“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