Despite this demand for news, information, and opinion on Trump, newspaper circulations are down another 7 percent this year.
Cobbling together newspaper data that is less current and available than it once was, Pew estimates that the industry lost 7 percent of daily circulation in 2015 and 8 percent of ad revenues.
More up-to-date surveys of readership provide further cause for discouragement. Pew research in January 2016 found nearly everyone is following news of the presidential race. But only 5 percent said print newspaper coverage in the last week was their "most helpful" source (3 percent local papers and 2 percent national) — by far the lowest among available channels.
A broader study Pew did with the Knight Foundation around that same time found that 20 percent of adults said that they often get news from print newspapers. That was still slightly more than the 18 percent often getting news from social media sites.
But newspapers lagged behind local TV news (46 percent), cable TV news (31), network evening news (30), news websites (28) and radio (25) as a frequent source. When Pew began these studies in 2004, newspapers had a wide lead over the internet and radio and were close to even with TV.
Even as it matures, the digital sector is trickier to measure collectively — especially given what co-author and Pew's director of journalism research Amy Mitchell calls "co-dependence" between sectors. While big platform companies hog 65 percent of digital ad revenues, they depend on traditional news organizations for content. Those organizations, in turn, rely on Google and Facebook and newer platforms like Snapchat and Instagram for distribution.An inability to peddle newspapers in this atmosphere is like not being able to sell ice water in the Sahara.
What is the problem? Bias? Outdated material before it reaches the hands of readers? A dying readership, as the average reader now seems to be 90?
I say talent. Don't underestimate the role of the drop in the level of talent at newspapers in their demise.
It used to be newshounds went to newspapers. Then in the 1980s, the majority headed for television. Still do. But now some of the best talent gravitates to online outlets, which are riskier but can be more rewarding as that is where the stars emerge. Newspaper wages continue to be low, but as long as there are Social Justice Warriors wanting to change the world, newsrooms will be staffed.
Management comes from the newsrooms. Promoting a reporter to managing editor to publisher is cheaper than hiring MBAs. Of course, you get what you pay for. The bean counters who kept the newspapers afloat are gone.
Newspapers had their chance 10 years ago to transition to the Internet but management refused, and not just at the place I worked. Throughout the trade, managers failed to see their cash cow was about to run dry. Craigslist and others wiped out the classified ads sections. Google ate into the ad revenue, including local ads. Newspaper managers fell for the Righthaven nonsense in which they sued people who linked to their sites. After a judge killed that copyright trolling, most newspapers went into hiding behind paywalls, hoping it would all go away soon.
It will -- in the form of death.
I doubt many newspapers will survive. If you cannot attract readers and ads, and make more money in the Year of the Trump, you might as well close the shop and go into the real estate business.
But I had a nice run as a newspaperman -- 35+ years and a ton of awards. But that was then. This is now. I'm online, publishing books, and enjoying my retirement. Adapt or die.
Sadly for their non-newsroom employees, newspaper managers have chosen the latter.