Pew study: Internet takes over papers as news source

Here I am using my two unread newspapers as a thick place mat for my Christmas Eve Chinese lunch, and what should cross my desk: a new Pew study showing that the Internet has surpassed newspapers as Americans' main source for national and international news.

How appropriate--albeit a little sad for this ol' school journalist who still romanticizes about the days when you could truly stop the presses.

(Credit: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press)

Some 40 percent of those surveyed by Pew Research for the People & the Press say they get most of their international and national news from the Internet, up from 24 percent in September 2007. Internet coverage of the presidential campaign--much of it buoyed by social networks--was likely the reason for that recent growth.

(Credit: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press)

TV, however, continues to be cited most frequently as a main source for international and national news, according the study.

Other interesting findings of Pew's News Interest Index are the top news stories of 2008. The economy took the top spot, followed by rising gas prices and the debate over the Wall Street bailout.

Click here (PDF) for more details on the study.

[jeromebill]

I think there must be a reason for this, Oh ya I remember now, Government Censorship. Internet news is free and I do not buy Tabloids. Now all we need if "fringe" news that is verified. Any time a person subscribes in a thought other than what is written or broadcast by our Provda Gov. officials they are called Koo-Koo or nuts, Well guys I am a nut but, at least I am not informations biach.

[dadcss]

Liberal bias is long and deep with most print media.

Much of America is fed up with extreme journalism, be it left or right, that tries to disguise itself as the middle.

At least on the internet, you know how the news site leans.

[saintseminole]

I'll second what dadcss said, but I'll phrase it differently. Many Americans would rather read poorly written, poorly researched "news" on the internet, than poorly written, poorly researched "news" on a piece of paper.

As a journalist myself, I have to ask: what's the point of a physical newspaper, compared to the possibilities of a news website? Instant access, able to be updated at any time of day, able to link to other stories or ads, ability to use poorer quality photos (72 dpi and two inches across, compared to 200 dpi and five inches across in an actual paper), ability to correct/change a story at any time.

And from the consumer's standpoint, the number of online news choices is outstanding, compared to the choices at the newsstand (except maybe in NYC).

The only real holdout of the newspaper is in small towns (25,000 or less), where it's much less likely that a "news" website will report the local goings-on.

[bmrowe23]

The Internet is an inherently better medium for finding information. To me, a newspaper is 80% fluff. The bulk of it is irrelevant advertising and information I don't care about. I can find what is going on and what I am interested in far easier, faster and cheaper on the Internet. Further, I can choose my bias or seek a counter perspective. I can read Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, Fox or even CNet without buying more landfill fodder. I can even respond to articles and say that at least I didn't have to pay anyone for writing a study about the obvious.