After 35 years, Memphis is on the brink of becoming a city with two daily newspapers again, and while this unexpected newspaper war captures most of the attention, there is much more that is about to happen that is going to shake up the local media landscape.
Specifically, changes in ownership are expected with the medium where most residents of this region get their daily news: television. Unfortunately, none of the expected changes in ownership portend increased investments and stepped-up commitment to TV news.
The emphasis in reporting today is on the decline of newspaper journalism and the decreases in staffs of more than 55% since 2000 along with just under a 50% decrease in circulation from 59 million to 33 million.
Local television news has its own troubling trend lines.
The Hurdles
All in all, the same philosophy of “cut expenses to the bone” and “consolidate operations” that has made Gannett Company, Inc., the most ridiculed newspaper publisher in the country and likely the one most hated by its employees, is becoming common in the television industry.
Gannett’s poor reputation is not to say that the Daily Memphian, the digital newspaper whose business model is based on sending raiding parties on the Commercial Appeal, is not without its own risks. (We are hoping that it sees the value of a national caliber cartoonist to illuminate local issues – of course, Bill Day, former Commercial Appeal cartoonist, is the last of this breed in Memphis.) After all, before “Old Reliable” was bought by Gannett in a half-baked idea to create a “Tennessee network” of papers, it was owned by E. W. Scripps Co., but regardless of ownership, the newspaper’s online subscriptions have not come close to much smaller markets like Knoxville.
Into that reality comes the Daily Memphian who, without a printed newspaper, relies solely on online subscribers and the continuing largesse of donors who are not identified and whose influence on news coverage is at this point merely a promise to not get involved.
The recent meeting at Novel bookstore to introduce the new outlet underscored the market challenge. The room was filled but largely by older, white people, a profile that dominates the Commercial Appeal subscriber base (although whites only account for about one of three people living in Memphis and there is scant evidence that younger readers like millennials have the expectation of paying for news).
Bigger Ambitions
As part of the coverage about the decline of newspapers, a major story line has been their inability to create a profitable digital business model. With the exception of the Texas Tribune, other online, digital, local nonprofit newspaper ventures have much smaller staffs than Daily Memphian and have challenges of their own despite being free, unlike the Daily Memphian.
Most of the dozens of digital newspapers in the U.S. are small and were inspired by the need to fill coverage gaps that were created by budget and staff cuts to the larger local legacy newspaper.
That said, few have the same aspirations as Daily Memphian. The typical digital, nonprofit outlet is four to six years old, it is focused on local, and even neighborhood, news, and it has a fulltime staff of three or less.
The biggest challenge though for digital newspapers just might be the short attention span of Americans for the written word. After all, the average per online visit for the 50 largest U.S. newspapers is just barely more than two and a half minutes.
So far, the Daily Memphian has based its marketing on the star power of its marquee columnists and the vision of its creators, which results in it feeling self-absorbed at times and more about personalities than a description of the higher-caliber journalism-driven it plans to deliver.
Lost Opportunity
We had hoped that the launch of a new newspaper outlet would inspire Gannett to up its game, but so far, it’s clung to its race to the bottom, poaching articles from Nashville and Knoxville without even a paragraph making them relevant for Memphis.
The Commercial Appeal continues to have a cadre of talented, respected journalists, but rather than build on them by recruiting others with quality credentials, they are being augmented these days with interns.
All in all, Gannett is delivering on our low expectations, oblivious to the opening that the exodus of a large part of its staff gives it. For example, it could set out to be a daily newspaper known for vibrant, active young journalists mentored by veterans, and while it may seem counterintuitive, it could treat its print editions as a competitive advantage over the Daily Memphian because of the ubiquity of its presence on newsstands all over the community.
Gannett could see the challenge of its digital competitor as an opportunity to create a renewed newspaper, but if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, we’re not holding out much hope for it to value Memphis enough or care enough to upgrade the reputation of its newspaper by upgrading the newspaper itself.
No Hope For The Weary
Meanwhile, in the midst of this disruptive innovation on the newspaper side, there is major change afoot for television stations: after all, almost everything is up for sale.
Raycom Media, which owns WMC-TV Channel 5, is being bought by Gray Television Inc., for $3.65 billion. In a burst of PR excess, it describes the sale as a “transformative transaction that will create the single largest owner of top-rated local television stations and digital assets in the country.”
The sale is expected to be consummated in the last quarter of this year, and at that point, Gray Television will own 142 television stations serving 92 markets, the third largest portfolio of stations and markets in the country.
Unfortunately, for Memphis, Gray has a well-deserved reputation for cutting budgets, reducing staffs, and inspiring age and disability discrimination lawsuits. In addition, it has little experience in larger markets, so there’s no reason for optimism that WMC-TV will benefit from an investment in its reporting staff.
For Sale Signs
There was good news for Memphis. WREG-TV Channel 3, now owned by the Tribune Broadcasting (a subsidiary of the Tribune Media Company), was to be purchased for $3.9 billion by Sinclair Broadcast Group until the totally surprising rejection by the Federal Communications Commission.
Already, Sinclair has sold 23 of the Tribune stations with seven going to Fox Broadcasting Company, and the company is said to be interested in the purchase of Channel 3.
In addition, Fox has indicated an interest in purchasing WHBQ-TV Channel 13 as well. Channel 13 is now owned by Cox Media Group (and affiliated with Fox) and Cox is looking to sell 14 television stations through mergers or a partnership with a large ownership group. As of June, 2018, Fox owns and operates 17 stations and has current and pending affiliation with 225 additional television stations.
Nexstar Media Group, whose portfolio includes 171 television stations, is interested in buying Channel 3 and Channel 13, which raises the question of what they would do with Channel 24, which they own now, if they are successful.
There are also changes in the management of WKNO-TV coming in the near future, which offers the PBS affiliate the opportunity to be more assertive in coverage of local issues and creation of local programming, but that’s a subject for another day.
Aiming Higher
All in all, Memphis is a microcosm of the consolidation taking place with television stations across the U.S. just as newspapers have been doing for years, creating news deserts in numerous local markets. It leads to the question of what kind of deserts will be created by television mergers.
Here’s the thing; local television stations still have a larger audience than national or cable stations. While many observers worry that the increased consolidation could reduce the diversity of new voices in the U.S., we worry even more about the intense focus on increased profits and cuts in news staffs that contribute to the lazy journalism at most stations that gives us “blood in the streets” coverage and very little that results from investigative reporting.
This matters because of all the news media choices, its television news where the overwhelming majority of residents get the news, and it is likely that even with two newspapers, twice as many people will still get their news from TV.
Daily Memphian pledges to close the gap in newspaper journalism, but whatever “truth in place” means, we hope it means that the newspaper’s focus should be the gap in all of local journalism. Never has the need been greater.
***
Join us at the Smart City Memphis Facebook page for daily articles, reports, and commentaries relevant to Memphis and the conversations that begin here.
Sadly this won’t matter to most Memphians. Most people here are uneducated and/or disinterested in news, especially local news. Most never read a newspaper or magazine of any type. Their news is from car radio, local tv news, or more likely online in places like Facebook or Instagram. This will only matter for about 10-15% of our entire population. Sad but that’s just the way it is.
You are off by a wide margin, according to multiple polls over the past 10 years. There is a solid majority of Memphians who watch TV news.
Local tv news is horribly dumbed-down and is focused on sports and weather. All of the local tv stations are equally terrible. About the only other news you see on tv is about crime and violence and there is plenty of that to report on every day. In depth and investigative reporting doesn’t exist here any more. The Commercial Appeal hasn’t been important in about 20 years.
It’s embarrassing to watch Eric Barnes peacocking around and trotting out Calkins, Biggs, and Sanford like trained seals. Poor Otis gets used as a token to prove that the newspaper is interested in black readers.
I’m sick of Eric Barnes peacocking around like he’s some newspaper expert, and trotting out Calkins, Biggs, and Sanford who’s use as a token is embarassing.
Eric Barnes peacocking around like he’s a journalism magnate is laughable and the way he trots out Calkins, Biggs, and Sanford is silly. Especially since poor Sanford is merely a token.
Great Blog Smart City. Local investigative journalism is really lacking. In fact I have labeled some of it as “fake investigative news”. Yes, “News Deserts”. Don’t listen to me and more to the point.
Legendary newsman Bob Schieffer cited an astounding statistic on Sunday that shows just how cloistered and geographically insulated journalists have become over the past decade.
“In 2004, one reporter in eight lived in New York, Washington, or Los Angeles. That number is now down to one-in-five who live in those three places,” Schieffer said on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” the political talk show he hosted until 2015.
That statistic is from Schieffer’s new book, “Overload: Finding the Truth in Today’s Deluge of News.” Schieffer suggested that the geographical realignment has shut many Americans off from reputable local news outlets.
“In a lot of parts of the country right now, it’s not a question of bias news or too much news, it’s a question of no news,” he said, citing a statistic that 62 percent of Americans are getting their news from social media — websites like Facebook and Twitter.“You don’t know who to believe. Is it true, is it not true?” Schieffer said.
The only credible newspapers left in the country are THE NEW YORK TIMES and THE WASHINGTON POST. Almost everyone we know subscribes and pays for the digital editions of either one or the other.
Local newspapers are dead. Smartphones and social media have killed them.
Locally we have always had weak news organizations. The CA hasn’t been worth looking at in years. The new Daily Memphian won’t even come close to filling our media desert. People will not pay for local news unless it is consistent and of high quality. There are far too many free online news sources like Facebook and Twitter where you can instantly get local news. Our pathetic local tv stations all have apps that continually repackage their broadcasts and this is where most now get TV news, not by watching the TV set at 6 & 10 pm.
At the end of the day most Memphians simply do not care about local news. That is the real Seismic Shift in our media landscape.
I didn’t see the Bob Schieffer segment that Mr. Kent referenced, but a friend and I were talking about this very subject last week. And as Anonymous notes, The Times and The Post, (we would add a few magazines) are the only consistent producers of any remaining meaningful journalism in this country. The dire consequences of this will play out well beyond our lifetimes. I, for one, will be happy to support The Daily Memphian. I wish them well, as ventures such as this seem the best hope for the future.
I think it overly simplified to say that smartphones and social media, or even the internet more broadly, have killed newspapers though. True those things have certainly played a huge role, but it’s shortsighted to think that people are getting any real journalism via social media. After all, journalism has to come from somewhere and if it’s not coming from newspapers, well there’s probably not much substance to it. I think we’d all agree there’s next to nothing in the way of meaningful journalism coming from television.
We need look no further than the CA’s owner, Gannett, to see one of the biggest killers of local journalism. Gannett is by no means alone in the impossible quest to return newspapers to the glory days when they were cash cows. Those days will never return, so corporate owners / hedge funds are constantly trying to cut their way to profitability.
I would disagree that we have always had weak news organizations. The Commercial Appeal was a pretty good newspaper in its’ day. Certainly, it was one of the best in the region. It is sad to see what it has become.
The media has now decided to pick a sides on the political spectrum i.e. Fox on the right CNN on the left. Reporters seem them selves as progressive elements of change not just reporting the news. We are never to to get solid investigative reporting on the big three in Memphis: Taxes, Crime, Schools if reporters are worried about upsetting their worldview. For example as a past city council member has stated half the of the council thinks government should be run as efficiently as possible the other half think it should be a jobs bank for traditionally disadvantage peoples. As a progressive reporter you are never going to report on waste in government if it could result in traditionally disadvantaged people losing their jobs. Same with crime. If your worldview is the criminal justice is racist front to back as Sen Warren stated, you are never to going to report on flaws in the system that allow repeat violent criminals back on the street. Your worldview prevents you from exposing items that if corrected could result in more people in prison no matter how bad they are. You see the criminal as much a victim as much as the actual victim. All this leads to bad reporting and poor readership.
Last Anonymous:
That is a vast oversimplification of the news business. If reporters are liberals who don’t want to cover crime, it doesn’t explain why we are inundated with it every night on television news. And if you look back over the coverage of the so-called liberal Commercial Appeal, its coverage has looked into the financial problems of city government, criticized the size of the workforce in local government (wrongly, we believe), reams of coverage about school problems, and lots of issues that don’t fit neatly into your liberal assignment of them.
As for Fox and CNN, one of those is actually a news channel. Just because the channel reports the facts and they are uncomfortable for conservatives doesn’t mean it is liberal.
I am hard-pressed to meet any reporter who ever thought the criminal was as much of a victim as a victim. Calling attention to the issues that contribute to criminal behavior is not the same as justifying it.
Thank you Smart City for your response to the last anonymous. I couldn’t agree more.
I have known a lot of reporters/editors and I have never known their political leanings to sway what they covered or how they covered it. I would wager even the diminished CA, and most any other newspaper, would put every possible resource into investigating a bombshell development in city or county government if evidence surfaced of serious malfeasance whether it by a Democrat or Republican. I have confidence I would win that bet. Good investigative journalism is very expensive to produce and takes a real commitment of time and staffing. That’s harder to do these days, but most news organizations will find a way to make it happen when necessary.
I believe a lot of people who criticize the media for bias base much of that criticism on a misunderstanding of the difference between a “pundit” or “commentator” and a journalist. Television, especially the cable news networks, are producing more and more panel discussions with talking heads because they are cheap to produce. Of course, you are going to have people talking about their particular worldviews. It doesn’t mean they actually know anything or care about good public policy. It certainly doesn’t mean they are journalists or base their opinions on reality-based journalism. The drivel that masquerades as credible opinion and/or journalism on Fox for the overwhelming majority of their programming has done, and continues to do, real damage to this country. All that said, I think we are lucky to have some qualified long time Memphis journalists on local tv offering credible opinions on the news of the day.
CNN? News channel?
Ahhh hahahaha!
Sorry, Anonymous. But in independent surveys, viewers of CNN have more facts than the viewers of the other channels. That speaks to the news gathering process. That said, people who do not watch any news have more knowledge than Fox News viewers. Asking hard questions of every president is more consistent on CNN than any other channel.
You highlight as a downside for the Daily Memphian that “The room was filled but largely by older, white people… (although whites only account for about one of three people living in Memphis and there is scant evidence that younger readers like millennials have the expectation of paying for news).”
Why is the 1 in 3 statistics relavant?
In the near term, isn’t the better question what percentage of the news consuming population the Daily Memphian is targeting and may attract?
For example:
If 99% of the digital/print media consuming population in Memphis is not white, then it’s a huge risk to the new “paper”. If the opposite is true, then it’s actually suggests the model may be successful. Both examples don’t rely on the racial breakdown of Memphis.
Nielsen has to have some data on how and who consumes news in Memphis to support or reject whether or not this is an issue for the Daily Memphian.
If you’re going to play the race card, prove it’s relevant.
Medium and long-term, you may be right about how millenials consume news, however, the low overhead digital model would seemingly (or hopefully) address that to some extent.
Tom: You mistake the race card for subscriber information. The CA online subscribers skew white and older, which was why we made that observation. That’s where the market has been in Memphis/Shelby County for as long as there has been online newspapers. Then again, most Memphians get their news from television. The Novel bookstore crowd seemed to us evidence of the fact of where the Daily Memphian’s market will be and based on comments by African American commentators, the new media outlet is not now seen as a newspaper trying to be responsive to them.
PS: the “low overhead digital model” is the cost of a Starbucks cheaper than the CA. It hardly seems to me that alone will attract more millennials.
The fact of the matter is that if Eric Barnes was capable of building and operating a successful media enterprise, he would have done it already.
The Daily Memphian has significant capital, okay. What seems to be lost on everyone is so does The Daily News’ current owner, yet TDN never really progressed past a certain point. Not only was Eric already a publisher operating with backing from a wealthy benefactor, but TDN had the luxury of guaranteed public notice revenue. The DM, of course, will not.
Curious that Bill Dries and the other TDN reporters don’t feature in any of the “Come Home” marketing.