Resistance is Futile:
The Newspaper’s Struggle for Survival in the Modern World
Melissa Trezza
Ottawa University
“Newspapers cannot be defined by the second word – paper. They’ve got to be defined by the first – news.” – Arthur Sulzberger, Junior, New York Times Publisher (Hope, 2002, p. 8). When it comes to the plethora of news sources available today, the newspaper is not one which conjures up images of fun and excitement. If one is looking for flashy imagery or spontaneity, one looks to the television, or increasingly, the internet. According to University of North Carolina professor and author of The Vanishing Newspaper: Saving Journalism in the Information Age, Philip Meyer, the “last daily newspaper reader will check out in 2044″ (Farhi, 2005, p. 54). With circulation down, readers disenchanted, and an ever-rising internet threat, how can this news giant possibly survive and keep from devolving into the banal and obsolete relic it seems destined to become? The answer is really quite simple: figure out what consumers want and diversify by embracing technology.
There are several factors that are contributing to the downward turn of the newspaper business; one of those is poor circulation numbers. Circulation has been down for the past twenty years, going down even faster in the last few years than ever before. In 2004, circulation was down nationwide 1.9% (Farhi, 2005, p. 54). More specifically, the only major daily newspaper in the Atlanta area, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, with an audience of approximately 2.3 million (including print and online subscribers), has seen its’ subscribership drop more than 8% in the last five years (the Sunday edition has dropped a whopping 15+%) (Morton, 2007, p. 68). The paper has offered “buy outs” to 80 of its’ 475 employees – the first in its’ history (Morton, 2007, p. 68). Unfortunately, circulation statistics tell only part of the story. The bigger question is: Why is circulation down?
One reason circulation is down so much is the general, and growing, mistrust of news journalists. There have been several scandals that have rocked the industry over the last few years that have wreaked havoc on their reputation. The scandal involving now former New York Times reporter, Jayson Blair, was probably the most widely publicized. Blair was forced to resign after having been found to have not only plagiarized many of his stories from other reporters, but he even fabricated some stories entirely (Farhi, 2005, p. 54). In 2004, former USA Today reporter, Jack Kelley, was investigated and found to have faked stories and the evidence supporting them, plagiarized from other publications, and lied in speeches he had given (Farhi, 2005, p. 54). Finally, in 2005, the well-known former New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, was deeply involved in the Valerie Plame-Lewis “Scooter” Libby CIA leak investigation. Probably more importantly, she was deemed by many to have been tied to the Bush Administration, after purportedly displaying a pro-Iraq War stance prior to the initiation of the war – particularly in regards to the controversial WMD’s (weapons of mass destruction) (Farhi, 2005, p. 54). It is difficult to gain the public’s trust when such rampant corruption abounds. Perhaps some investment in quality journalists is in order.
Despite high profit margins (in comparison to almost any other industry), market-driven journalism has also negatively impacted newspapers financially. With market-driven journalism, what newspapers decide to print is dependent upon what they believe the readers want to see. Many in the field believe that with this brand of journalism, “substantial journalism” is sacrificed “for popular, brain-candy features” (Schultz & Voakes, 1999, p. 31). According to Tanjev Schultz and Paul S. Voakes, “investor’s pressure to produce new efficiencies every financial quarter is leading to an abandonment of long-term goal-setting for journalistic work” (1999, p. 24). Focusing on pleasing Wall Street leads to less hiring and newsgathering. This, in turn, leads to less news, which equals less readers, according to many experts (Farhi, 2005, p. 60). Although market-driven journalism is supposed to help increase stock prices, in 2005, they dropped 20% on average (Morton, 2006, p. 68). According to Washington Post Editor and co-author of The News About the News: American Journalism in Peril, Robert G. Kaiser, the newspaper industry has simply gotten used to the high profits of the 1980’s (Farhi, 2005, p. 60):
If you went to a newspaper publisher’s meeting in 1975 and told them their papers could make 15% profits, they would have been overjoyed. Now, the standard is 20%, 30%. Why? Because it’s possible, for no other reason. (Farhi, 2005, p. 60-1)
Kaiser believes that newspapers should be putting more money back into the newsrooms and hiring quality reporters, rather than seeking to please stockholders (Farhi, 2005, p. 62). Although profits slipped ever-so-slightly during the first nine months of 2005 due to “sluggish” advertising and increased printing costs, their profits were still $.19 for every dollar taken in (down from $.20/dollar) (Morton 68). Greed, it seems has gotten in the way of more consequential news and real journalism.
One of the major struggles newspapers face in their fight for survival is strong competition. People spend just 3% of their income on purchasing media and the competition for that small percentage is extremely tight (Schultz & Voakes, 1999, p. 24). Unfortunately for the media world, newspapers are not the only ones suffering. All of “old media” (newspapers, magazines, radio, television) is losing readers, listeners, and viewers – in some instances, newspapers are actually doing better than others (Farhi, 2005, p. 55). For instance, there were one third less magazine titles published in 2004 than in 1999, according to the National Directory of Magazines (Farhi, 2005, p. 56). Adding to that dismal statistic is the survey conducted by the Pew Research Center indicating that only one-quarter of Americans read a magazine “yesterday”; compared to the statistic in 1994, which indicated that one third of Americans had done so (Farhi, 2005, p. 56). It is bad news for the majority of radio as well. Both consolidation and deregulation have wreaked havoc on the industry. Satellite radio, high-definition radio, podcasts, and cell phones are also putting a dent in the ratings. Many stations are dropping news altogether from their daily lineups. The only stations which appear to be doing well are all-news stations; their numbers are stable (Farhi, 2005, p. 56). In fact, NPR (National Public Radio) has actually increased its’ listeners over the years (Farhi, 2005, p. 56). Perhaps the only form of “old media” doing worse than newspapers are the broadcast networks and local television stations. Between 1985 and 2005, news programs lost more viewers than newspapers lost readers (Farhi, 2005, p. 56). Both the broadcast networks and local stations have been losing ratings for years – prime time, soap operas, talk shows, game shows, even sports (Farhi, 2005, p. 56). Although the “big three” – ABC, NBC, and CBS – still get an average of 2.9 million viewers per weeknight, that number is down by 10 million (26%) when compared to the ratings of the mid-1980’s (Farhi, 2005, p. 57). The growth seen in cable television news from 1995 to 2005 was mostly due to expanding availability, but now, it seems, that expansion is over (Farhi, 2005, p. 55). From 2002 to 2004, there was no growth with the exception of 2004, due to the presidential election (Farhi, 2005, p. 55). Cable news has an average of 2 to 3 million viewers at one time, but they are fickle – coming and going, watching off and on throughout the day or to catch “breaking news” when it occurs (Farhi, 2005, p. 55). The “experts” may be focused on the impending downfall of the newspaper industry, but when investigated more thoroughly, it is apparent that everyone should be worried.
Perhaps the only form of media that does not need to worry about becoming obsolete any time soon, and the biggest perceived threat to newspapers today, is the internet. One large advantage the internet has over all of “old media” is its’ speed and efficiency. Information comes fast and furious over the lines; it takes just minutes to upload new information and send it out to the masses. Comparing it to print media like newspapers, it has the advantage of almost no distribution costs (Farhi, 2005, p. 57). There is no paper to buy (which has endured several price increases over the last few years), no press to run, and no deliveries to be made (i.e. no gas to buy). However, when the real numbers are checked, it seems, at least for the moment, the internet is not quite the news beast many believe it to be. In 2004, just 2% of Americans said that the internet was their only news source and that they spent, on average, only seven minutes reading news online (Farhi, 2005, p. 57). Additionally, there are not many websites actually making money; and many of those that are, are online versions of print newspapers (Farhi, 2005, p. 58). The trend is certainly leaning toward the internet, but for now, it is not the fierce competition that most believe it is.
The largest threat on the internet to the newspaper industry may be the web log, or “blog”, as they are more commonly known. A blog is a personal website where people can post and write just about anything they want. Most “bloggers”, as the blog writers are known, usually update their sites several times a day – giving them superiority over the turtle’s pace of the newspaper. Bloggers give commentary and analyses on practically everything. The main competition to the newspapers comes from those blogs that discuss news events. One of the most popular websites on the internet is actually a blog – The Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com) (Cristol, 2002, p. 8). With blogs, the masses are taking journalism into their own hands – especially young people, who are more prone to “blogging”. Bloggers have become the “columnist, reporter, analyst, and publisher” all in one (Cristol, 2002, p. 8). Blogger fans claim they are more credible than conventional news media because there is no corporate ownership, no censorship, and no advertiser to appease (Cristol, 2002, p. 9). There is no one to satisfy but the blogger himself and his readership. There is no question that blogs are gaining more and more ground. Even MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) seems to be legitimizing their existence with Blogdex, which tracks blogs and provides a listing service for the internet phenomena (Cristol, 2002, p. 9). Despite this apparent buzz, in 2005, 56% of adults had no idea what a blog was, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll; while less than one third of those polled said they were “very/somewhat” familiar with them (Farhi, 2005, p. 59). Regardless of their growing popularity, questions of blogs’ creditability have risen. Is there true objectivity? What is the quality of their information? Since bloggers do not, technically, have to answer to anyone, are there really any standards or ethics in play (Cristol, 2002, p. 9)? In the end, it may not even matter how popular blogs become to those in the newspaper business. Bloggers still need to get their news information from somewhere. They need information and stories to “blog” about. Where do they get that information? The answer, of course, is from traditional news media sources like the newspaper (Farhi, 2005, p. 59). Thankfully for those in the newspaper business, bloggers are still somewhat dependent upon them.
One aspect, in particular, of the media world where newspapers are facing adversity, while the internet is thriving, is in advertising. In 1999, classified advertising was a $17 billion market – 40% of which was going to newspapers alone (Muzslay, 1999, p. 10). In 1999, Forrester Research, Inc. predicted a $5 billion loss in classified revenue by newspapers to the internet by 2003 (Muzslay, p. 10). Forrester also surveyed advertisers, who planned to put 22% of their advertising budgets toward the internet by 2000 (in 1999 only 11% of their budgets went to the internet) (Muzslay, 1999, p. 10). The Forrester survey was correct with the former. In 2006, online classified advertising recorded sales of $3.1 billion; in contrast, newspaper classified ads have dropped about $3 billion over the last five years (Diaz, 2007, para. 6). There are many reasons why advertising seems to be going the way of the internet. Advertisers, for one, see their target audiences with a predilection towards the internet. There are also many benefits of online advertising, including the ability to place links to other websites or ads, pictures, resumes, company profiles, and national listings (Muzslay, 1999, p. 11). But probably the biggest reason for advertisers to turn to online advertising is that it makes more sense financially. Just $.40 of internet advertising can bring more profit than $1.00 of advertising in print form (Morton, 2007, p. 68). Once again, printing and distribution costs play a large role. Although it seems like the benefits of online advertising outweigh the negatives, according to Kevin McCourt, the Newspaper Association of America’s (NAA) Director of Real Estate Advertising and Online Classifieds, “newspapers are still the first place people go” (Muzslay, 1999, p. 10). Newspapers can gain an advantage here by associating themselves with websites – or by creating their own. A newspaper’s name on a website helps assure users that the site is trustworthy because of its’ longstanding, highly regarded reputation. In this same vein, newspapers will not sell anything illegal – as opposed to the widely unfettered and unchecked World Wide Web (Muzslay, 1999, p. 11). McCourt believes that newspapers can lose classified ads by either a) ignoring the internet, or b) embracing the internet, but not advising advertisers that they have done so (Muzslay, 1999, p. 10). The only way to fight this battle is through adaptation – newspapers must go online to recapture lost advertising revenue.
In addition to the internet, another modern problem facing the newspaper industry are the changing reading habits of the population. In the 1960’s, a whopping 80% of U.S. adults read the paper on a weekday, while by 1997, that percentage dropped to 58% (Schultz & Voakes, 1999, p. 23). People are just generally too busy, it seems, to pick up a paper and go to the trouble of sitting down to actually read it. It is because of this hectic lifestyle, that there is “intense competition for leisure time” (Schultz & Voakes, 1999, p. 23). Additionally, there are more and more people who are “mobile” – driving around from place to place for their jobs, and less involved with the community as a whole (Schultz & Voakes, 1999, p. 23). The segment of the population with the lowest amount of newspaper readers are young people – those in their mid 20’s to early 30’s. According to the Newspaper Association of America, in 1970, 77% of those between the ages of 25 and 34 read the paper on a daily basis, while in 2006, that percentage dropped to a dismal 35% (Sessions Stepp, 2007, p. 34). Another study conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in 2006, showed that only 22% of those under 30 had read the newspaper the previous day (Sessions Stepp, 2007, p. 34). Research Pew conducted in 2005, indicated that the time spent watching and/or viewing the news, in general, dropped 16% between 1995 and 2005 for those under the age of 30 (Farhi, 2005, p. 58). The younger generation likes the speed, efficiency, and variety of around-the-clock, perpetually available, news and information sources (Schultz & Voakes, 1999, p. 24). They tend to associate mass media with the “moving images” of television, movies, and video games – not printed material (Schultz & Voakes, 1999, p. 24). If all of this was not enough to entice the younger generation, online information is usually free! If newspapers want to recapture the disaffected, youthful masses, they must determine what they want and find a way to satisfy those demands.
As if new and improved media sources and lack of interest from the public was not enough, even journalists, in particular young journalists, seem to be doubtful of the newspaper industry’s future. In 1991, one third of journalists thought that newspapers would be a “less important part of American life” in the next ten years. In 1999, that number grew to 55% (Schultz & Voakes, 1999, p. 23). In 1996, even the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication “agreed that students should stay away from newspaper careers, and instead seek out new media” (Schultz & Voakes, 1999, p. 23). As authors Tanjev Schultz and Paul S. Voakes stated, “It can be hard to convince people of newspapers’ significance if journalists themselves have so little faith to begin with” (1999, p. 31). Many young journalists working for newspapers “love their jobs but fear newspapers are dinosaurs” (Sessions Stepp, 2007, p. 34). Reporter Deborah Hirsch was aware of the slump newspapers were in when she started in the field, but she believes there is still hope, “People will always need information. I will have a job. It may be different, but I will have a job” (Sessions Stepp, 2007, p. 37). Young journalists at the Charlotte Observer “value what papers do but find them often dull, out of touch and sluggish” (Sessions Stepp, 2007, p. 34). Hirsch shares the opinion of many others when she says, “The newspaper delivered to my door isn’t that much different from the newspaper that was delivered to my parents’ door when I was five years old” (Sessions Stepp, 2007, p. 35). For these journalists, it can be particularly frustrating – they have tons of ideas, but not much power to implement them. They are usually held back by those in the higher positions, who are often older than they are, and used to the old ways of doing things. It is the battle between “oldthink” and “newthink”. The younger journalists at the Charlotte Observer often find the paper “boring, too slow to change, and too tied to middle-age tastes” (Sessions Stepp, 2007, p. 35). The younger staff members say they have encountered older people in the newsroom who do not know what IM (Instant Message) means, have confused MySpace with YouTube, and refused to use the term “hoodie” instead of “hooded garment” (Sessions Stepp, 2007, p. 35). Hirsch, who works for the Observer, has plenty of ideas, but they are not being acknowledged, let alone implemented. She suggests letting the customer decide which sections of the newspaper they would like to receive. She also thinks offering the newspaper in a podcast format might bring more readers in (Sessions Stepp, 2007, p. 36). If the younger generation is one of the audiences newspapers want to recoup, perhaps it would be wise to listen to the younger people on their own staff.
With the overabundance of depressing statistics available, it can be difficult to see any hope for the future, but hope is there if it is looked for. Writer Paul Farhi, for one, is not ready to accept the newspaper’s demise – “newspapers may have the best chance of any of the old media to survive in the new world media” (2005, p. 55). Despite the bleak data, there are inspiring data out there, as well. Statistics from Pew show that in 2004, most people were still getting their information from a variety of sources, including television, radio, magazines, and, most importantly, newspapers (Farhi, 2005, p. 57). This means that there is no one media outlet that is dominating the industry, so there is still room for the “lowly”, old newspaper. While young adults may be reading the newspaper in record low numbers, people in general, are still reading it. A Pew study shows that 42% of those surveyed read the paper yesterday in 2004 (up slightly from 2002) and only local television news reaches more people than newspapers (Farhi, 2005, p. 59). Industry profits are high, as well. Despite any decline in circulation they might be encountering, newspapers are achieving “historic profitability” – $.23 per dollar in 2004, according to Merrill Lynch analyst, Lauren Rich Fine (Farhi, 2005, p. 60). Newspapers have enjoyed much higher profit margins in comparison to almost every other industry in the world and profits and revenues are still rising (Farhi, 2005, p. 60). In fact, operating profits for newspapers are more than two times that of the Fortune 500 companies (Morton, 2006, p. 68). High profit margins are not the only thing keeping newspapers alive.
Thankfully, newspapers have more than profits on their side. One of the best intangible assets they have is tradition and an established reputation. The marketing world would point to newspapers’ solid brand name recognition with which not many websites can compete. They have been around forever and have established good reputations in that time (Farhi, 2005, p. 59). Writer Paul Farhi believes they also have “monopoly status” because there is typically only one major newspaper in most cities (Farhi, 2005, p. 59). Although there may be competition from other media sources, they usually do not have to compete with a local rival newspaper. When it comes to resources, newspapers are unmatched, as well. They generally have the largest news staff in town and available wire sources (Farhi, 2005, p. 59). Although there are a growing number of websites specializing in local information, the newspapers have been doing this for hundreds of years and everybody knows it. If local is what is wanted, the newspaper is where to turn. They have print information about local government, schools, taxes, entertainment, and sports – all in one location. Farhi opines that newspapers have the best customers in town, as well. Not only do they have a large number of them, more importantly, they are quality customers. Newspapers are still the best way for advertisers to reach “affluent, educated” people (Farhi, 2005, p. 59). An advertiser’s aim is not at young people, who typically have little in the way of disposable income. Their target is the older generation with money to spare (Farhi, 2005, p. 59). With all of these favorable qualities on their side, surely the newspaper can find a way to survive.
Even when taking into consideration all of the favorable attributes newspapers have going for them, it is, nevertheless, apparent that they must change in order to remain competitive. Many newspapers are already making some changes. One of the more simple strategies newspapers are beginning to try is printing smaller editions a few days per week (Farhi, 2005, p. 62). Another cost-saving method is to stop distribution to more distant locations. Delivering to these out-of-the-way subscribers actually costs more than it does to produce the paper (Morton, 2007, p. 68). Many believe newspapers need to bring the focus back to local news. This is truly where newspapers can find their niche. Some newspapers have begun to bring back the mobile journalist (“mojos”, as they are so fondly referred) – a reporter who works out of their car, equipped with a laptop, a cell phone, a camera, and other audio/visual equipment. They are then able to feed the stories they capture in their travels to the internet on a continual basis (Morton, 2007, p. 68). The upside of this growing trend is low expense and immediate, up-to-date news. The downside is that there is no real editing process, as the journalist on the scene has all the control. There is no one to verify that any of their information is accurate – a possible lawsuit waiting to happen, perhaps. Rather than focusing solely on costs, many newsrooms are simply changing their focus. With the ever-growing Spanish-speaking population, many are targeting that particular demographic by either printing Spanish editions or marketing to them in their current layouts (Farhi, 2005, p. 61). As mentioned earlier, another key demographic is the younger generation. More and more free and easy-to-read publications are popping up every day, to appease the youth’s tastes. For instance, the Morning News in Dallas publishes Quick, The Washington Post, produces Express, The Arizona Republic has The Rep, and the both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times both have similar papers (Farhi, 2005, p. 61). Another way to appeal to younger readers is to focus more on lifestyle and entertainment articles. This may not be the hard news many journalists prefer, but it is a way to get people to pick up the paper. Perhaps by combining, to some extent, all of these strategies the newspaper can help itself persevere.
Keeping up with the internet tidal wave is perhaps the ultimate battle newspapers must combat. As the saying goes, the best defense is a good offense. Several newspaper companies hopped on that bandwagon years ago by buying (or buying in to), and/or creating their own, websites. [In the meantime, The New York Times got themselves into the cable television world by spending $75 million in January of 2002 for a 15% stake in the Boston Red Sox (Cristol, 2002, p. 8).] Dow Jones purchased MarketWatch.com, The New York Times bought About.com, and The Washington Post acquired the popular Slate.com (Farhi, 2005, p. 61). Following is the list long list of organizations that co-founded and/or financially supported the career guidance website, CareerPath.com:
-
- Tribune Company
- The Washington Post Company
- Cox Interactive Media
- Gannett Company
- Hearst Corporation
- Knight Ridder
- New York Times Company
The Boston Globe
- The Chicago Tribune
- Los Angeles Times
- The New York Times
- San Jose Mercury News
- The Washington Post
- Times Mirror Company
- Tribune Company
- The Washington Post Company
- Cox Interactive Media
- Gannett Company
- Hearst Corporation
- Knight Ridder
- New York Times Company
(Muzslay, 1999, p. 11)
Surprisingly, this is actually just a sampling of the extensive list of the ninety newspapers affiliated with CareerPath.com. Besides investing in new technology, newspapers are also incorporating technology into their new business plans – using it to their advantage and allaying their readers (and in turn, their stockholders). Gannett, a large newspaper conglomerate that owns several media sources nationwide, sends video feeds of USA Today’s biggest stories every day to television stations it owns in fifteen states (Cristol, 2002, p. 8). Tribune Interactive sends news updates to Cingular Wireless subscribers (Cristol, 2002, p. 8). The newspaper industry is also increasing its’ “dialogue with readers” through blogs, message boards, and reader polls all available online (Morton, 2007, p. 68). Obviously, newspapers understand, or at least believe, that the future of media largely belongs to the internet.
“It may be that newspapers are dinosaurs. But then again, dinosaurs walked the earth for millions of years.” – Paul Farhi (2005, p. 8). While the dinosaurs were not destined to survive in the new world, newspapers do not have to suffer this same fate. Unlike the now fossilized giants, the newspaper industry has the ability and wherewithal to adapt and evolve into the new culture that is forming around it. If newspapers are to survive in this new media world, they must accept technology rather that run from it, and it seems, they are doing so.
References
Cristol, Hope. ”News in the digital age: newspapers embrace a multimedia future. (Society).” The Futurist 36.5 (Sept-Oct 2002): 8(2). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 7 Sept. 2007
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Diaz, Sam. “On the Internet, A Tangled Web Of Classified Ads: With So Many Sites, Sifting Is Difficult”. The Washington Post (31 Aug. 2007). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083002046.html.
Farhi, Paul. ”A bright future for newspapers: stop hanging the crepe. A contrarian argues that despite those discouraging circulation numbers, the old behemoths are well positioned to thrive in the new-media world.” American Journalism Review 27.3 (June-July 2005): 54(6). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 7 Sept. 2007
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Morton, John. ”Keeping the faith: newspapers are taking a beating, but don’t sound the death knell yet. The work they do will remain unique–and important.” American Journalism Review 28.1 (Feb-March 2006): 68(1). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 7 Sept. 2007
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Morton, John. ”Facing the future: newspapers are making necessary changes to endure in the Internet era.(THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS).” American Journalism Review 29.2 (April-May 2007): 68(1). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 7 Sept. 2007
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Muzslay, Leigh. ”Online ads stiff competition for newspapers.” St. Louis Journalism Review 30.220 (Oct 1999): 10(1). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 7 Sept. 2007
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Schultz, Tanjev, & Voakes, Paul S. “Prophets of gloom: Why do newspaper journalists have so little faith in the future of newspapers?” Newspaper Research Journal 20.2 (Spring 1999): (23). Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 7 Sept. 2007 <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Stepp, Carl Sessions. ”Caught in the contradiction: young journalists at the Charlotte Observer love their jobs. They value what papers do but find them often dull, out of touch and sluggish. They have passion for their craft but are positioning themselves for a future that may leave newspapers behind.” American Journalism Review 29.2 (April-May 2007): 34(6). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 7 Sept. 2007
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Vestey, Michael. ”The rag trade.” Spectator 294.9159 (Feb 21, 2004): 49(1). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 7 Sept. 2007
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
