“Readers” Items

Changing Needs of Newspaper Readers, 1978

In 1979, Ruth Clark, noted newspaper researcher, authored a thoughtful report for the American Society of Newspaper Editors titled “Changing Needs of Changing Readers.” Commissioned during a time of declining readership, the report explored a question that still resonates: why were people turning away from newspapers It was based on focus groups across 12 U.S. and Canadian cities and uncovered a subtle but growing disconnect between editors and readers. The issue wasn’t just about what was in the paper—it was about how people felt about their newspapers. (Summary written by AI)

The Social Contract Was Fraying

Readers no longer saw editors as all-knowing gatekeepers. In fact, many questioned why faceless editors still dictated the “important” news. What they really wanted was relevance: stories that spoke to their personal lives, their neighborhoods, their struggles. “I live in one world—they live in another,” one reader lamented.

From Mandarins to Humans

The report described a “reader-editor gap” that went far beyond content. Readers wanted to see and feel the people behind the bylines, a shift toward what we might now call personalized journalism. The cold objectivity of traditional reporting began to feel alienating in a media world increasingly influenced by charismatic TV anchors and talk radio hosts.

Rise of the “Me” Generation

The study captured a cultural pivot from civic obligation to personal fulfillment. Readers didn’t just want to be informed—they wanted to be helped. They craved guidance on how to live well, manage money, understand relationships, and yes, have fun. Traditional hard news still mattered, but only when balanced with accessible, emotionally resonant content.

Format Fatigue

Even then, readers complained newspapers were too hard to navigate. They wanted summaries, indexes, modular content, and less repetitive reporting. One participant nailed it: “I can wait till the story is over and then find out what is really important.”

The Real Lesson: Listen More

The report didn’t offer a silver bullet—but it validated a method: direct, honest conversations with readers. Focus groups were a prototype for what we now know as audience engagement strategies. For a print industry historically rooted in one-way communication, this was radical.

Though this report is nearly half a century old, its themes resonate in today’s digital landscape. The need for human connection, relevance, transparency, and flexibility continues. As media evolved from analog to digital, the core need hasn’t changed: people want their stories told with care, by people who understand them. Readers want to see themselves in the media they are using.

Social Contract with Readers, 1978

starting to worry editors everywhere: why were readers pulling away from their newspapers? Clark, working with Yankelovich, Skelly and White, ran focus groups with more than 120 regular readers, occasional readers, and non-readers across 12 U.S. and Canadian markets — competitive and non-competitive, chain and independent, morning and evening. Editors observed the sessions and joined the conversation partway through. The result, published as “Changing Needs of Changing Readers,” became one of the defining reader-research documents of its era. Clark called the underlying issue “the new social contract” between editors and readers — and the report set out to describe what had broken in it.

We know very little about the subtle forces that seem to be weakening the emotional ties of many readers, making newspapers less wanted, less needed or, in extreme cases, resented.

  • The social contract was fraying. Readers no longer accepted editors as the Mandarins who simply decided what mattered. They wanted relevance — stories about their own lives, their own neighborhoods, their own problems. “Editors live in one world — and I live in another,” one reader put it. “They’re worried about the Middle East, and I’m worried about meeting my bills.”
  • From gatekeepers to people. The report described a reader-editor gap that went beyond content into feeling. Readers wanted to know who was talking to them — a shift toward what we’d now call personalized journalism, driven partly by a TV-anchor culture where credibility rode on personality rather than institutional authority.
  • The “Me” generation arrives. Clark’s groups captured a cultural pivot from civic duty toward self-fulfillment. Readers still wanted hard news, but they also wanted help — with money, health, relationships, daily coping. Self-oriented features paired with hard news, the report concluded, were becoming the real key to readership.
  • Format fatigue. Even in 1978, readers said newspapers were hard work to get through. They wanted indexes, summaries, and less repetition of running stories. “I can wait till the story is over,” one reader said, “and then find out what is really important.”

  • The real recommendation: listen. The report offered no silver bullet, but it validated a method — direct, unscripted conversation with readers through focus groups, a forerunner of what’s now called audience engagement.

Nearly half a century later, the through-line still holds: people want to be told the truth by someone who understands them, and they want to see themselves in the coverage. That need didn’t change with the shift from analog to digital — if anything, it got louder as the news landscape fragmented. 

Young Readers and the Future of the Chicago Tribune

In late 1973 and early 1974 I was part of a committee at the Chicago Tribune.  The committee members were all under 30 and most of us recent hires by the newspaper.  Our task was to explore what the paper should do to attract more younger readers.  This task was less about getting young adults to read newspapers but to read the Tribune instead of the Chicago Sun-Times.  Members of the committee: Ovie Carter, Gary Deeb, Howard Finberg, Clarence Page, Don Pierson, Bill Plunkett, Karen Schickedanz, Rick Soll and Linda Winer.  Here’s what we wrote in our summary:

Simply stated, the Chicago Tribune takes itself too seriously. This is not to diminish its role as one of the nation’s best newspapers. Rather, it is a suggestion that the time has come for the Chicago Tribune to slaughter, once and for all, many of its sacred cows.

Further on, we concluded:

What we are recommending, in a general way, is a relaxation of the restraint that prohibits surprise and thought-provoking material from appearing in the Tribune.   It is not a recommendation to relax or reduce in any  way the standards of journalism: Strict reverence for the facts, a sense of fairness, and an attention to thoro reporting.

Please note the unique spelling of thorough, as the Tribune was still gripped by a style book that used simplified spelling, a cause of the previous owner/publisher:  Col. Robert McCormick.

The  is available as a PDF file: chi trib_young readers group_02_1974

Typed 1993 memo from the Arizona Republic library listing reader response counts for PressLine, contests and call-ins

Reader Connections at the Republic

In early 1993 I asked the Arizona Republic’s library to pull together numbers on how many readers were actually responding to the paper’s various ways of inviting them in — contests, call-ins, the PressLine audiotext service. Joanne Dawson, the librarian, came back with this tally, along with a sensible caveat about the state of the data.

As you requested, here are some figures for how many people responded to the Republic’s “reaching out” through contests, call-ins, PressLine, etc. Many of the figures are estimates or averages as most areas do not keep statistics.

PressLine was the biggest piece, with 258,052 calls between December 29, 1991 and January 2, 1993. Sports scores dominated at 126,173, followed by movie reviews, sidebars, restaurant reviews and the recipe hotline. Short Takes, the Kids Page, sports phone-ins and a handful of contests filled out the rest.

GRAND TOTAL (est.) 334,790

What strikes me looking at this in 2026 is that almost nobody was keeping statistics. A third of a million reader interactions in a year, and most of it had to be reconstructed from old articles and someone’s best estimate of “40 calls/wk.” The audience was there and talking back — the newspaper just had no habit of measuring it. Web analytics would arrive soon enough and change that permanently.

February 1993 memo to Pam Johnson proposing a new approach to The Arizona Republic's Saturday edition

Rethinking the Saturday Republic

A February 1993 memo to Pam Johnson about the Saturday edition of The Arizona Republic. It grew out of a conversation with John Oppedahl and the paper’s latest readership research, which suggested Saturday didn’t behave like the rest of the week.

For too long, many newspapers, including this one, have looked at Saturday as an extension of the weekday (Monday through Friday). While our readers (myself included) see Saturday more as an prelude to Sunday.

The research point that mattered most: one in four readers said they spent more time with the Saturday paper than with a typical weekday edition — and those readers tended to have children under 18 at home and two or more people employed in the household.

Understanding and responding to that difference is the opportunity and challenge facing the paper.

I proposed a small working group — the right mix of “thinkers” and “doers” — naming Phil Hennessy, Susan Love, Bill Hill, Amy Carlile, Vinton Supplee, Judy Nichols and Diana Shantic. Among the content ideas: a Saturday centerpiece much like Sunday’s, a week in review feature, color comics, a feature for parents and kids to read together, home and garden and auto packages, personal finance, and health or fitness.

Attached was a timetable running from committee selection in February through research, prototypes, focus groups and marketing, with a launch of a new kind of Saturday newspaper by October or November.

NewsInc. September 1992 article spread headlined "Differences?" examining why women were leaving newspapers

Looking at the Newspaper Gender Gap,1992

An article by Susan Hansen in the September 1992 issue of NewsInc., examining why women were leaving newspapers and what editors were — and weren’t — doing about it. The piece opens with the Knight-Ridder/Tribune wire’s short-lived “Woman-Advisory” alerts and moves through the task forces, consultants, seminars and targeted sections that chains large and small had launched, driven less by principle than by economics.

The powers that be have lately concluded that women a) vote, and b) spend money.

The numbers cited: a Newspaper Advertising Bureau study showing an almost 18 percent drop in daily readership among adult women between 1970 and 1990, compared with a 12.5 percent decline among male readers; women holding only 10 percent of editor and executive editor slots at papers with circulations of more than 250,000, per the National Federation of Press Women; and a Women, Men, and Media Project survey of 20 front pages in February 1992 that found women claimed just 34 percent of bylines and only 13 percent of those referenced or quoted.

Quoted throughout are consultant and former Gannett executive Nancy Woodhull, St. Paul Pioneer Press managing editor Mindi Keirnan, Los Angeles Times associate editor Narda Zacchino, Washington Post columnist Judy Mann, Knight-Ridder vice president for news Jennie Buckner, and Georgetown linguist Deborah Tannen. Keirnan on the “no time to read” explanation:

“I don’t buy it when a woman says she doesn’t have enough time to read the paper… It’s a polite way of saying it’s not interesting enough for me to set aside.”

Much of the industry’s response, the article reports, centered on reviving women’s sections — ASNE‘s $200,000 “You” prototype for the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader, and the Chicago Tribune‘s “Womanews,” which about 60 newspapers signed on to syndicate in its first year. Critics warned of ghettoizing serious coverage. Zacchino:

“I find women saying we need to do more in the rest of the paper. We should start on the front page—make women feel this entire newspaper has something of interest to them.”

A companion feature, “Advice and Dissent,” gave 10 newswomen free rein to critique the front pages of The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. The panel: Deborah Howell of Newhouse News Service; Jacqui Banaszynski of the St. Paul Pioneer Press; Amy Kisman of USA Weekend; Nina Bernstein of New York Newsday; Emilia Askari of the Detroit Free Press; Renée Loth of the Boston Globe; columnists Judy Mann, Robin Abcarian of the L.A. Times and Betty Bayé of the Louisville Courier-Journal; and graphics director Laura Varon Brown of the Detroit Free Press. Their consensus was to focus on real people, replace foreign roundups with enterprise, and give women a presence.

“The truth about why women are leaving newspapers is self-evident,” says Washington Post columnist Judy Mann. “I don’t exist on these front pages.”

The article closes with examples of papers changing beats rather than adding sections — a full-time day care reporter and family page at the Charlotte Observer, expanded women’s sports and personal finance coverage at the Rocky Mountain News, and at the St. Paul Pioneer Press, reduced local political coverage, doubled education staffing, a new women’s health care reporter, and new consumer and local transportation beats. Keirnan on what convinced her staff, after she made line editors and reporters interview women readers and nonreaders directly:

“When people say to you ‘I read the paper while I blow dry my hair,’ you get religion.”

Editor & Publisher clipping from August 1992 covering an INMA conference panel on how to reinvent the newspaper for the next century

Advice for Next Century: An INMA Panel on the Future

An Editor & Publisher story by Ann Marie Kerwin, published August 8, 1992, reporting on a session at the International Newspaper Marketing Association conference in Dallas. The question on the table: how to reinvent the newspaper for survival in the next century’s media environment, at a moment when audiotex, videotex, databases and fax services were all competing for newspaper investment dollars.

The main speaker was Michael Schrage, a visiting scholar at the Center for Coordination Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who argued that newspapers and media should be in the community-building business rather than the information business.

“New media technology is a medium for relationships. New media affect how people communicate with each other, how people relate to each other. If you change the medium, you change the relationship. … New technology creates new relationships.”

Schrage said the Information Age never happened and isn’t going to happen, that the real value of a medium is not in the information it carries but in the community it creates, and that designing a newspaper for a faster read is the wrong goal — papers should invite readers to spend more time with them. He dismissed the fax newspaper as “a pure packaging job,” suggesting instead that fax be used for polling or for services like menus and maps tied to a restaurant review.

“Humans are information processors, but anybody who defines them that way would be better off programming a computer instead of editing or publishing a newspaper.”

The second half of the story covers the Gannett Company’s News 2000 project, then being implemented at all Gannett-owned papers, with community at the center of the effort. Betty Liddick, executive editor of the Stockton (Calif.) Record, described arriving in Stockton a year earlier:

“I was stunned by reader reaction. Many folks weren’t indifferent to the paper as many readers have become these days. They bitterly hated us. So much so, staffers said they often were reluctant to tell people outside the paper where they worked.”

Readers complained of too much negative news about their community and home, and didn’t want crime news to be the only thing the paper covered. At a meeting with readers and top editors, one man stood up and said, “Show us our heroes.”