Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Burning Question | Currently Hanging: By Christopher E… »

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Media Journalism, by the Numbers

Posted by Eli Sanders on Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:37 AM

People often talk about the decline of print journalism as an abstract given. Here's a very concrete way of looking at it over time:

JOBS, JOBS, JOBS—More than 40,000 newspaper jobs were lost in 2009, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is nearly twice the 21,000 cut in 2008 and more than any single year in the past 10 years. Even with furloughs, salary cuts and numerous retirement fund freezes, publishers lopped off a tragic number of positions, even as they sought to expand online and, of course, increase workloads for those who remain. The count at the end of 2009 is 284,220 jobs. In 1999, that number was at 424,500. If things don't slow down, any attempt to properly cover news, and write and edit it, will be lost if it hasn't been already.

You can argue with that last sentence, certainly, but you can probably forgive the writer if you think his analysis of these numbers drifts into angry hyperbole.

His name is Joe Strupp, and he's the senior editor at the trade magazine for the print journalism business, Editor & Publisher—which announced earlier this month that it's closing after 125 years.

Comments (9) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Argh.

Posted by gloomy gus on December 17, 2009 at 10:43 AM

By my reckoning, we lost the ability to properly cover news about three years ago. What the hell took him so long to figure that out?

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty

on December 17, 2009 at 10:53 AM

But surely the Free Market will provide the necessary incentive for accurate reporting. The Free Market takes care of everything.

Posted by Proteus on December 17, 2009 at 10:54 AM

I feel really sorry for these people.

Maybe they should go back to the business model that worked for ink-stained wretches in the past, with the penny dreadfuls and scandal sheets that have been what passes for profitable journalism since the dawn of recorded time, and realize that the investigative reporter of the past is a bygone era ne'er to be repeated?

Posted by Will in Seattle

on December 17, 2009 at 11:09 AM

@3 - can the Free Market buy me lunch?

Posted by Will in Seattle

on December 17, 2009 at 11:09 AM

"Newspaper jobs" do not equal "journalists".

Posted by DOUG.

on December 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM

I can argue with the construction of that last sentence: Those clauses and commas stacked up all higgledy-piggledy are a travesty. Not the best argument for news writing and editing.

Posted by Bethany Jean Clement on December 17, 2009 at 11:39 AM

How many of those are actually doing news. I don't subscribe to a newspaper because its filled with silly nonsense I don't care to pay for. Sports analysis, commentary, recipes, who's blowing who etc. I can and do get all that for free and see zero reason to pay people for what is really their hobby.

Now I do subscribe to the economist because most of what is in there is actual solid real news. I happily pay a decent amount for that.

I would do the same online. I'll donate or pay for access to blogs and the like that give me real solid local news. I won't pay for someone to watch a baseball game and tell me about it or offer their opinion on various things.

Posted by giffy on December 17, 2009 at 11:53 AM