You Mustn't Choose

It seems like such an intuitive answer. As the use of the Internet for things like news and current events, the use of traditional media like newspapers and television decreases. Why would you pay for a newspaper subscription when you can just google it and read it for free? 


Every few weeks, there seems to be a newspaper article or television special (if you use such archaic contraptions anymore) about the decline in readership for traditional medium. Take, for example this article from the New York Times about the drop in newspaper readership, and what companies are doing about it. Or this one in the Guardian. Or here on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if it's ironic that all of those links came from a Google search about "dropping newspaper sales", mainly because I've been informed several times I don't understand how to use the word ironic correctly.

Irony?

So, reader, you might be asking what exactly this post is about, if the conclusion seems inevitable. It seems obvious that newspaper readership is declining, and perhaps television will be next. Heck, there's even a website dedicated to keeping up with the death of newspapers.


Despite all of this, a recent post on Psypost.org boldly proclaims that "Internet does not make young people abandon traditional media." Really? If that's true, that would sure make the New York Times blush for crying wolf.


But while the title of the post may seem definitive, the reality is much more nuanced. The article states that "Admittedly, people in this age group (9-24) do watch TV and listen to radio and recorded music somewhat less today than 30 years ago." So that trend seems to be undeniable. However, later on in that same thought, the author states that "it seems like people use the internet to complement and not substitute older media" (italics added).

Taking a step back from objectivity (whatever that is), the author of this particular post feels that this matches his experience precisely. While an avid consumer of online media, it's not like I never pick up a newspaper or flip on the television. Indeed, speeches are better to watch live than see on the internet, where the buffering demon knows no mercy. And while this take on the issue may not be taken into account as much in the popular media, that does not mean there isn't any research on the subject.

So how do we explain this? First off, it is helpful to notice that oftentimes the percentages of dropping readership mentioned in the earlier articles are more-often-than-not in the single digits, and usually over a period of the last decade or so. Looking at it that way, it seems less like we need to put the newspaper industry on life support, and more like the market and consumers are simply making space for the rapidly maturing online media industry, which is more convenient for those with internet access, and usually cheaper as well.

And while we will miss the Encyclopedia Britannica, it's not like the New York Times or the Washington Post are going anywhere anytime soon.

Despite what these crybabies may say.