Newspaper readers ‘don’t care about columnists’
Newspaper columnists have far less of an impact on the public then they may like to think, research revealed at today’s Walkley Media Conference suggests.
Media Alliance boss Chris Warren revealed details of a survey of 1000 members of the public.
One of the questions they were asked about was journalists they remembered. After showing a slide with News Ltd columnist Andrew Bolt’s name as the one most mentioned, Warren turned to the slide pictured above, adding: “When you include the number of people who simply don’t care about who wrote a story, you get a completely different picture.”
Asked whether they would be willing to pay for news, 91% said no, and just 3% replied yes, said Warren.
Meanwhile, a survey of journalists suggested that despite worries over the future of newspapers, optimism for journalism remains. Asked how they felt about the future of journalism, 9% said they felt very positive while a further 43% said they felt positive. A total of 24% said neither, while 20% said negative and just 3% very negative.
Additionally, 48% said they felt positive about their career prospects while only 21% said they felt negative.
But most journalists agreed that they were working harder:
- Increased a lot 43%
- Increased a little – 30%
- Much the same – 19%
- Decreased a little – 4%
- Decreased a lot – 4%
For that extra work, 58% said they had not been rewarded for it, 11% said they had been paid more and 31% said they had been given time off in lieu.
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large.
Linkedin
While I don’t want to buy into the “pay-wall” saga I do just want to say you can’t always believe what customers tell you in these sorts of surveys.
I don’t know how this question was asked but asking customers about price is notoriously difficult.
“Asked whether they would be willing to pay for news, 91% said no, and just 3% replied yes, said Warren.”
For those interested I have a blog post that deals with this topic in more detail.
http://genroe1to1.genroe.com/2.....r-answers/
User ID not verified.
i certainly would not pay for any news story[if he could write an unbiased one]that Andrew Bolt had anything to do with
User ID not verified.
When people are asked a broad question like “Would you pay for news?” the answer is inevitably going to be ‘No’, but I believe that it ultimately depends on the type of information they are receiving.
Something like a News Ltd opinion piece on law-and -order isn’t likely to be valued by the general public, but a in-depth piece on the economy in The Economist may actually provide useful information to people, particularly those with links to the finance industry.
I see the future of paid media like this: People won’t pay for ‘hard’ news, but they will pay for analysis that helps their livelihood/careers/finances/etc. If the question was asked that way by the pollsters I believe that many more people would be happy to dish out a couple of dollars for information
User ID not verified.
That is roughly the proportion of people who said they would never support toll roads back in the 80s.
User ID not verified.
Why would you pay for water when you get it free already?
User ID not verified.
that’s funny….a gen Y’s perspective, hmmmmm it took them that long to figure that out!
User ID not verified.
Rural Press Ag Publishing (Fairfax) are trying to get people to pay $1 week for an email newsletter (see below). I can still access the FarmOnline sites without paying a subscription fee – so I am not really sure why I should bother paying $1 for the (convenience) of a daily email?
Dear reader,
It is just over a week now since you last received the FarmOnline Daily News Email – if you are missing the convenience of having the latest rural news and multimedia from Australia’s number one agricultural website delivered direct to your inbox, then simply go to http://signon.farmonline.com.au/ to renew your subscription at a cost of just $1 week.
Regards,
FarmOnline
User ID not verified.
Hi comment #5, have you noticed how much water is for sale in your local deli?
User ID not verified.
@Sean Columnists aren’t supposed to be neutral – that’s why their work appears in the Review or Opinion section.
User ID not verified.
Er, when you buy a paper isn’t that paying for news? That said, can’t remember the last time I actually purchased one (sample size of one I know…but it’s all I’ve got so I’m sticking with it! lol). So I’m an example of someone who can’t really name many journo’s! Let alone remember the last column they wrote.
I go to an unbiased online source for my news updates every other day. No “cat up tree” stories. *shrugs* each to their own. If I was to be charged for accessing the online source, I’d go elsewhere regardsless of how small the cost might be.
User ID not verified.
Sounds like a confusing questionnaire.
Columnists aren’t journalists. They express opinions, they DON’T report news.
User ID not verified.
I was drawn to this item by the headline, which suggested newspaper readers are disinterested in columnists, but failed to find anything in the actual content to support that claim. Did the research suggest that readers are not interested in opinion columns, period, or that they are but don’t really care about who the individual writer happens to be? Perhaps the findings of this survey could be fleshed out in a more detailed piece explaining it further?
User ID not verified.
This is totally useless research – rubbish masquerading as insight. How can people in 2010 do research like this, let alone believe it.
User ID not verified.
You might have just as well asked whether people are prepared to pay for this government. While the answer would be illuminating, we are still coerced into paying our taxes.
Meanwhile in the free market you seem to be trying to judge people for the daily choices they make about what and who they read. It’s a free country, so far, and the market embodying the choices of publishers, editors, writers and the consumers will work it out.
User ID not verified.
I would gladly pay for news.
I would not pay for:-
New diets, celebrity gossip, inuendo, unresearched reporting, trash from the likes of Deveny and Hardy,
This election has been classic “New Idea” Journalism. Waiting for an un-intentional slip before claiming a scoop. Running with someone elses story without checking the facts. Time you all lifted your game.
User ID not verified.
If I had a choice there is no way I’d pay so much for the privilege of being governed.
User ID not verified.
I also rarely buy a newspaper but I read the following every day – Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Simon Bensen, Miranda Devine, Piers Akerman, John Jay Ray,Melanie Phillips,plus online newspapers, and listen to Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, Greg Carey, Grant Goldman, and Graham Gilbert.
The once only that I read Marieke Hardy, Catherine Denehy I was so appalled that I would never watch or read anything which had their names on it. I am so glad they don’t represent the majority of woman on left or right of politics. They apparently are alright to work for the ABC.
I also read Jihad Watch and Israel Today for truth about the Arab Palestine conflicts plus the Islamisation of the western world.
User ID not verified.
I concur with the statement made by Brett – see below.
This isn’t the first time a heading on Mumbrella has been somewhat misleading. Disappointing.
“I was drawn to this item by the headline, which suggested newspaper readers are disinterested in columnists, but failed to find anything in the actual content to support that claim. Did the research suggest that readers are not interested in opinion columns, period, or that they are but don’t really care about who the individual writer happens to be? Perhaps the findings of this survey could be fleshed out in a more detailed piece explaining it further?”
User ID not verified.
TerjeP – taxes are not “paying for the privilege of being governed”. That is simpilstic, populist claptrap.
By all means stop paying your taxes. But under a few conditions. You are not allowed water from your tap, nor electricity from a power-point. You must not use any roads and footpaths. You must not use public transport. You must not go to a hospital if you fall ill. You are not allowed to use a telephone or any form of electronic communication. All of the above services are or were built using taxpayer funds. Oh, I should throw in getting a decent education, or perchance have you already opted out of that?
User ID not verified.
*** thump *** The sound of my jaw dropping upon reading Ruby’s response.
Thank goodness we still have a society that allows everyone to voice their opinion. I cherish and value that. Which clearly puts me at odds with the commentators you read.
User ID not verified.
I don’t think Ruby of Toowoomba is genuine
User ID not verified.
73% of you guys are working harder? What kind of a sentence is this:
“One of the questions they were asked about journalists they remembered.”
I’ve read it three times and it still makes no sense. That whole paragraph seems to be the key one in the article and yet its point is very elusive.
So you guys are working harder? Well bravo, but not hard enough, I (and the literate everywhere) say.
User ID not verified.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for flagging that. I’ve added the elusive word “was”
Hi The Differentiator,
This was a topline finding which Chris Warren included in a slide at his presentation to the Walkley Media Conference. They will be publishing their full report later in the year.
In my view, it was interesting enough to be worthy of sharing now and like you I look forward to hearing the full detail when it is available.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Thanks for turning an incomprehensible sentence into a merely dodgy one.
User ID not verified.
It’s what I’m here for, Chris.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
“For that extra work, 58% (of journalists) said they had not been rewarded for it, 11% said they had been paid more and 31% said they had been given time off in lieu.”
Working harder does not mean you get paid more. It’s whether or not your work produces the value to warrant more pay. Nothing new here.
For the aggrieved… build a bridge and get over it. Work out how to add value or get out of the business.
User ID not verified.
Representative sample
– Small quantity of a targeted group such as customers, data, people, products, whose characteristics represent (as accurately as possible) the entire batch, lot, population, or universe.
– A sample resulting from a sampling plan that can be expected to adequately
reflect the properties of interest of the parent population.
– A representative sample may be a random sample or, for example, a
stratified sample, depending upon the objective of sampling and the characteristics of the population. The degree of representativeness of the sample
may be limited by cost, overall population size & many other external factors.
Care to define the demographics of the population used for your 1000, including the defined stratum they were drawn from as well as the stochastics behind the assertion that this is a representation of the total population.
You will need to include the following margins of error in you answer:-
1) Selection bias.
2) Adjustments for random sampling errors.
3) Margin of overcoverage.
4) Margin of undercoverage.
5) Allowances for measurement error.
6) Margin of processing errors.
7) Included margins & weightings for non-responsive &/or incomplete responses in the sampled poputation.
Without these things defined your assertions are nothing more than a non representative convenience sample to support your opinion.
User ID not verified.
Hi Paul,
I’d refer you to my comment above. This is a topline finding from the Media Alliance’s report. The full thing will be out later this year. My impression is that they set out with am open mind.
I’m not quite sure what a “convenience sample to support your opinion” is, but I suspect you’re being a bit harsh on them.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
mumbrella
If you were to sample every 10th person getting on the 3:30pm outbound train from Melbourne on platform 2, you would be carrying out a convenience sample. Rather than being harsh on them I was pointing out that all types of polling that fails to define the characteristics of the sample & all margins of errors should be considered non-representative of the total population and do nothing more than support an opinion rather than present a factual representation of public opinion.
User ID not verified.
Paul, wouldn’t that be a random unbiased sample of the population of Melbourne outbound rail commuters from Platform 2 at 3:30pm on that day?
User ID not verified.
Grono vs Paul in stats smackdown.
This I’m looking forward to…
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Steady on Tim – I merely asked a question!
Paul is correct in what he has said. There are WAYYYY too many convenience polls, and even more poor and unrepresentative online polls and research.
My point (like Paul’s) is that if you declare what universe you are representing, and you conduct random and unbiased research, then it is ‘valid’. Of course, it may mean that the findings are meaningless in the real world.
I think the best stats lesson I ever learned at university was when a lecturer asked us to give him the answer and he would construct the research question to deliver that answer – a fantastic demonstration of bias while still using valid statistical techniques.
User ID not verified.
I’m with Ruby.
Add Atlas Shrugs, Pajamas Media and Gates of Vienna for good measure.
User ID not verified.
To Anonymous. I didn’t say I agree with everything the commentators I read say.
I just want to know what people are thinking.and that is why I also read the comments from the other bloggers.
Believe me, Differentiator, I am genuine. I care deeply for this country and its people.
Many people do not have time to read extensively and perhaps I can help them understand an issue I write about. in a short form. I sure don’t trust the mainstram media on the really important issues facing Australia.
Until yesterday I had never heard of Mumbrella but I took the time to read about them.
In fact, I read everything I can except rubbish. I would even read in the moonlight if I had to. Cheers.
User ID not verified.
John, yes, but only if the required demographic was defined as “Melbourne outbound rail commuters from Platform 2 at 3:30pm on that day”. If the demographic was “Visitors to Melbourne CBD” on the other hand it would be a convenience sample & non-representative. Hence the reuirement to define the parmeters of the sample & the 7 points I listed.
User ID not verified.
John, I learnt statistics during a degree in Horticulture, we had a heap of fun designing a range or sampling reigemes for a study on invasive plant species in the Bunya State forrest as a class exercise. Little did we know that in the following semester we would be required to carry it out. Whilst the field trip was a hoot, and there was no chance of us being able to carry it out completely in the timeframe provided it was one hell of a learning experience. Less enjoyable when we then had to use the data collected to design computer models to extrapolate the results. This is where the main problems with computer models come from, while we did manage to collect data (107 students, 4 tutors & 2 lecturers over 3 weeks) for around 5% of the type of forrest based on soil type & predominant vegetation being studied it highlighted just how hard it is to produce an accurate representative sample of a large population & just how flawed a computer model can be when such a small sample is involved. The next intake of students carried out the same exercise the following year but started in a different locale & produced results outside the acceptable margin of error for the same vegetation & soil type we were studying. Statistics & modelling are great tools to help understand a question but the results must always be interpreted in the context of the survey parameters with a full disclosure & understanding of the flaws in sampling methods used, the models used to extrapolate the data and the significant deviations & margins of error involved in a sample smaller that 85% of the target population (85% being the level that was accepted as the basis for a representative sample for botanical studies at the time).
User ID not verified.
Journalism across the globe has lost its way. Trying to talk about quality journalism is like trying to prove that heaven actually exists – you can’t do it 100 per cent. You can try but you just can’t. There are far too many variables involved in the journalism industry that mean quality is always subjective. A lot of journalists are out of touch with the mainstream community and attach too much self-importance to their articles and careers when the reality is, while there are many good journalists around and there is no doubting that over time there have been significant contributions made by journalists to society, a lot of what is written, spoken or shown on the TV news people would not miss. You know what best sums up journalism – the fact that so many journalists end up as PR consultants; it’s not really a career change, it’s writing the same stuff for a different master – that is all. A lot of news is spin anyway these days.
User ID not verified.