Required Content: Read these two articles. (1) The good, the bad, and the ugly of the digital revolution’s destructive impact on jobs (2) What will happen when newspapers kill print Key Learnings: Compare and contrast a traditional print news experience with a digital news experience. Discussion Question: Find the Web version of a newspaper with which you are familiar. As you look at that day’s electronic issue, compare it to the same day’s paper edition. Write the name of the paper newspaper and the name of the online newspaper. Please answer the following questions in your discussion post: 1. What content is common to both? 2. What content exists online that is unavailable in the printed newspaper? (hint: consider items like animated graphics, videos, photo slide shows, comments. Cite a specific example.) 3. How similar or different were the advertisers in the online version from those in the printed version? Can you speculate on why the similarities and differences you found exist? 4. Describe your experience reading the online newspaper. What did you like about it? What did you dislike? What will happen when newspapers kill print and go online-only? Most of that print audience will just…disappear Benton, Joshua . Weblog post. Nieman Journalism Lab [BLOG] , Cambridge: Newstex. Sep 26, 2018. ProQuest document link FULL TEXT For American daily newspapers, the story of the last decade-plus hasn’t been about mass closures — it’s been about mass shrinkage. The pace at which newspapers are shutting down isn’t much different from what it was in the late 20th century. Instead, just about every daily paper has gotten smaller — smaller newsroom, smaller budgets, smaller print runs, smaller page counts — year after year after year. It’s death by a thousand paper cuts. But shrinking can only go so far. In the second quarter of 2018, McClatchy’s print advertising revenue dropped 26.4 percent year over year; Gannett was down 19.1 percent, Tronc 18 percent. They’re not making new daily print newspaper subscribers anymore, and existing ones either move to digital or shuffle off this mortal coil daily. There’s no Zeno’s Paradox to prevent newspapers from eventually deciding one one of two courses of action: going online-only or shutting down entirely. Even the most pro-print publishers will tell you that, someday, the ‘cost of print’ and ‘revenue from print’ lines will intersect on an accountant’s projection and it’ll be time to stop the presses for good. The only question is when: Two years? Five? Ten? Thirty? So one of the questions I’m most interested in for the near- to medium-term future is what will actually happen when print newspapers start to disappear in large numbers, whenever that may be. Will those print readers just become digital readers? Will they spend as much time consuming local journalism on their phones as they do at their breakfast tables? Or will their attention wander as readers’ competitive set widens to, well, everything else the Internet can offer? So I was happy to see some new research by Neil Thurman and Richard Fletcher that offers some insight into those questions. And — while there are a few key caveats I’ll mention — the news is generally not that great. Shutting down print doesn’t drive those readers to print-like consumption habits on digital devices. Instead, they become a lot like other digital readers — easily distracted, flitting from link to link, and a little allergic to depth. Thurman and Fletcher examine the case of The Independent, the national British daily that, after 30 years in print, went online-only in 2016. What happened to its reach and influence? There’s a lot of interesting stuff in there, but these are the two key charts, I think. First: This compares the number of Britons in the total audience of each national newspaper, in the periods before and a year after the Indy’s end of print. If you’re a half-glass-full type, the good news is that The Independent’s total audience was basically flat despite killing off print. The number of print readers it lost and the number of digital readers it gained basically cancel one another out. If you’re a half-glass-empty type, of course, you’d note that ‘basically flat’ was also the worst performance of any British national daily. (The Sun got rid of its paywall during this period, so it’s a weird outlier. But the average paper’s audience went up about 25 percent.) And you’d note that the ‘after’ period in question includes the aftermath of both Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, each of which fueled a huge increased interest in news. But here’s the really important one: That first chart was looking at total audience: How many people are consuming Independent content at all, in whatever medium? This second one is looking at total attention: How much total time are Britons spending PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 4 consuming Independent content, in whatever medium? And this one’s something of a disaster. When it shut off the presses, The Independent only had about a paid print circulation of about 40,000 — versus 58 million monthly uniques in digital. 58 million sure seems a lot bigger than 40,000! But Thurman and Fletcher found that those few print readers were responsible for about 81 percent of all time spent consuming Independent content. All its digital platforms made up only 19 percent. Or to put it another way: In an average month, a single print subscription to The Independent generated on average, about 6,100 times the actual content consumption as one monthly unique on its website or app. It’s not a perfect comparison — monthly uniques aim to measure people while circulation measures copies. But the point is crystal clear: Print readers are just far, far, far, far better news consumers than digital ones. This is something I find journalists often have a hard time understanding — mainly because they consume a ton of digital news all day and night. In the print days, a reporter’s news consumption and an average citizen’s weren’t all that far apart — mainly because there just wasn’t that much news available to consume. Today, a reporter getting a dozen morning newsletters, listening to a news podcast on the morning commute, getting news alerts on their phone and monitoring Twitter for the latest all day are engaging in very extreme behavior. We’re the outliers. We should be better at remembering that. That chart shows that all the time Independent print readers spent just…disappeared when the paper did. It didn’t transition to independent.co.uk. The demand went elsewhere — whether to another news site, a few minutes of Facebook scrolling, Netflix, Fortnite, an afternoon nap, or whatever else caught someone’s attention. Thurman and Fletcher calculate that, in the 12 months before and after stopping print, the total time spent consuming The Independent dropped from 5.548 billion minutes to 1.056 billion minutes. Of its print readers, half read the newspaper ‘almost everyday.’ Its online visitors read a story, on average, a little over twice a month. Print readers spent, on average, 37 to 50 minutes with each daily edition they read. Online Independent readers spend, on average, 6 minutes a month. We’ve been hitting on this issue here for many years. Back in 2009, Martin Langeveld did his own back-of-theenvelope calculations and found that only about 3 percent of all consumption of newspaper content was happening online. Most of the same industry trends happening now were already visible then, but those big digital numbers from comScore or Omniture or Google Analytics were already hiding the underlying shift. In the near-decade since Martin’s piece, I guess that 3 percent has moved to 19 percent, at least for The Independent. Yay? But the dynamic remains unchanged: In print, newspapers had few if any competitors. Online, they have infinite competitors. As Thurman puts it: ‘By going online-only, The Independent has decimated the attention it receives. The paper is now a thing more glanced at, it seems, than gorged on. It has sustainability but less centrality.’ Now, there are some good reasons why an American daily going online-only might not exactly match The Independent’s experience. The Independent was one of 13 national print newspapers in the U.K.; while British readers are often quite attached to their particular paper, it wouldn’t be too much of a reach for Indy print readers to become Guardian or Times or Telegraph print readers. If a newspaper in Atlanta or Denver or Houston or Seattle goes out business, there won’t be an easy print alternative to turn to. Also, you can quibble (I have before) with the reliability of survey data estimating print consumption, which can be subject to exaggeration. (People like to say they consume lots of news, just like they like to say they eat lots of vegetables and go to the gym all the time.) On the other hand, one of the bright spots for The Independent in this study is that it increased its international reach by shifting its focus online. Which makes sense — there’s a giant English-language audience in the United States that is unreachable by a British paper in print but is happy to tap a link now and then. But that increased out-of-market reach is unlikely to come to a typical American metro daily that goes online-only, without a radical abandonment of its local mission. There are only so many people interested in what’s going on in Albuquerque or Fresno or Cincinnati. Even with those points of difference, though, the overarching lesson holds, I think. Leaving print is the ultimate PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 4 cost-cutting; a huge share of a newspaper’s cost structure is tied up in building-sized printing presses and Canadian forests and ink by the barrel. But when that day comes — even if it helps a newspaper’s bottom line — its audience isn’t likely to follow along. And that means accepting a dramatic decline in reach, influence, and impact. Photo of a cute puppy engrossed by The Independent in print by Gareth Williams used under a Creative Commons license. DETAILS Subject: Consumption; Newspapers; Audiences Location: United States–US United Kingdom–UK Atlanta Georgia People: Trump, Donald J Company / organization: Name: Netflix Inc; NAICS: 512120, 518210, 532230; Name: Twitter Inc; NAIC S: 519130; Name: Facebook Inc; NAICS: 518210, 519130; Name: Google Inc; NAICS: 334310, 519130 Publication title: Nieman Journalism Lab [BLOG ]; Cambridge Publication year: 2018 Publication date: Sep 26, 2018 Publisher: Newstex Place of publication: Cambridge Country of publication: United States, Cambridge Publication subject: Journalism Source type: Blogs, Podcasts, &Websites Language of publication: English Document type: Blogs ProQuest document ID: 2251674595 Document URL: https://search.proquest.com/docview/2251674595?accountid=36783 Copyright: Copyright Newstex Sep 26, 2018 Last updated: 2019-07-04 Database: ProQuest Central PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 4 Database copyright ? 2019 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 4 of 4 The good, the bad and the ugly of the digital revolution’s destructive impact on jobs McFarland, Matt . Weblog post. Washington Post – Blogs , Washington: WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post. Jul 29, 2015. ProQuest document link FULL TEXT Today we straddle two remarkably different worlds. On one side sits hotels, taxi cabs, newspapers and the dogeared atlas stuffed in your glove box. On the other side reside Airbnb, Uber, Twitter and Google Maps. Businesses that ride the tidal wave that is the digital revolution are steadily wiping out those that don’t. This is a dominant theme of our lifetimes, as new jobs are being created and others are being eliminated at a pace humanity hasn’t seen before. The changes have struck up a whirlwind of conversation about whether technology is a good thing, and what we should do about these changes. I spoke with two authors of recent books on the subject, Jerry Kaplan (Humans Need Not Apply) and Geoff Colvin (Humans Are Underrated.) They caught my attention because of how thoughtfully they present both the positives and negatives of the seismic changes we’re undergoing. The good Countless jobs were eliminated in the past as we transitioned through economic revolutions. And in the long run humanity was better off for it. Most Americans once worked on farms. But even as those jobs disappeared, we found new ones. And the economy and our quality of life kept growing. “I don’t think of Benjamin Franklin as living in the time of abject poverty,” Kaplan told me. “But the truth is, everyone was poor. The facts are just staggering about how long people lived, what happened, when they stopped working. Food cost more than 50 percent of your income back then. Today it’s less than 10 percent.” Just as the agrarian and industrial revolutions made us more efficient and created more value, it follows that the digital revolution will do the same. Colvin believes as the digital revolution wipes out jobs, new jobs will place a premium on our most human traits. These should be more satisfying than being a cog on an assembly line. “For a long period, really dating to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, our jobs became doing machine-like work, that the machines of the age couldn’t do it. The most obvious example being in factories and assembly-line jobs,” Colvin told me. “We are finally achieving an era in which the machines actually can do the machine-like work. PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 3 They leave us to do the in-person, face-to-face work.” Colvin notes the current success of the conference business, which exists despite the ability to recreate it with online video chats. “The human interactions holds tremendous value for us. We hunger for it and it can’t be duplicated,” Colvin said. “Each experience is unique. A competitor can’t put on a conference that’s precisely the same because it’s a human experience, it’ll be unique. All of these things give it value and that’s only going to increase. Women are well-positioned to thrive in a digital economy. “The skills of human interaction are ones that women, to some extent, are hard-wired to do better than men,” Colvin said. “Culture and socialization also contribute to the effect. But when you put it all together this is going to be an important fundamental change. And women are going to be advantaged in the coming economy.” The bad Yes, we’ve been through revolutions before, but never one this fast. Computing power doubles every two years. This makes it harder for us to plan out our careers, and identify the skills that can’t be automated. Because these changes are happening so fast, the number of workers whose skills suddenly become worthless will be larger than in past transitions. Men will especially feel the brunt of the changes. “Men, again on average, do extremely well with systems, rules, analyzing systems,” Colvin said. “That has in general served them extremely well for hundreds of years as the economy has developed. But those kinds of jobs are exactly the jobs that tech is now displacing.” The ugly If self-driving cars and automated drone delivery become a reality, what happens to every delivery driver, truck driver and cab driver? Swaths of the population won’t be able to be retrained with skills needed in the new economy. Inequality will rise. “One way or another it’s going to be kind of brutal,” Kaplan said. “When you start talking about 30 percent of the U.S. population being on the edge of losing their jobs, it’s not going to be a pleasant life and you’re going to get this enormous disparity between the haves and the have nots.” DETAILS Publication title: Washington Post – Blogs; Washington Publication year: 2015 Publication date: Jul 29, 2015 PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 3 Section: Innovations Publisher: WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post Place of publication: Washington Country of publication: United States, Washington Publication subject: General Interest Periodicals–United States Source type: Blogs, Podcasts, &Websites Language of publication: English Document type: Blogs ProQuest document ID: 1702100322 Document URL: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1702100322?accountid=36783 Copyright: Copyright WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post Jul 29, 2015 Last updated: 2018-09-13 Database: ProQuest Central Database copyright ? 2019 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 3 Purchase answer to see full attachment Tags: digital media digital revolution online advertising Web version of a newspaper online newspaper User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.