More People Now Get Campaign News From the Internet Than From Newspapers

Many more Americans are turning to the internet for campaign news this year as the web becomes a key source of election news. Television remains the dominant source, but the percent who say they get most of their campaign news from the internet has tripled since October 2004 (from 10% then to 33% now).

While use of the web has seen considerable growth, the percentage of Americans relying on TV and newspapers for campaign news has remained relatively flat since 2004. The internet now rivals newspapers as a main source for campaign news...

Overall, 72% of Americans cite TV as a main source of campaign news, compared to 33% who cite "the internet," 29% who mention newspapers, and 21% who get their news mainly from radio.  Within these totals, there are stark divides by age and by political party.

*Among 18-29 year olds, only 17% say newspapers are a main source of campaign news, compared to 49% who cite the internet. In stark contrast, only 12% of people age 65 or older say that the internet is a prime source of campaign news, while 45% mention newspapers. In other words, the netroots is rising and the "dead tree" media (aka, "legacy media") is falling.  
*Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to get their campaign news from newspapers (41% vs. 22%) and the internet (34% vs. 24%). Democrats and Republicans equally (31% each) cite radio as a main source for campaign news.

*One last finding that I believe is highly revealing: Fox News has overwhelmingly more Republican than Democratic viewers (52%-17% who get "most" of their campaign news from that network). So, what we've got is Republicans self-reinforcing (e.g., "Obama is a SOCIALIST!!!!") by watching the "unfair and unbalanced" network, while Democrats get their campaign news from a much wider variety of sources.

By the way, I've been distracted with the campaign, but in the context of this Pew study, did you guys hear about the Christian Science Monitor's decision to "stop publishing a daily print edition in favor of its Web site?"  And check this out:

[The Christian Science Monitor] may not be alone for long. Yesterday, the Audit Bureau of Circulations released a disastrous bi-annual readership report. Daily circulation dropped another 4.6% among 507 reporting newspapers to roughly 38.2 million copies, for a period of six months ending on Sept. 30. The circulation drop was less pronounced at just 2.6% for the six months preceding it. Just yesterday, the Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times announced another 75 editorial cuts in its newsroom. It laid off a group of business employees last week and, in February, laid off some 100 to 150 people, including 40 to 50 in the newsroom.

"I don't know for sure that print is dead, but I don't think it's doing very well," says Yemma...

The bottom line here is that things are changing fast, the old-time model of a newspaper every morning at your doorstep fading into the dustbin of history, while the netroots rises (and TV and radio keep chugging along, apparently). Is this a good thing, a bad thing, or a mixed bag? Personally, I lean towards the latter: it's a very bad thing if high-quality journalism - particularly the kind that investigates, hold public officials accountable, reports in the interest of citizens - goes the way of the Dodo bird. On the other hand, how much high quality, citizen-oriented, non-"infotainment" journalism do we really see anymore?  

Comments