Death of a Paper
Today, a local paper died, the King County Journal.
So what importance did it have?
Well, none really. At least nationally. I don't believe it ever won a Pulitzer. All that it ever got was a picture of Mt. St. Helens in 1980. And some good endorsements. But over the long run, it did not have much national importance.
This paper was started in 1976 when it combined the newspapers of two local communities - The Kirkland Journal, and the Bellevue American, a far right-wing paper (meaning it had good content). It became the "Journal-American", and it was to service the "Eastside," of Seattles' suburbs east of Lake Washington. Which, at that time, where the majority of Seattle suburbanites lived (for there were still rural areas between Seattle and Everett, and Seattle and Tacoma, not one long continuous traffic jam). It was to address news of the developing Eastside community, and give really good editorials. And for a few years, I was a paperboy for this paper.
In 1994, it decided that it's market area was too small, and it thus decided to cover the rest of King County. Which makes for little sense, since King County is not really a community. The general Seattle area can be described as a community, and the Eastside can be described as a community, but the intermediate area is not, since there is no seperate and distinct commanalities that make all areas within it mutually exclusing (excepting geographical boundaries).
A recent editorial in a weekly paper noted that it failed because it failed to cover the growth of Microsoft. So the new residents to the area were not interested in it. Actually, it did cover the growth of Microsoft, and was quite proud of that fact, especially in the 1980's. The thing is that the employees of Microsoft, in the early days, were probably not interested in reading the paper, being too focused on whatever application they were developing. So there was no audience to gain from this new category of people - note that neither Seattle paper grew at that time, either.
Here is why it failed. It started far too late for a daily. By 1976, all dailies were very well established and had long traditions behind them. The only way a new daily could be created was to create a whole new metropolitian area - which, in a way, is how the Las Vegas Sun got created. Indeed, since World War II, individuals have attempted to start new dailies, and have failed. For example, Anna Bottinger (who lived for a decade in the area that this paper covered, Mercer Island), daughter of FDR, tried to start up a liberal daily in Phoenix. It flopped. Not because Arizona was a right-wing state - at that time it voted Democrat - but because there already was a well established paper.
For one thing, readership of papers fell. In the 1920's, the average American household subscribed to over two newspapers. As time went along, for some reason, that number fell. One reason being that you got much of the same product and paid twice for it, especially since in the first half of the twentieth century, news reporting actually was quite unbiased (remember, this is long before the internet). So less room for the same number of papers, even if one focuses on a region.
The other reason this paper started far too late is that it was founded only two decades within the dawn of the internet age. Of course, no one of any credibility could have predicted in 1976 that millions of people would obtain almost all of their news from the same device that one does their shopping on. But it takes at least a generation to establish an institution - and a machine came along that started to erode it's base before it could fully establish itself. And, much of what the papers offer besides hard news, indeed, what people used to use the papers to make everyday choices - classified ads, movie times, street closures - have roles that were upsurped by other areas of the internet.
The final reason is that the suburbs of Seattle, like the suburbs of everywhere else, do not have a precise, pan-neighborhood identity. Since 1976, the suburbs ran into one big blur. Greater Seattle runs from Marysville to DuPont. People do not really care what happens in a neighboring surburban city. What happens on the Bellevue city council really does not affect the life of a person who lives in Kirkland - much less the Issaquah city council. Suburbs do develop a pan-regional identity, but not enough to build a community. Which is what a newspaper needs to thrive off of.
One minor thing I need to mention, too. One role of newspapers is to do things like line the litter box. Since the 1970's, there has been the rise of free papers. You might even care about the content, but you can use it to line the litter box, wrap fish, pack fragiles, etc. Why pay money for this when you can get a whole bunch of this stuff from a free rack?
So the paper collapsed after 30 years. But was it a failure? I hold that if a viable business lasts a generation, and delivers something useful to society, it is difficult to question that it is a failure. We individuals who have lived in the West are so used to newspapers, we think they will be around forever. We cannot conceive life without them. But we need to realize that newspapers have only been around for 300 years. They are thus a realitively new institution. However, new forms of communication have been developed to fill their function, and dailies are now entering their twighlight. In light of the fact that this paper existed during the final 10% of the time that newspapers have had importance, is to say that it was somewhat of a success.
So what importance did it have?
Well, none really. At least nationally. I don't believe it ever won a Pulitzer. All that it ever got was a picture of Mt. St. Helens in 1980. And some good endorsements. But over the long run, it did not have much national importance.
This paper was started in 1976 when it combined the newspapers of two local communities - The Kirkland Journal, and the Bellevue American, a far right-wing paper (meaning it had good content). It became the "Journal-American", and it was to service the "Eastside," of Seattles' suburbs east of Lake Washington. Which, at that time, where the majority of Seattle suburbanites lived (for there were still rural areas between Seattle and Everett, and Seattle and Tacoma, not one long continuous traffic jam). It was to address news of the developing Eastside community, and give really good editorials. And for a few years, I was a paperboy for this paper.
In 1994, it decided that it's market area was too small, and it thus decided to cover the rest of King County. Which makes for little sense, since King County is not really a community. The general Seattle area can be described as a community, and the Eastside can be described as a community, but the intermediate area is not, since there is no seperate and distinct commanalities that make all areas within it mutually exclusing (excepting geographical boundaries).
A recent editorial in a weekly paper noted that it failed because it failed to cover the growth of Microsoft. So the new residents to the area were not interested in it. Actually, it did cover the growth of Microsoft, and was quite proud of that fact, especially in the 1980's. The thing is that the employees of Microsoft, in the early days, were probably not interested in reading the paper, being too focused on whatever application they were developing. So there was no audience to gain from this new category of people - note that neither Seattle paper grew at that time, either.
Here is why it failed. It started far too late for a daily. By 1976, all dailies were very well established and had long traditions behind them. The only way a new daily could be created was to create a whole new metropolitian area - which, in a way, is how the Las Vegas Sun got created. Indeed, since World War II, individuals have attempted to start new dailies, and have failed. For example, Anna Bottinger (who lived for a decade in the area that this paper covered, Mercer Island), daughter of FDR, tried to start up a liberal daily in Phoenix. It flopped. Not because Arizona was a right-wing state - at that time it voted Democrat - but because there already was a well established paper.
For one thing, readership of papers fell. In the 1920's, the average American household subscribed to over two newspapers. As time went along, for some reason, that number fell. One reason being that you got much of the same product and paid twice for it, especially since in the first half of the twentieth century, news reporting actually was quite unbiased (remember, this is long before the internet). So less room for the same number of papers, even if one focuses on a region.
The other reason this paper started far too late is that it was founded only two decades within the dawn of the internet age. Of course, no one of any credibility could have predicted in 1976 that millions of people would obtain almost all of their news from the same device that one does their shopping on. But it takes at least a generation to establish an institution - and a machine came along that started to erode it's base before it could fully establish itself. And, much of what the papers offer besides hard news, indeed, what people used to use the papers to make everyday choices - classified ads, movie times, street closures - have roles that were upsurped by other areas of the internet.
The final reason is that the suburbs of Seattle, like the suburbs of everywhere else, do not have a precise, pan-neighborhood identity. Since 1976, the suburbs ran into one big blur. Greater Seattle runs from Marysville to DuPont. People do not really care what happens in a neighboring surburban city. What happens on the Bellevue city council really does not affect the life of a person who lives in Kirkland - much less the Issaquah city council. Suburbs do develop a pan-regional identity, but not enough to build a community. Which is what a newspaper needs to thrive off of.
One minor thing I need to mention, too. One role of newspapers is to do things like line the litter box. Since the 1970's, there has been the rise of free papers. You might even care about the content, but you can use it to line the litter box, wrap fish, pack fragiles, etc. Why pay money for this when you can get a whole bunch of this stuff from a free rack?
So the paper collapsed after 30 years. But was it a failure? I hold that if a viable business lasts a generation, and delivers something useful to society, it is difficult to question that it is a failure. We individuals who have lived in the West are so used to newspapers, we think they will be around forever. We cannot conceive life without them. But we need to realize that newspapers have only been around for 300 years. They are thus a realitively new institution. However, new forms of communication have been developed to fill their function, and dailies are now entering their twighlight. In light of the fact that this paper existed during the final 10% of the time that newspapers have had importance, is to say that it was somewhat of a success.
posted by EricMatthew at 11:01 PM
<< Home