A young person's take on 'thriving local papers'

This week's Economist carried an interesting article about the recession-busting success of a select few local newspapers in Britain. It caught my eye not because of the familiar incisiveness of its meandering, but more-regrettably due to the bone-headed idiocy of its logic.

"For all the woes of local newspapers across Britain, there are those that thrive," the curious little piece informed us, holding up the New Milton Advertiser as one such powerhouse of micro-news. "These papers ... are successful because they retain the best characteristics of their past," it sagely went on. "They cover the local news and politics which matter to people."

And lo, what front page scoop was selected from this sheet's archives as a prime example of such perspicacity? Why, none other than the earth-shattering story which no self-respecting resident of New Milton will ever forget: OVERGRAZING FEAR AS PRICE OF FOREST PONIES SET TO FALL.

Now I won't be facetious. There are, to be sure, people for whom the grazing habits of juvenile horses is a favourite topic of discussion. With not a single ounce of sarcasm I readily accept that it is as valid a source of debate as any of the vacuous drivel which preoccupies my thoughts.

But evidence of a resurgent press? Proof that the inefficient and antiquated practices of local media outlets are able to fend off the free-distribution and limitless-circulation model of online media? I think not.

The article made no attempt to disguise the fact that these rare examples of profit-making local newspapers are largely edited and read by people of a venerably advanced age. "The style and values of the papers are every bit as traditional as their 88-year-old proprietor," it said with regard to one such pair of papers, The Advertiser & Times.

But what it failed to seize upon – and what must surely be the crux of the matter for anyone curious about the decline of local news – is that towns such as Lymington and New Milton, where these papers go to press, are mere microcosms. They are relics of a dying breed of reporting, preserved solely by their coincidentally elderly population.

To uphold a newspaper edited by an 88-year-old and read largely by pensioners as a model for the future of local news is downright senile.

The Economist is of course seeking to stress the merits of good old-fashioned reporting, regardless of the subject matter's gravity. This is doubtless a noble cause, but look with less rose-tinted glasses at the page-filler strewn across such papers and you touch upon a harsher reality.

Consider the article's assertion that Tindle Newspaper-owner and fellow octogenarian Sir Ray Tindle "places great emphasis on reporting local news in an engaging way". Engaging. Fox News is engaging when it brands President Obama a socialist. So is Sky News when it refuses to switch off its BREAKING NEWS ticker, hours after the event; and The Daily Mail when it skilfully taps into the paranoid delusions of a xenophobic Middle Britain.

When these mainstream media outlets behave in such a way, many of us cry sensationalism. So why should we believe the New Milton Advertiser is being any less nefarious in its deployment of such tactics?

FOREST DRIVERS FACE THREAT OF SPEED GUN BLITZ bellows one of its front-page scoops. Only... it's not a blitz, is it? PEDALLERS BATTLE FOR GRAND PRIX GLORY shrills a juxtaposed sporting piece, similarly oblivious of the uninspired banality of its subject matter.

The truth, and one which the staff at The Economist may understandably be reluctant to admit, is that these papers are far from exceptional. It is alleged that they are successful "because they retain the best characteristics of their past". Wrong: the papers are suffocated by their past.

Here in the present, the broadband generation feels unconstrained by geographical borders. It views unfettered access to information as a given, and those among its ranks who care to seek out news instinctively look further afield than their backyard – casting their gaze on Westminster, or Sudan, or the International Space Station. If their attention happens to boomerang homewards, it does so enriched with a cynicism that easily deconstructs the vain sensationalism of desperate neighbourhood hacks.

This demographic doesn't give a fuck about the minutae of the town or village it was unfortunate enough to have been born in. The harsh reality is that most of its members will escape their birthplace at the first opportunity. And so to return to The Economist's original question – sincerely put – of how it is that some local papers are thriving, the answer is simple...

Their readers haven't died yet.

 

Comments

[Zu]

what did local papers ever do to you?

[Dan]

Apparently, every person under 35 no longer cares what goes on in their communities and the internet is impervious to sensationalism.

The authour clearly has no time for community events as he or she is glued to their computer screen reading either the mainstream media they rail against or mostly anonymous blog rants of questionable accuracy/validity.

"This demographic doesn't give a fuck about the minutae of the town or village it was unfortunate enough to have been born in."

I can see how no 20-something would be interested about the local A&E scene, the minutae of which is easily lost in the vastness of the Internet.

The internet is great, I use it all the time, but radio did not kill newspapers, TV did not kill radio and the internet has not yet killed TV. Nor will it totally kill the newspaper (and especially not the local ones).

Some people will always be interested in knowing what goes on closest to them and if those people all die, as the authour suggests they will, the internet will have killed physical communities. All we will have left is anonymous exchanges on sensationalist blog postings.

I just hope you are as full of crap as I think you are.

[DF]

Hey, great article. Funny the people above me seemed not to like it. I thought it was a pretty straightforward analysis of the success of some niche local papers.

[BC]

This blogger seems to have committed the same “bone-headed idiocy” of which he accuses the Economist, but from the opposite direction. The point about the dangers of traditional newspapers blindly relying on the older generation is valid, but that doesn't oblige us to switch allegiance to the “broadband generation” (whoever they are). It shows he has failed to understand the strengths of weekly papers in the changing newspaper/internet market, in contrast to their brash daily big brothers.

The relative success of the Advertiser and Times - known as the 'A&T' locally - is exactly because it has never given itself grand pretensions of being anything more than a weekly printed round-up of local news, interest and advertising. Clearly people don't constantly hanker for local news but, just once a week, they catch up on what they've missed – Curry and Tindle really are on to something, although a little more efficiency wouldn't hurt.

The sprawling regional behemoths struggle in today's conditions, I think, because they can neither supply enough big stories every day (and they really DO bellow their headlines) to keep the circulation up, nor the immediacy for readers to be able to spot in virtually every edition a story from their local community, or even their own road or next door neighbour.

I should declare an interest here, because I work in the 'A&T's' newsroom, but paying 30p each week for a paper chock full of stories is just an old fashioned good deal: combined with low overheads, it is a key contributor to how well it does.

And younger people do read it – genuinely, I've even met one of them – although undeniably the demographic of the 'A&T's' readership is towards the older end of the market. Yet even young people can normally be relied on to get older: which is when they put down roots, hold a stake in their community, and consider 30p a worthwhile investment to find out what the hell that family down the road thinks its doing with that awful rear extension.

The “broadband generation” (now even I'M using it) don't feel constrained by geographical boundaries, true, but they soon want to know more when they hear an old work buddy has been drink-driving, or their former school is being pulled down, or traffic lights are being put in at the end of their street. The internet won't necessarily tell you any of this and that's where the weekly round-up comes in again – do you see?

Incidentally, I had a hand in the headlines which the writer above mocks. It's a fair cop, guv, they do overplay the material, but if he wrote with any knowledge of the paper's voice he would understand they were not the bellowings of a tabloid daily, but a bit of colourful garnish on what is generally restrained, balanced and - crucially – trusted reporting. And give us a break – we're competing on a crowded news-stand.

I also bet that almost every one of the youngsters and adults who spent a happy afternoon competing in the pedal car “grand prix” got hold of a copy the next week and smiled at the headline in their hands or laughed with their pals at their face grinning on the page: but neither we nor they were vain enough to take it seriously.

Of course, it will be several years yet before we find out whether the “broadband generation” grows up to embrace local news, albeit a little more limply than their parents, and it's likely that the daily newspaper industry at least will have to accept more collateral damage as the market shrinks.

But as long as local newspapers really do stay local by being prepared to honestly reflect the grubby little details and tiny shining gems in the community they serve, I predict they need not fear the end of their world. Maybe journalists will have to realise that actually they're not above having to write about some of this “uninspired banality”.

And finally, one for Pedants Corner: ponies are not “juvenile horses”, they are horses below a certain height. There are more than 7,000 run on the Forest by the commoners (who have practised the tradition for hundreds of years) and their grazing plays a key role in sustaining the area's unique character which is crucial to the local economy as it brings in hundreds of thousand of visitors and is why it was made a national park. Of course, headlines like that are ridiculous to someone who does not understand the background, but please don't conceitedly equate through your ignorance issues of genuine local importance with the “vacuous drivel” in your head.

[Martin (riverScrap.com)]

@BC Sorry it took me forever to reply to this... first up I should just say that yours was by far the best comment I have ever received on my blog. I really appreciate the precision with which you defended the A&T and you've definitely given me pause for thought.

I think the main thing I'd say in response is that I certainly was never advocating the end of all local news. To me it just seems that the current models being used by local papers are not economically viable; at least not in the vast majority of cases. Specifically, the costs associated with hiring local reporters and printing their relatively niche stories just don't seem to be sustainable in light of their narrow readership.

And that's where the admittedly hackneyed talk of a 'broadband generation' comes in, as I would suggest that most local news stories would be much more at home in an online environment. Not just because running a website is cheaper than printing a newspaper; but also because it's better at facilitating community engagement in a comment / message board-style format. Whether these sites would be hosted on council websites or under an independent brand is up for debate - though, again, it all boils down to costs.

I personally have little interest in local news, and I think that came across quite brashly in my article. But that's not to say that I think it's useless, and I'd certainly like to see it live on in a format that doesn't bankrupt proprieters & impoverish hard-working hacks.

[Fran]

Oy! I'm 47 and I read all my local papers. I'm one of those old fogies who is actually interested in the local community. I'll forgive you, though, because you signed up to my blog. And because you did linguistics And because I like the title of your uni dissertation. And your list of language blogs.