I sat through plenty of official focus groups in my years as a Washington Post assistant managing editor, watching people on the other side of a one-way mirror read and comment on my newspaper. The sessions were often excruciating, as participants eagerly picked apart our carefully calibrated content.
Now that I am no longer a part of “my newspaper,” I conducted a focus group of one to observe how I read newspapers. I was curious about whether I could set aside the typical reactions of an egomaniacal journalist—“I could have done such a better story!”; “Ack! Have they no editors!?!”; etc.—and just be a reader. This was easier to do than I had anticipated. I am a CJR Encore Fellow exploring the future of news, and I realize I don’t want to be in a newsroom right now, slugging it out for a share of shrinking resources. I like the distance and the time I have to consider what is working for me in journalism and what is not.
Like the observations of any focus group, my reactions are idiosyncratic and their value debatable. Some data points: I’m a married, forty-seven-year-old mom. We live in Washington, D.C., in a time-pressed household where both parents are self-employed. My husband and teenage son get 90 percent of their news online. I get 90 percent of mine from newspapers. And I am a lover of newspapers, not just the news in them, but also the inky, smelly paper itself. I rejoice in the immediacy, the interactivity, and the visual potential of Web journalism, but I see it as something separate, not as a substitute for print. If everyone were like me, newspapers would be thriving. Clearly, they are not. Still, there may be lessons from my reactions—as well as warnings—for newspaper executives looking to rebuild their businesses with their dedicated readers at the core.
*****
My news consumption follows a basic rhythm. I start most days as I have for years: I am the first up to drag my son off to school. I begin cooking breakfast and then pad out the front door to scoop up my Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal. I scan the headlines, photos, and section fronts before putting them all aside to finish a somewhat chaotic morning routine. At some point I flip on National Public Radio, but unlike when I was working, I rarely feel any need to go online to survey the latest breaking news and blogs. (I do check for urgent e-mails and texts on my BlackBerry, so I’m not totally unplugged.) Then, when everyone in the family is where they need to be, I turn off all distractions—bliss!—and settle in to read. I check the Web around lunchtime and again after dinner for news updates and oddities, and also scan a few blogs. Increasingly, in my after-dinner computer session, I check out links sent by Facebook friends. (I don’t Tweet.)
Probably the biggest change in my news-reading habits since leaving the Post involves taking early reads on stories. I find today that I rarely read full stories planned for the next day’s newspaper that are posted online early, and I never read features online—I prefer to read these in print. That makes the spread of my morning papers particularly lush.
Despite industry-wide newsroom cutbacks, the three newspapers to which I subscribe still offer stories to get lost in, to read for the joy of a good yarn or to gain insight into a complicated topic. True, there are fewer of these kinds of pieces than there used to be, and more that miss the mark (a likely result of rushed editing), but I still find far more to read than I have time for.
My habits support three of the most basic tenets of newspaper journalism:

I really enjoyed this piece and I think the author is absolutely correct in her conclusion. I like the model of HBO - people pay for premium TV. They pay a lot, enough to keep quality high, and in exchange they feel like they can't miss it. I was happy to read that the Times will begin charging online readers in 2011. If publishers are afraid that charging for online content will drive readers away then they have too little faith in their quality or originality and that's a sad statement.
#1 Posted by Dan, CJR on Wed 20 Jan 2010 at 09:34 AM
If you want to know how people spent so little time with the paper, don't look at WSJ, NYT, WaPo, look at the thin daily gruel served in Miami, Atlanta, Las Vegas, San Franciso, Hartford, Philadelphia, Kansas City, New Haven, Jacksonville, Indianapolis and then on to small metro areas. It's hard to even find 39 minutes worth of material in them unless you do the crosswords and sudoku. In fact, it's quite silly to apply that time limit to someone trying to read the three densest papers.
But I really like Jill's condemnation of the overbroad nut graf and editor-driven stories. It's a shame she wised up too late.
#2 Posted by OtherDan, CJR on Wed 20 Jan 2010 at 12:08 PM
Ahh if only I had that sort of time to read that many papers. I'm a high school student in the Baltimore region and I'm absolutely enamored newspapers, for many the same reasons as the author. Since the Sun has been no good for about the past 10 years, I get the Post delivered. Unfortunately I dont get to read much of anything until after school. And then when homework and other extracurriculars are added, I sometimes find myself not finishing the paper until late at night, by the time the next day's edition is already being printed. Time is the enemy of newspapers, but even so, I think most anyone could fit at least one quality paper into their day, every day if they make a conscious effort to inform themselves.
#3 Posted by Jonathan, CJR on Wed 20 Jan 2010 at 03:10 PM
I find it useful to assess this issue in economic terms: The opportunity cost (in time) of consuming irrelevant information is rising.
That is to say, every 39 minutes I spend reading information that's lightly relevant, like the NYT's too-thin trend stories, is 39 minutes I didn't spend reading highly relevant information from a niche outlet like Blazer's Edge or CJR.
The implication: it's not that modern readers are "distracted" from what matters or that life has somehow hurried up. It's not that newspapers have gotten crappier. It's that, given the proliferation of new niche content sources, lightly relevant content newspapers' simply doesn't make a lot of sense to consume.
I also agree with Drew's conclusion: catering to core loyalists is the only way to sustainability.
More thoughts on this here:
http://www.oldforestnewtrees.com/2009/07/31/relevance-is-mandatory-so-pick-a-niche/
#4 Posted by Michael Andersen, CJR on Wed 20 Jan 2010 at 04:23 PM
Jill, great piece. came here via romenskio. One word reax: snailpapers. the future is in snailpapers. google the term. smile., term of endearment., danny, tufts 1971
#5 Posted by dan bloom, CJR on Thu 21 Jan 2010 at 03:18 AM