
Kevin Slimp
Kevin Slimp is director of the Institute of Newspaper Technology.
Email questions to him at
kevin@kevinslimp.com
During a keynote speech at the Kansas Press Association convention in February, I presented the results of my latest annual survey of newspaper publishers in the United States and Canada for the first time. With roughly 15 percent of publishers in those two countries participating in the survey, it’s a good bet that the results are representative of the industry as a whole.
In a previous column, the first in a series concerning survey findings, we discussed some of the differences between healthy newspapers and newspapers with diminishing health during the past three years. Today, I’m going to take a look at the differences in how daily and weekly newspaper publishers view the benefits of their digital efforts.
After visiting thousands of newspapers during my career, and speaking to thousands more at conferences, there’s not much that catches me off guard about our industry these days. But I was a little surprised by the vast differences between the way daily and weekly newspaper publishers view the benefits of their digital efforts.
In response to Question 10 of the survey, “How do you feel about the following statement: “Our business would do just as well or better without a print version,” both daily and non-daily publishers agreed that they wouldn’t survive without a print version.
Differences arose, though, in response to Question 11, “How do you feel about the following statement: “Our business would do just as well or better without a digital version.”
A whopping 59 percent of daily publishers responded, “That’s ridiculous. We would be in worse shape without a digital/online edition.”
But 68 percent of responding weekly publishers said it either “is” or “might be” true that their paper would do just as well without a digital version. When you add in the number of folks who responded “other,” then wrote that they didn’t have a digital presence, you have well more than 70 percent of responding weekly publishers wondering whether there is any advantage to having a digital edition of their newspapers.
The differences of opinion between publishers of “healthy” newspapers and “unhealthy” newspapers is not as glaring. Fifty-nine percent of responding publishers who rated their paper’s health as “very healthy” or “relatively healthy” indicated that their papers might be better off without a digital version; 54 percent of publishers who rated the health of their papers as “unhealthy” or “near death” felt the same about their digital efforts.
The results are even more striking when publishers were asked about the benefits of social media. Only 22 percent of non-daily (less than four issues per week) newspaper publishers who responded reported seeing any benefit, financial or otherwise, from their social media efforts. Compare that to 60 percent of responding daily newspaper publishers who saw some type of benefit from their social media efforts.
I’m fascinated by the responses to these surveys. As I hear from publishers and others after seeing the results of our past surveys, it’s apparent that folks are often surprised to find their newspapers aren’t so different from others. This is especially true when we look at categories such as newspaper ownership models (a full 50 percent of U.S. and Canadian newspapers are not part of any group, and only 11 percent are part of a large regional or national group) and circulation (average circulation is less than 6,000).
I often hear those at conferences say: “I thought we were different from everyone else.”
There’s some solace, I believe, in realizing that you’re not alone. At the same time, we can gain some benefit from learning what is working at other newspapers similar to our own.





Henry Frankel
William Alfred Dempster Jr.
Willie Wright Jr.
Horace ‘Rambo’ Bacon Jr.
Erna Jane ‘E.J.’ Silke
Margaret A. Coulombe
Francis Gros ‘Lou’ Louis







Sean Corcoran is an award-winning print and radio journalist and the Senior Managing Editor for News at WGBH News in Boston. Corcoran is a graduate of The George Washington University and the Columbia University School of Journalism. For the first nine years of his career, Corcoran worked as a staff writer for various New England newspapers. Corcoran moved to public radio in 2005 at WCAI in Woods Hole, where he reported and produced “Two Cape Cods: Hidden Poverty on the Cape and Islands,” a 20-part investigative series that won the Alfred I. DuPont-Columbia University Award — the highest award in broadcast journalism. His work has been recognized with various national and regional awards, including a 2016 Gabriel Award and a 2017 national Edward R. Murrow Award. Corcoran is the former news director at WCAI, and executive producer of the upcoming podcast, “The Forgetting: Inside the Mind of Alzheimer’s.” Corcoran also was the editor of the 2015 book, “The Long Haul: The Future of New England’s Fisheries.”
Protect journalists with the same laws that protect us all
Gene Policinski
Inside the First Amendment
Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institute’s First Amendment Center. He can be reached at gpolicinski@newseum.org.
Follow him on Twitter:
@genefac
I understand the motivation behind the just-proposed Journalist Protection Act, which would make it a federal crime to attack those involved in reporting the news. The legislation comes at a time of particularly vocal attacks on news operations and individual reporters, many of which stem from the highest office in the land.
I admire the goal — preventing or penalizing misguided thugs who would censor through violence. And I salute U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat, for introducing it in an era in which support for journalism is at an all-time low.
But some part of me — the free press advocate in me — hopes the proposed act never becomes law. Not because journalists don’t need protection, but because I fear unintended consequences. As the old maxim goes, “No good deed goes unpunished.”
The great power, and the proper position, of a free press has always been that it represents “the people.” The press is — simply and magnificently — not a group apart, but part of that group. It is not made up of “elites” or players united in some grand conspiracy to control the news or steer the nation, as some grandstanding politicians claim, but a disjointed gaggle of vocal, well-informed fellow citizens, who are employed to report on behalf of us all. Those who would damage democracy’s checks and balances by isolating the “watchdogs on government” from fellow citizens would like nothing better than to have journalists themselves give credence to such a separation.
In a Feb. 5 news release, Swalwell makes his good case for the Journalist Protection Act: “President Donald Trump’s campaign and administration have created a toxic atmosphere. It’s not just about labeling reports of his constant falsehoods as #FakeNews — it’s his casting of media personalities and outlets as anti-American targets, and encouraging people to engage in violence.”
Swalwell, while conceding that not all attacks against journalists in the United States can be connected to Trump, said nonetheless that “such antagonistic communications help encourage others to think, regardless of their views, that violence against people engaged in journalism is more acceptable.”
Journalism groups also noted, in the news release, the dangers their members now face.
Broadcasters in the field often work alone or with a single colleague, said Charlie Braico, president of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians. “With their expensive and cumbersome equipment, they are easy and tempting prey for anti-media extremists and thieves.”
“Dozens of physical assaults on journalists doing their jobs were documented by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker in 2017,” said Rick Blum, director of News Media for Open Government. “Physical violence and intimidation should never get in the way of covering police, protesters, presidents and other public matters.”
The tracker that Blum refers to is a new database, launched and operated by the Committee to Protect Journalists, which logs arrests, harassment and physical attacks on journalists. As of Feb. 7, it showed that since January 2017, 30 reporters in the United States have been attacked while covering protests and two reporters had been assaulted by politicians. (Note: The Newseum is among the journalism groups supporting the database project.)
Globally, the situation is much grimmer: According to Freedom House, an international freedom advocacy group, barely 13 percent of the world’s population lives in nations where the press is considered free. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports two journalists killed thus far in 2018, 262 imprisoned since 2017, and 58 journalists missing around the world.
So to all those critics who already are attacking Swalwell’s bill as unneeded or rooted in partisan politics — sorry, but the threat to journalists is real from those who consider violence an acceptable form of press criticism.
Still, we should be wary of giving journalists a special place in the zone of laws that already protect us all from assault, battery or worse. Granted, the proposed act could be an alternative when local officials refuse to follow up on an attack — or do so ineffectively. But I like the old newsgathering maxim that “journalists have no more rights than anyone else … but also have no fewer rights.”
Better to encourage police and prosecutors to do their jobs zealously when an attack occurs. Better we hold accountable politicians and others who — for political gain or other unscrupulous motives — choose to simply taunt the news media rather than doing the hard work of legitimate, fact-based criticism.
The Journalist Protection Act is prompted by sincere and worthy motives — and there is a sickness in the land today that condones and encourages threats and violence against journalists. But a free press is better protected by laws that protect us all.