Last Updated: May 20, 1999
Printer-friendly version
Readership
Mr. Willis’ article is provocative, but rests largely on false, or at
least misleading, dichotomies. He says we must choose between providing
a more serious newspaper targeted to committed readers, that is, the better
educated and more affluent, or compromising our newspaper by trying to
lure marginal, "mass" readers with a shallower offering of titillation
and entertainment.
The marketplace is not that simplistic. People read newspapers for a
variety of reasons — utility, entertainment, curiosity, social contact,
civic responsibility — each with high- and low-brow dimensions. Even the
august, serious and ostensibly highly targeted Wall Street Journal has
a sportswriter, cartoons and, in the lower left corner of the Marketplace
front, a certain wackiness.
Those of us on the front lines of the readership struggle often find
that people may not want to read something until we find the right way
to report and present it. Part of journalism, like preaching, politicking
and parenting, is finding the right way to tell the story so the audience
wants, or at least is willing, to hear it.
Another false dichotomy is reader vs. non-reader. The great majority
of Americans still read newspapers — 84 percent in a recent national study.
Many are not daily readers any more, but they read when they need to, happen
to, or are lured by events or good journalism. Sometimes that involves
Princess Di or O.J. or the horoscope; more often, it is when we can make
a difference in their lives.
Like most editors, I don’t think many newspapers spend enough on journalism.
But I don’t think the resources we spend on material aimed at marginal
readers would buy much more substance than we already offer.
What becoming more serious in further service to this quality segment
might do is make us less interesting to all readers, while at the same
time, the class model would have us become more expensive. That would add
up to less value in a volatile and diversifying market.
Mr. Willis’ argument goes right to the newspaper’s mission. Do we exist
to keep the educated, affluent and/or power elite as well informed as possible?
Or do we exist to inform and involve as many people as possible, to help
them become more educated, affluent and powerful. Most journalists I know
would choose the latter.
The "penny press" was the original mass medium because those newspapers
were a terrific way for people to become acculturated and join the mainstream,
if only for people to learn the language. In this era of democratic detachment,
we can serve a similar function. Our society, ever more fragmented, needs
common, unifying forces, not more divisive ones. Our mass appeal is what
makes the class attainable.
For the most inclusive readership, we need both the sizzle and the substance.
That’s why our jobs are so tough, and so important.
Denton, vice chair of the Readership Issues Committee, is editor
of the Wisconsin State Journal, Madison.
