Special Issue Editors' Comments

Abstract

spring 1993, a group of journalists, industry researchers arid academic scholars put together a special issue of Newspaper Research]ournal ' to address the impact of changes in technology and society on the newspaper industry and its future. The issue looked at competition from television news, at the long-term impact of circulation, loss, at the increasing complexity of the media markets in which newspapers compete for attention and at the relationship between female readers and newspapers. These issues continue to challenge the newspaper business today, just as was predicted. On the other hand, the volume failed in a couple of its predictions. Some technology discussed in the issue has not turned out to be relevant, e.g., electronic tablets did not create the impact they were predicted to have. There was no discussion of the impact of Internet or of 24/7 cable programs on newspaper use. And there was no discussion of the impact of newspapers being publicly owned companies and therefore responsible to Wall Street for large profit margins, although Leo Bogart mentioned briefly the relationship between newspaper content and economic performance in his article.Ten years later, it seemed critical to focus again on the future of newspapers. the last 10 years, technological and social changes seem only to have accelerated, and it is even more common for scholars and practitioners alike to bemoan the challenges to print news.A critical feature of current discussions about the newspaper industry's future is the lack of agreement among journalists, newspaper managers and newspaper investors concerning the relationship between quality of content and the financial performance of newspapers. Some editors and many researchers continue to think that investment in coverage will pay off in higher penetration, oirciilnHori n rid revenues. But a significant portion of newspaper managers apparently doubt the strength of this relationship, which allows them to assume that cutting expenses will not damage their financial performance. Still others assume that the connection is so long term that newspaper good will can be mined for short-run financial gain with the consequences occurring far into the future. Mining good will for short-run profits allows managers to appear as though they are running the newspaper well, while avoiding the long-run consequences of this process. When these consequences are realized, these managers will have retired. This approach can be summarized by John Maynard Keynes' quote: In the long run we are all dead. Whatever managers and editors assume, the assumptions affect their decisions about increasing investment in the number and quality of journalists, the newshole and other features of newspaper content that have been linked in the research literature with news quality.Indeed, some of the strategies pursued by newspaper companies have raised concerns among scholars, editors, journalists, managers and industry critics about the future of journalism in American newspapers. Some newspaper companies have extracted high profits through disinvestment in newsrooms, as well as cutting expenses in the circulation, advertising and marketing departments. Concern about profit-driven management has led to meetings among industry observers and calls to industry leaders to reinvest in their newsrooms not just to serve the public but to maintain the financial performance and long-term health of their companies. This movement, which you will read about in this issue, has been titled Journalism, Good Business. It rests on the assumption that investment in the newsroom will improve journalistic performance, which will attract readers and consequently increase advertising revenue.The assumed connection between good journalism and good business rests on perceptions, experience, research and theory. Certainly the relation between journalism and business is far from a perfect correlation. …