The Fact is, in Real Terms, Newspaper Circulation Has Been on the Decline Since 1930s

Posted by Ben Compaine

The interview citing Bob Cauthorn that Vin Crosby posted Sept. 6 puts the focus once again on the declining popularity of newspapers in the American media mix. Bob places the blame on the newspaper owners. David LaFontaine, the author of the article, associates the declining circulation to “corporate demands for 20-30 percent profits.”

The fact is, newspapers have been declining in use not only since the Internet gave us new alternatives. The slide started with radio in the 1930s.

The heyday of newspapers was in the late 19th century, as expanding literacy combined with the development of the steam-driven rotary press, a market economy and wood pulp-based newsprint to make the mass circulation penny press possible. From the mid-1800s to the 1920s, newspapers were the only mass circulation daily news and information medium in the media barnyard. That changed with radio. It accelerated with television. The Internet is just the latest information technology that has added to the choices that consumers and advertisers have for obtaining and creating information.

Some numbers: In 1930, there were 1.3 newspapers sold per household. In other words, on average households subscribed to more than one paper, perhaps a morning and evening paper. By 1940 – by the time radio was ubiquitous—it had fallen to under 1.2 per household. There was a slight up tick in 1950, but then the downward spiral continued: by 1980 it was .77, in 1990 .67 and in 2003 under .50— on average only half of households bought a daily paper. The number of newspapers sold per 100 adults follows a similar slope. In absolute numbers, daily newspaper circulation peaked about 20 years ago at 63 million and has fallen about 13% since then.

What this indicates is that we can debate whether it is greedy publishers who have ruined modern journalism, or blame big cities, or lay it on the convenience of the telephone or..or..or…Many variables are at work: the sprawl of cities and changing work patterns took the steam out of evening newspapers. But a great force has been the effect of radio, broadcast TV, now cable networks and Web sites that compete for a constant pool (as percent of GDP) of advertising expenditures and consumer expenditures.

I could further contend that newspapers today are as high quality as they have ever been. After all, in what by-gone era were more than a handful of dailies considered “quality?” Was the Kansas City Star higher quality in 1955 than today? The Huntington (WVA) Herald-Dispatch? On the other hand, we do know that several major papers have raised the bar. Knight-Ridder’s Philadelphia Inquirer is generally regarded as being far superior today (though perhaps a rung below its Knight-run peak in the 1980s) than under independent owner Walter Annenberg. The Chicago Tribune is far more respected than when it was the plaything of Col. McCormick. Win some, lose some.

But the real lesson here is that the decline of print newspapers—at least as measured by circulation—is not new and not traceable to any single or pair of deteriorating elements. Rather it is part of the organic life of the media. There is far more competition for everyone’s money and attention. Publishers, journalists and the rest of us must learn to live with it. The trends may be slowed by tweaking with the newspaper’s format or content, but the overall direction is not.