Legacy Media - the end is near
"In the UK, trust in the media has fallen 20% since 2015 and shows no signs of levelling out."
As the Apple Daily hangs on by a thread here in Hong Kong, the media scene is evolving rapidly. Some trends mirror those seen worldwide; other changes arise from the civil unrest and fall-out from COVID-19. A perfect storm in many ways.
Newspapers continue their relentless decline in circulation as the Internet eats away at their customer base. In the UK, former circulatory war titans look battered and worn out.
For example, the Sun once printed four million copies daily and earned £ 4 million in weekly profits. Today, the paper prints 500,000 copies, and losses are mounting to £200 million. Owner Rupert Murdoch has declared the paper worthless, in part due to payouts for phone hacking and other crimes.
The Apple Daily had a circulation of around 400,000 in 1997 and is now down at 70,000. That decline was well underway before its current troubles. Likewise, the South China Morning Post, at one time the most profitable newspaper in the world, saw its profit decline since peaking in 1997 at HK$805 million. It is now adopting a paywall approach for the online version.
Many legacy news outlets' futures look bleak unless they adopt business models that appeal to the young. How exactly to do that is not clear. This brings home a stark point made by a journalist friend: newspapers are there to make money. If you don’t make money, you fail.
TV news channels are experiencing similar impacts, as the young are not tuning in. As one commentator observed, "Broadcast TV is so dead that young people don't even recognise the corpse." The same applies to print media, as no one under 35 regularly purchases a hard-copy newspaper.
For many legacy media organisations such as the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, and the rest of the corporate entities, is the writing is on the wall? In a recent debate, these organisations attracted the remark 'zombies walking towards their demise'. That's a tad overblown but indicative of the challenges they face.
The Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020 provides a comprehensive and thought-provoking insight into the seismic shifts jolting the news media world. The changes identified are profound.
Only after Covid-19 arrived did people prove willing to pay for online news. An uptick in subscriptions occurred in 2020, although it is unclear if this is sustainable. Evidence shows that subscription fatigue soon creeps in, with people dropping out after a period. That, in turn, can drive online news outlets to adopt click-bait tactics. These involve increasingly sensational headlines that bear no resemblance to the facts.
Also, people are spending less time on Facebook and opting for Apps with high levels of privacy, such as WhatsApp. Concern about misinformation and disinformation remains high despite efforts by platforms and publishers to build public confidence.
In the UK, trust in the media has fallen 20% since 2015 and shows no signs of levelling out. In Hong Kong, in 2019 alone, confidence in the press fell by 16%. Undoubtedly, coverage of the protests was a factor, as all sides questioned the validity of the stories presented.
In Hong Kong, Now TV news enjoys the top spot for trust, followed by RTHK news. Interestingly, while the Apple Daily enjoyed wide circulation, the public rates it low on trustworthiness. Although it did hold officials' feet to the fire much of the time — something that’s needed — it also went overboard with inflated stories. Meanwhile, only 38% of people worldwide trust news outlets most of the time.
The Reuters study makes a couple of things clear. First, the use of smartphones to access news continues to grow in importance. Some 66% of people now use the device to follow the news. Second, there is a distinct preference for visual messages rather than the written word. Hence, video podcasts and audio are gaining in popularity.
For me, political debates on legacy TV channels such as CNN, Fox, the BBC and Channel 4 have become unedifying exercises in point-scoring without exploring issues. These debates are staged, with some aimed at ambushing one party or another. Activist journalists, as moderators, often attempt to score points instead of listening and examining the issues. Without a doubt, the best example is the Cathy Newman interview with Professor Jordan Peterson in 2018.
Newman suffered cognitive dissonance because she didn't listen to Peterson's sensible, moderate replies to her loaded questions. Instead, she ploughed on with her agenda. Soon, she found herself confronted with truths that exposed the falsehood of her worldview. She then stalled and struggled to recover. The interview, which was viewed over 30 million times on YouTube, generated many memes.
Hence, you can see why the quality of debate has eroded when activist journalist brings their bias to the game.
On a more positive note, what the Internet takes away, it gives back. Because legacy media outlets no longer have a monopoly or much control over the message, other people fill the niche. In particular, internet-based, long-form interviews that allow participants to explore issues and develop ideas while debating in a nonjudgmental way prove popular. Joe Rogan has made a great success of this format. Other examples are Triggernometry and the work done by Jordan Peterson.
It suggests that a market exists for honest and open debate, although it is not clear that the legacy media can meet that demand, given inherent bias.
Reuters research also found that more people say they actively avoid the news. That figure has risen 32% in the UK in the past two years. Data suggests that boredom, anger, and sadness over Brexit drove that avoidance.
People also say they avoid the news because it harms their mood or they feel powerless to change events. Many of us recognise that sentiment.
June 2021
Newspapers continue their relentless decline in circulation as the Internet eats away at their customer base. In the UK, former circulatory war titans look battered and worn out.
For example, the Sun once printed four million copies daily and earned £ 4 million in weekly profits. Today, the paper prints 500,000 copies, and losses are mounting to £200 million. Owner Rupert Murdoch has declared the paper worthless, in part due to payouts for phone hacking and other crimes.
The Apple Daily had a circulation of around 400,000 in 1997 and is now down at 70,000. That decline was well underway before its current troubles. Likewise, the South China Morning Post, at one time the most profitable newspaper in the world, saw its profit decline since peaking in 1997 at HK$805 million. It is now adopting a paywall approach for the online version.
Many legacy news outlets' futures look bleak unless they adopt business models that appeal to the young. How exactly to do that is not clear. This brings home a stark point made by a journalist friend: newspapers are there to make money. If you don’t make money, you fail.
TV news channels are experiencing similar impacts, as the young are not tuning in. As one commentator observed, "Broadcast TV is so dead that young people don't even recognise the corpse." The same applies to print media, as no one under 35 regularly purchases a hard-copy newspaper.
For many legacy media organisations such as the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, and the rest of the corporate entities, is the writing is on the wall? In a recent debate, these organisations attracted the remark 'zombies walking towards their demise'. That's a tad overblown but indicative of the challenges they face.
The Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020 provides a comprehensive and thought-provoking insight into the seismic shifts jolting the news media world. The changes identified are profound.
Only after Covid-19 arrived did people prove willing to pay for online news. An uptick in subscriptions occurred in 2020, although it is unclear if this is sustainable. Evidence shows that subscription fatigue soon creeps in, with people dropping out after a period. That, in turn, can drive online news outlets to adopt click-bait tactics. These involve increasingly sensational headlines that bear no resemblance to the facts.
Also, people are spending less time on Facebook and opting for Apps with high levels of privacy, such as WhatsApp. Concern about misinformation and disinformation remains high despite efforts by platforms and publishers to build public confidence.
In the UK, trust in the media has fallen 20% since 2015 and shows no signs of levelling out. In Hong Kong, in 2019 alone, confidence in the press fell by 16%. Undoubtedly, coverage of the protests was a factor, as all sides questioned the validity of the stories presented.
In Hong Kong, Now TV news enjoys the top spot for trust, followed by RTHK news. Interestingly, while the Apple Daily enjoyed wide circulation, the public rates it low on trustworthiness. Although it did hold officials' feet to the fire much of the time — something that’s needed — it also went overboard with inflated stories. Meanwhile, only 38% of people worldwide trust news outlets most of the time.
The Reuters study makes a couple of things clear. First, the use of smartphones to access news continues to grow in importance. Some 66% of people now use the device to follow the news. Second, there is a distinct preference for visual messages rather than the written word. Hence, video podcasts and audio are gaining in popularity.
For me, political debates on legacy TV channels such as CNN, Fox, the BBC and Channel 4 have become unedifying exercises in point-scoring without exploring issues. These debates are staged, with some aimed at ambushing one party or another. Activist journalists, as moderators, often attempt to score points instead of listening and examining the issues. Without a doubt, the best example is the Cathy Newman interview with Professor Jordan Peterson in 2018.
Newman suffered cognitive dissonance because she didn't listen to Peterson's sensible, moderate replies to her loaded questions. Instead, she ploughed on with her agenda. Soon, she found herself confronted with truths that exposed the falsehood of her worldview. She then stalled and struggled to recover. The interview, which was viewed over 30 million times on YouTube, generated many memes.
Hence, you can see why the quality of debate has eroded when activist journalist brings their bias to the game.
On a more positive note, what the Internet takes away, it gives back. Because legacy media outlets no longer have a monopoly or much control over the message, other people fill the niche. In particular, internet-based, long-form interviews that allow participants to explore issues and develop ideas while debating in a nonjudgmental way prove popular. Joe Rogan has made a great success of this format. Other examples are Triggernometry and the work done by Jordan Peterson.
It suggests that a market exists for honest and open debate, although it is not clear that the legacy media can meet that demand, given inherent bias.
Reuters research also found that more people say they actively avoid the news. That figure has risen 32% in the UK in the past two years. Data suggests that boredom, anger, and sadness over Brexit drove that avoidance.
People also say they avoid the news because it harms their mood or they feel powerless to change events. Many of us recognise that sentiment.
June 2021
Copyright © 2015