-ten (71%) of those with a college education or more say they prefer political news with no point of view, compared with just more than half (53%) of those with a high school diploma or less education. In terms of income, 70% of those with family incomes of $75,000 or more say they prefer news with no point of view; 54% of those with family incomes of $30,000 or less agree.

Majority Sees Bias in News Coverage

About eight-in-ten Americans (82%) say they see at least some bias in news coverage – 52% say they see a lot and 30% say they see some. By a wide margin, those who see bias in news coverage say it is a liberal bias; 43% of the public says there is more of a liberal bias while just 23% see more of a conservative bias.

Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, are more likely than other political groups to say they see a lot of press bias. More than six-in-ten Republicans (62%) say this, compared with 47% of Democrats and 53% of independents. About seven-in-ten Republicans (69%) say that bias tilts liberal. Among conservative Republicans, 72% see a lot of bias in news coverage and 79% say that bias tilts liberal.

Nearly half of Democrats (47%) say they see a lot of bias in coverage, while another 33% see some. Slightly more Democrats say they see a conservative bias (36%) than a liberal bias (28%).

But by nearly two-to-one (41% to 22%), more liberal Democrats see a conservative bias in news coverage than a liberal bias.

Independents largely mirror the public as a whole: 53% see a lot of bias and 30% see some. Fully 44% say that bias tilts liberal, while 21% say it tilts conservative.

Fewer of those with a high school degree or less say they see at least some bias than those with some college experience or a college degree or more education. About four-in-ten (39%) of those with a high school degree or less education say they see a lot of bias, compared with 58% of those with some college experience and 64% of those with a college degree or more education.
 
About half of those with at least a college degree (51%) say the bias tilts liberal, compared with 35% of those with no more than a high school education. Among those with some college experience, 48% perceive a liberal tilt.

Tracking the News for Work

More than a third of those employed full or part-time say that keeping up with the news is important to their jobs. That number has changed little in recent years, fluctuating from 35% in 2006 to 30% in 2008 and then up to 36% this year.

And, as in past surveys, those with at least a college degree are much more likely than those with less education to say it is important for their jobs to keep up with the news. Fully half of those with a college degree or more education say this, compared with 28% each of those with some college experience or a high school diploma or less education.

Those with annual family incomes of $75,000 or more are also more likely than those with smaller incomes to say keeping up with the news is important to their jobs. Nearly half (47%) of those earning at least $75,000 say this, compared with 21% of those earning less than $30,000 and 35% of those earning between $30,000 and $74,999.

Not surprisingly, those who say that keeping up with the news is important to their jobs are more avid news consumers. A majority (56%) of those who say the news is important for their job enjoy keeping up a lot, compared with 37% of those who say keeping up with the news is not important to their jobs.
 
And those who say keeping up with the news is important to their jobs are much more likely to go on-line from work. About seven-in-ten (69%) say they regularly go online from work, while just 38% of those who say it is not important to their jobs to keep up with the news say this.

Looking at all full and part-time workers, about half say they regularly go online at work (49%), while half say they do not.

Again, those with more education and higher family incomes are more likely go online regularly from their jobs. Fully 70% of those with a college degree or more education say they go online regularly at work. That compares with 46% of those with some college education and 30% of those with a high school education or less.

Similarly, two-thirds (67%) of those with family incomes of $75,000 or more say they regularly go online at work. That drops to 45% of those earning between $30,000 and $74,999 and 27% of those with incomes of less than $30,000.

Little Change in Book Reading

Though the public’s preferences for how they get news may be changing, the percentages that say they read a book in the past day have remained largely steady in recent years. Just more than a third of the public (35%) says they read a book yesterday. That is little changed from 38% in 2006 – the last time the question was asked – and matches the number that said they read a book yesterday in 2004.

Almost all of those who say they read a book in the past day say they read a printed book (95%). Despite the growing popularity of electronic book readers, just 4% say they read an electronic or digital book yesterday. Another 4% say they listened to an audio book.

Those who say they read a book yesterday are equally likely to say they read fiction as non-fiction: 16% of the public say they read fiction and 16% say non-fiction.

While young people are less likely than older Americans to get news on a typical day, there are no significant age differences in book reading. Fully 36% of those ages 18-29 say they read a book “yesterday,” compared with 33% of those 30-49, 36% of those 50-64 and 35% of those 65 and older.

Just about all of the book reading recorded in the survey – among all age groups – was of printed books. Just 2% of those ages 18-29 say they read an electronic book the previous day, compared with 6% of those ages 30-49, 5% of those ages 50-64 and 1% of those 65 and older.

Though still small, the percentages of the better educated and more affluent that say they read an electronic book yesterday are larger than for those with less education and lower incomes. For example, 7% of those with a college degree or more say they read an electronic book yesterday, compared with 2% for those with some college experience or no more than a high school diploma. Among those with household incomes of $75,000 or more, 7% say they read an electronic book yesterday, compared with 3% of those earning less than $75,000.


Magazine Readership Still Declining

While the trend for book reading shows little change, the percentage saying they read a magazine in the past day continues to decline. Currently, 19% say they read a magazine yesterday, down slightly from 23% in 2008. In 1994, 33% said they had read a magazine in the past day.

Those with at least a college degree (28%) are more likely than those with some college experience (19%) or a high school education or less (14%) to say they read a magazine in the previous day. Similarly, more people with family incomes of $75,000 or more (25%) say they read a magazine yesterday than those with incomes of between $30,000 and $74,999 (18%) and incomes of less than $30,000 (15%).

 SECTION 4: WHO IS LISTENING, WATCHING, READING - AND WHY

Not all Americans are looking for the same things when they turn to the news. With the wide array of news sources now available, the regular audiences for various news outlets offer differing top reasons why those sources appeal to them. Regular CNN viewers, for example, overwhelmingly say they turn to CNN for the latest news and headlines, rather than for in-depth reporting, opinions about the news or entertainment. Many regular New York Times and Wall Street Journal readers value the publications for their in-depth reporting, and, not surprisingly, those who watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report regularly say overwhelmingly that they are mostly seeking entertainment – not the latest headlines and in-depth reporting – from those programs. 



When it comes to cable news programs such as The Glenn Beck Program or The Rachel Maddow Show, roughly a third of regular viewers say they turn to these sources mainly for the interesting views and opinions they provide. Still, roughly the same numbers say they turn to these programs mostly for hard news.

While 64% of regular CNN viewers say they go there mostly for the latest news and headlines, only 44% of regular viewers of Fox News say the same. While about one-in-ten (11%) regular Fox News viewers say they turn to the channel mostly for “interesting views and opinions,” 22% volunteer that it is a combination of offerings – the mix of hard news, opinion and entertainment – that draws them to the network.

The same kind of pattern holds with NPR – 28% of regular listeners say there is no single aspect of NPR coverage that draws them in, but instead the combination of breaking news, in-depth reporting, interesting opinions and entertainment. And, though the show offers a different kind of content, many of Rush Limbaugh’s regular radio listeners say the same. While 37% say they mostly listen to Limbaugh for views and opinions, 28% say it is the combination of news, opinion and entertainment that they find appealing.

News magazines like Time, Newsweek and U.S. News, have a similar profile – many regular readers cite them as sources for headlines, in-depth reporting, and interesting views and opinions. The same can be said for political blogs and for Sunday morning television talk shows.

While a number of programs clearly appeal to overwhelmingly ideological audiences, not all viewers cite the views and opinions presented on those shows as the main reason they watch. For example, 80% of those who regularly watch Sean Hannity’s show say they are conservative, but only 39% say the views and opinions presented on the show are the main reason they watch. Nearly as many regular viewers (35%) say they turn to the show mainly for breaking news (14%) or in-depth reporting (21%).

The same is true at the other end of the spectrum: Rachel Maddow’s regular MSNBC audience is roughly twice-as-liberal as the national average, yet as many viewers cite her show as a source of breaking news and in-depth reporting as sources of opinion and viewpoints.

Audience Party and Ideology Profiles

More than half of the audiences for Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly and about six-in-10 of those who regularly watch Sean Hannity or listen to Rush Limbaugh say they are Republicans. Fully 80% of regular Hannity and Limbaugh viewers and listeners describe themselves as conservative, as do 74% of Beck’s and 72% of O’Reilly’s regular viewers. Among the general public, 36% describe themselves as conservative, while 37% are moderates and 19% are liberals.

Fox News overall has a larger regular audience than any of its individual opinion-oriented programs (23% of adults regularly watch Fox News, compared with 10% for O’Reilly, 7% for Beck, and 6% for Hannity). While the channel’s viewership tilts much more Republican and conservative than the population as a whole, that tilt is less pronounced for the channel as a whole than for the individual shows.

None of the leading conservative political shows has an audience with more than 10% Democrats – though a third of the public (33%) describes themselves as Democrats.

On the other hand, at least half of the audiences for MSNBC’s political talk programs – Hardball with Chris Matthews, the Rachel Maddow Show and Countdown with Keith Olbermann – say they are Democrats. Just 3% of Olbermann’s audience and 12% of Maddow’s viewers say they are Republicans. Looking at New York Times regular readers, 9% say they are Republicans, far less than the 25% of the American public that says they are Republicans.

Liberal-leaning shows have more liberals among their audiences than there are in the general population, but these programs also attract a lot of moderates. Olbermann’s audience has the largest share of liberals (43%), more than double the percentage for the overall population, but his audience has about as many moderates (42%); 12% of his regular viewers say they are conservative.



 
Audiences and Political Labels

Asked whether certain political labels applied to them, majorities of Americans say they are environmentalists (60%) or are pro-business (56%). About four-in-ten say they are Christian conservatives (43%), progressive (41%), NRA supporters (40%), or gay rights supporters (40%). Fewer say they are supporters of the Tea Party movement (25%) or that they are libertarian (18%).




Identification with these labels varies greatly across the various media audiences. Roughly three-quarters of Limbaugh (76%), Beck (76%) and Hannity (75%) regular audiences say they are Tea Party supporters, while just 10% of Maddow viewers, 8% of New York Times readers and 5% of Olbermann viewers say they support the Tea Party.

The differences are nearly as large when looking at Christian conservatives. At least seven-in-ten Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and O’Reilly regular viewers say they are Christian conservatives. By contrast, just 12% of regular New York Times readers say so. Two-in-ten Olbermann viewers (20%) say this label applies to them, as do 29% of Maddow viewers and 28% of NPR listeners. About four-in-ten (41%) Hardball viewers say they are Christian conservatives, about the same as the public as a whole (43%).

Support for the NRA, the National Rifle Association, ranges from 76% of Limbaugh’s audience to 13% of regular readers of the New York Times. Audiences of the four conservative talk shows were most likely to call themselves supporters of the gun-owners lobby, while audiences of Olberman and Maddow were less likely to adopt the label than was any other audience – except for the readership of the New York Times. Four-in-ten Americans say they are NRA supporters.

 
Environmentalists, Progressives and Gay Right Supporters



Regular audiences of Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly are the least likely to call themselves environmentalists, or to say that they are progressive. The term environmentalist is much more popular with a number of audiences: At least three-quarters of the audiences for Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, MSNBC, the Daily Show, news magazines and NPR say this label applies to them.

The term progressive is less popular, but at least six-in-ten regular viewers of the Colbert Report, Maddow and CNN, plus NPR listeners and readers of the New York Times and news magazines call themselves progressive.  

When it comes to support for gay rights, almost eight-in-ten New York Times readers (78%) say they are supporters, making them almost twice as likely as the American public (40%) to adopt this label. Just 22% of Hannity viewers and Limbaugh listeners are gay rights supporters.

The regular Hannity and Limbaugh audiences, along with Wall Street Journal readers and O’Reilly and Beck viewers, also are most likely to call themselves pro-business. At least half of every audience in the survey says they are pro-business.

Relatively small percentages of all news audiences – and just 18% of the public – describe themselves as libertarian. The proportion of libertarians ranges from 33% for Wall Street Journal readers to 13% for Maddow viewers.

 
Attitudes about Politics

As one might expect, audiences of liberal programming are much more likely to approve of the job President Obama is doing than are audiences of conservative programming. At least eight-in-ten Maddow and Olbermann viewers say they approve of the job Obama is doing, while 13% of O’Reilly viewers, 11% of Beck viewers, 9% of Limbaugh viewers and 7% of Hannity viewers approve. In this survey, just under half (48%) of Americans say they approve of the job the president is doing.

New York Times readers express much higher approval (79%) of Obama than do USA Today (46%) or Wall Street Journal (39%) readers. Almost two-thirds of NPR viewers approve. Three-in-ten Fox News viewers approve, while about two-thirds of MSNBC and CNN watchers approve. Almost seven-in-ten watchers of the political humor shows the Colbert Report (68%) and the Daily Show (69%) approve of the job Obama is doing.

 





Views of Government

Americans overall are divided over whether the government is doing too much – or too little – to solve problems: 43% say the government should do more to solve problems, while 47% say the government does too much that is better left to businesses or individuals. Regular audiences for news blogs, local and national TV news and Sunday morning news and talk programs are divided along similar lines.

Audiences of the conservative political shows, however, are firmly in the government-does-too-much-camp. At least three quarters of the audiences for O’Reilly (77%), Beck (79%), Limbaugh (81%) and Hannity (84%) express this view. At the other end of the spectrum, about seven-in-ten Maddow viewers (69%) and six-in-ten Olbermann viewers (61%) say the government should do more to solve problems.

 





Views of News Media

Most Americans see some news sources as more trustworthy than others (57%), though much higher percentages of the regular audiences for many of the options in the survey agree with this statement. At least three-quarters of the regular audiences for 11 of the 24 sources say some sources are more trustworthy than others. And, as in the past, most Americans (62%) say they prefer to get news from sources that don’t have a particular point of view. A quarter (25%) says they want news that shares their point of view.



Viewers of both liberal and conservative talk shows are more evenly divided on whether they prefer news that shares their point of view than is the general public.

When evaluating news sources, viewers of Hannity (90%) and the other conservative hosts (84% each) are especially likely to say there are some sources they trust more than others. That is also the case for readers of the New York Times (85%) and the Wall Street Journal (84%). Conversely, regular television news watchers (nightly network news, morning news and local TV news) are about as likely as the general public to say some news sources are more trustworthy.

When it comes to mixing news and point of view, about 45% of the audiences regularly watching shows hosted by Hannity, Matthews, Beck and Maddow say they want news without a point of view. Almost as many say they want news from their own perspective. At the other end of the spectrum, at least seven-in-ten NPR listeners, Colbert Report and Daily Show watchers and USA Today readers say they want news without a point of view. Regular readers of blogs that cover news and politics are split along the same lines as the general public: 59% want news without a particular viewpoint, and 29% want news from their point of view.

 
Perceptions of Bias

About half of Americans (52%) say they see a lot of bias in news coverage, but regular audiences for many of the news sources in the survey are much more likely to say they see a lot of bias than the public as a whole.

Looking at partisans, Republicans generally see more bias in media coverage (62% a lot) than Democrats (47%) or independents (53%). The same holds true for conservatives (61%) when compared to moderates (49%) and liberals (46%).

Regular audiences for the more conservative shows are among the most likely to say they see a lot of bias in news coverage. Nine-in-ten Hannity viewers, 87% of Limbaugh’s regular audience and 81% of O’Reilly’s say they see a lot of bias in news coverage. Still, close to seven-in-ten (69%) regular viewers of Chris Matthews’ MSNBC show say this, while about six-in-ten of regular Maddow (60%) and Olbermann (59%) viewers agree. Among regular blog readers, 71% say they see a lot of bias in the news.

Viewers of morning news programs (51%), nightly network news (51%) and local TV news (52%) are less likely to say they see a lot of bias.

 

Audience Age and Profiles

Because younger people spend so much less time with the news than older people, the profile of most news audiences is substantially older than the nation as a whole. Still, there are a few key exceptions.

The late night Colbert Report audience is the youngest of the 24 studied: 53% of its regular viewers are 18 to 29, while just 23% of American adults are younger than 30. The Daily Show (41% younger than 30) and the New York Times (34%) also have younger regular audiences. Interestingly, the percentage of New York Times regular readers under 30 is more than double the 13% of regular daily newspaper readers in the 18-29 age group overall.

On the other hand, Sean Hannity’s show and Hardball with Chris Matthews have a lot of regular viewers who are 65 and older. While 17% of the country is in that age group, 30% of Hannity viewers and 35% of Hardball watchers are at least 65.

In terms of gender, many news audiences have roughly the same percentages of men and women watching, listening or reading. The proportions are more lopsided in the audiences of several media sources, however. Two thirds of the Wall Street Journal’s regular readership is male (67%), while one third is female (33%). The proportions are almost exactly reversed for regular watchers of morning news programs (32% men, 68% women). The Colbert Report and the Daily Show, as well as Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, all have more men than women in their audiences, while local and national TV news have more women than men among regular viewers.

Women have become a bigger part of the Hannity audience since 2008. Two years ago, women were 33% of Sean Hannity’s audience. This year, they are 45%.



Audience Income and Education Profiles

The Wall Street Journal and New York Times have the most highly educated – and the highest-income – audiences of the media sources measured. Fully 71% of regular Wall Street Journal readers have a college degree, as do 65% of regular Times readers. (Nationwide, three-in-ten adults have college degrees.) Most regular readers of these newspapers also have family incomes of at least $75,000 a year, compared with just 26% of all Americans who are at that income level. USA Today, news magazines and NPR also have particularly high-income audiences.





Knowledge of Politics and Current Events

Asked a series of four questions to test their knowledge about politics and current events, just 14% of the public got all four correct – as many got all four wrong (15%). Two-in-ten got three correct, 26% two and 25% one. Regular readers, viewers or listeners of most media sources outscored the general public.

People were asked which party currently controls the House of Representatives (Democrats), to identify the post held by Eric Holder (U.S. attorney general), which company is run by Steve Jobs (Apple) and which country has an active volcano that disrupted international air travel earlier this year (Iceland).

Wall Street Journal readers fared the best on the quiz—51% of regular Journal readers got all four questions right; just 3% got none right. New York Times readers also fared well: 42% got all of the questions right. USA Today readers scored better than the general public, but not nearly as well as Times or Journal readers; 22% of USA Today readers got all the questions correct, while 6% got all four wrong. As a whole, 22% of daily paper readers answered all the questions correctly. 

Looking at the talk shows, at least 30% of the audiences for Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann and Maddow got all four questions correct. O’Reilly’s audience did about as well (29%). The regular Glenn Beck and Hardball audiences performed slightly worse, with 21% and 23% of their respective viewers getting all the questions correct. Daily Show and Colbert Report audiences fared about as well.

Overall, seven-in-ten Americans know that Democrats have a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. No media audience did poorly on this question, and 90% or more of the Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly audiences got this right.

Far fewer know that Eric Holder is the attorney general. Just 22% got this question right. Wall Street Journal readers and Hannity viewers performed best on this question, with 56% of each audience answering it correctly.

About four-in-ten (41%) know that Steve Jobs is the head of Apple. Wall Street Journal (85%) and New York Times (80%) readers are especially likely to know this. Six-in-ten know that the volcanic eruption that recently disrupted international air travel is in Iceland. Journal (82% correct) and Times (81%) readers also did especially well on this question.

Cable News Audiences at a Glance

A comparison of the profiles of audiences for cable news outlets reveals substantial partisan and ideological differences. CNN, Fox News and MSNBC all attract roughly the same proportions of women and men and young people and old people as regular viewers. But while Republicans make up 17% of the CNN audience and 14% of the MSBNC audience, they are a much bigger share of the Fox audience: 44%, and these are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans (34% of the total).

Democrats, meanwhile, make up 21% of Fox’s audience, but 47% of CNN’s and 53% of MSNBC’s. Liberal Democrats make up just 3% of the Fox cable network’s audience.

Fox’s regular viewers are much more likely to call themselves Christian conservatives, to be NRA supporters and to be Tea Party supporters than are regular watchers of the other cable networks. CNN and MSNBC audiences are more likely to call themselves environmentalists, progressives and gay rights supporters than are Fox viewers.

 

Major Newspaper Audiences at a Glance

In many respects, regular readers of daily newspapers look very much like the country as a whole, but readers of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today differ a great deal from one another and from newspaper readers in general.

Readers of each of the three national papers are more likely to be male than are regular readers of all daily newspapers. This is especially the case for the Wall Street Journal: Two-thirds of its readership is male. Fully a third of the New York Times’ regular readership is younger than 30, more than twice the percentage for daily papers overall and a higher share than for the Journal or USA Today.

Regular readers of the Wall Street Journal (71%) and New York Times (65%) are much more likely to have graduated from college than are readers of USA Today (45%) or readers of newspapers overall (40%). The audiences for all three major papers come from households with higher family income, but the difference is more dramatic for the Times and Journal. 

Politically, the papers’ audiences are very different. Just 9% of the New York Times’ regular readers are Republicans, but at least a third of Journal (36%) and USA Today (33%) readers are Republicans. Democrats (49%) — liberal Democrats in particular (26%) — are a much bigger part of the New York Times’ readership than of the other papers.

New York Times readers are much more likely to say they are gay rights supporters and progressives than are readers of the Wall Street Journal or USA Today. Times readers are much less likely to call themselves Tea Party supporters, NRA supporters or Christian conservatives than are readers of the other two national papers. Journal readers are more likely to say they are pro-business than are readers of the other papers, though clear majorities of all three audiences say they are pro-business.

SECTION 5: NEWS MEDIA CREDIBILITY

The public continues to take a skeptical view of reporting from the major news outlets. No more than a third says they can believe all or most of the reporting by 14 major news organizations.

There has been little change in public views of media credibility since 2008. Since the late 1990’s, however, there has been significant erosion in the believability ratings of several news organizations.

For example, since 1998 ABC News, CBS News and NBC News have all seen substantial declines in the percentages saying they believe all or most of what they say (among those who say they can rate those organizations). Currently, about two-in-ten say they believe all or most information from ABC News (21%), CBS News (21%) and NBC News (20%) – down from about three-in-ten in 1998.

The longer-term declines can be seen across different media groups as well. Since 1998, CNN and the Wall Street Journal, for example, have experienced double-digit declines in the percentages saying they can believe all or most of their reporting (a rating of four on a scale of one to four). Currently, 29% say they can believe all or most of the reporting of CNN and 25% say the same about the Wall Street Journal.

The credibility ratings for Fox News (27% today) and 60 Minutes (33%) have shown less change over the past decade. And NPR is the only news organization whose credibility rating has improved since 1998 – 28% now give it the top rating compared with 19% a dozen years ago.  

National newspapers fare relatively poorly when it comes to public perceptions of media credibility. Just two-in-ten (20%) of those who offer a rating for the New York Times say they can believe all or most of what it says and just 17% say the same about USA Today. Those numbers have fluctuated only slightly since 2004. Local daily news newspapers are seen in largely the same way (21% get the highest credibility rating).

Majorities give each of the news organizations included on the survey a credibility rating of three or four on the four-point scale. Relatively small percentages give the organizations a one – meaning they can believe “almost nothing” of what the news organization reports.



Partisan Gaps in Credibility Ratings

Republicans have long viewed the overall media more skeptically than Democrats and this continues to be reflected in credibility ratings for individual news outlets. Republicans express far less confidence than Democrats in most major outlets. The Fox News Channel stands out as the only news organization that more Republicans than Democrats view as highly credible.

Democrats are at least twice as likely as Republicans to give the highest believability ratings to CNN, NPR, MSNBC and the New York Times.

About four-in-ten (41%) Republicans say they believe all or most of what the Fox News Channel says, by far the highest believability rating offered by Republicans. By contrast, 21% of Democrats give a believability rating of four to Fox News, among the lowest rating given by Democrats to any outlet.

Local TV news, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today receive about the same ratings from Republicans and Democrats. For example, 28% of Republicans and 33% of Democrats say they believe all or most of what the Wall Street Journal says.

Widening Gaps in Credibility Ratings of Cable News Channels

In recent years, the divides between Democrats and Republicans have grown in judging the credibility of the cable news outlets. In 2000, about equal percentages of each said they could believe all or most of what Fox News said (26% Republicans, 27% Democrats). Since then time, Fox News’ credibility rating among Republicans has increased (now 41%). As a result, there is now a 20-point partisan gap in Fox News’ credibility ratings.



 
Republican credibility ratings for MSNBC have fallen over the past decade, from 24% in 2000 to 13% today. Democrats’ ratings have changed little over this period (now 34%). As a result, partisan differences over MSNBC’s credibility (21 points) are as large as those over Fox News.

Similarly, there is sizable partisan divide in perceptions of CNN’s credibility; 19% of Republicans say they believe all or most of what they see or hear on CNN, compared with 40% of Democrats.

COMMENTARY

A NEW PHASE IN OUR DIGITAL LIVES
A commentary on the findings by Tom Rosenstiel, Director of the
Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism

Some people describe it as The End of the Internet, though that is probably a misnomer.

Others, at the risk of cliché, might call it News 3.0.

Maybe the best way to understand what is occurring today with the way people interact with the news and technology is to think of it as the end of our digital childhood.

By whatever term you give it, the latest biennial survey on news consumption from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reveals signs of a new phase, perhaps even a new era, in the acquisition and consumption of news.

And there is every reason to expect the shift will only accelerate now with a new wave of technology devices – from smartphones to iPad-style devices – which the data do not fully measure.

In the last two years, people have begun to do more than replace old news platforms with new ones. Instead, the numbers suggest that people are beginning to exploit the capacity of the technology to interact with information differently.

This notion – that we are beginning to use the tools differently without necessarily abandoning the old ones – can be seen first in the amount of time people spend getting news. Compared with much of the past decade, people say they are spending more time each day acquiring or interacting with news.

In addition to the roughly one hour they spend with traditional platforms – which is largely unchanged from a decade ago – on average they spend another 13 minutes a day getting news online. Traditional platform use has stabilized (or has declined only slightly) in the last few years. And the online numbers, as the survey report notes, do not include time spent getting news on cell phones or other digital devices, the arena where news producers are now focusing so much of their effort and seeing so much potential.
The data reinforce findings that we began to see earlier this year when the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Internet and American Life Project collaborated on a survey that explored the new participatory culture for news. That survey asked a new battery of questions and opened up new areas of inquiry. The newest People-Press survey also tracks the trends on long-standing questions, adding to our knowledge about these shifts.

Why have we moved into this new phase -- where people are not simply replacing old technologies with new but using new ones for different things or in different ways, augmenting their more traditional behavior?

One explanation is that the content is changing. News producers are beginning to understand how they can deliver news in new ways to create new understanding, whether through the use of online graphics, customizing news to fit a consumer’s interest or location, or recognizing the public as a community that participates in the news rather than an audience that receives it. Another factor is improved connections and faster speeds that bring the technology’s potential to life. A third is that consumers themselves are changing, recognizing that each platform has its own unique strengths and weaknesses. The strength of an aggregator or search engine, which allows someone to find answers to his or her own specific questions, is very different from the agenda-setting power of a newscast or a newspaper front page (even online), in which the news is ordered and presented for you. The power of a social networking site to tell you what people you know are thinking about or reading is different than the convenience of using a smartphone on the spur of the moment to check a fact or scan a headline.

And these notions are reinforced in the data about why people say they use different media. News has many different functions in our lives; the proliferation of devices, platforms and products makes that variety more recognizable for us as consumers. The quick scan of news we might get from a cell phone is a different experience from the deeper interaction that users of the iPad say that they experience with those devices. The survey data show this is even true for traditional media. A large majority of regular CNN viewers say they turn to it for the latest news and headlines, while Bill O’Reilly’s viewers turn to him for interesting views and opinions. The numbers reveal USA Today has a different function for its readers (primarily the latest headlines) than do the two other national papers in the United States, the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, which are more valued for in-depth reporting.

The numbers also reveal some older publications, because of their strengths, are appealing to new audiences in ways they almost certainly never could have without the creative destruction and promise of the digital age. Regular readers of The New York Times are young – 34% are younger than 30, compared with 23% of the public – suggesting that a new generation of readers is discovering virtues of the newspaper that had been known as the Old Gray Lady. The growing popularity of search engines, directing people to sites like nytimes.com, apparently has had an effect.

It all points to something we might have forgotten. The medium may not quite be the message, as Marshall McLuhan argued two generations ago. But the medium does make a difference. Different platforms serve us differently, and there is now more evidence people are integrating all of them into their lives.

ABOUT THE SURVEY

Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a national sample of 3,006 adults living in the continental United States, 18 years of age or older, from June 8-28, 2010 (2,005 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 1,001 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 392 who had no landline telephone). Both the landline and cell phone samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English. For detailed information about our survey methodology, see http://people-press.org/methodology/.

The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race/ethnicity, region, and population density to parameters from the March 2009 Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. The sample is also weighted to match current patterns of telephone status and relative usage of landline and cell phones (for those with both), based on extrapolations from the 2009 National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater probability of being included in the combined sample and adjusts for household size within the landline sample. Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into account the effect of weighting.

The following table shows the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:





In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.



About the Center

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts and are one of seven projects that make up the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.

The Center's purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our current survey results are made available free of charge.

All of the Center’s research and reports are collaborative products based on the input and analysis of the entire Center staff consisting of:

Andrew Kohut, Director
Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research
Carroll Doherty and Michael Dimock, Associate Directors
Michael Remez, Senior Writer
Leah Christian and Jocelyn Kiley, Senior Researchers
Robert Suls, Shawn Neidorf and Alec Tyson, Research Associates
Jacob Poushter, Research Analyst
Mattie Ressler and Danielle Gewurz, Research Assistants