OK, anecdotes don’t make up a statistically significant sample. But a collection of anecdotes, well…

So yesterday my 19th century US history class discussed the development of the penny press in the mid-19th century. As I’ve occasionally mentioned here at TMV, I think the pre-Progressive Era press was quite a bit like today’s blogosphere. It was hyper-partisan, hyperbolic, and hyperfocused on specific issues of interest to a particular locality or ideological position. I naturally assumed that my undergraduate students – from Freshmen to Seniors – would have seen the clear connection between today’s political blogs and the penny press of yesteryear.

And they did…sort of. When I described what the blogs are and how they are structured they got it. I even discussed how Memeorandum illustrates the ideological swarm of blogospheric opinion – each side has its own set of stories and “facts”, while ignoring the other. See how many liberal blogs are commenting on the NEA story in Memeorandum. See how many conservative blogs are discussing the back-and-forth on the public option. And see how few blogs actually reach across the aisle – even to mock the other side! Blogs are not self-correcting because so few readers even bother to read the other side. Alas, it is just like the early penny press where newspapers once literally printed out the electoral tickets, drummed up mass meetings in support of candidates, provided a megaphone for politicians and supporters, and freely distributed talking points. One can easily imagine Horace Greeley’s Radical Republican New York Tribune as the Daily Kos of the 1850s (before Greeley turned somewhat conservative during Reconstruction).

But the real story yesterday in class was different: when I asked my students to raise their hands if they ever read political blogs only about 4 students did so. When I asked how many students read traditional newspapers about 15 did (out of a class of 24). I’ve gotten similar reactions when I’ve asked other classes. These folks were not alone.

So much for the death of newspapers. Now, it’s possible that students would think a professor would look better on them for saying that they “read the newspaper” instead of “reading a bunch of stuff on the internet.” But after I just went through how thoroughly I read blogs myself and how I no longer pick up the dead tree edition of the newspaper (thus giving the new blogospheric medium legitimacy in the classroom), there was no reason for students to fear looking superficial for eschewing the modern newspaper. Yet, there they were, insisting that they still read The Newspaper.

On campus students can pick up free copies of the campus paper, the local Maryville Daily Times, the somewhat local Knoxville News-Sentinel, and the national New York Times and USA Today every day. In fact, these papers are accessible in highly visible racks wherever students gather on campus. It’s very easy to pick up a newspaper and read it.

But it’s even easier for this universally wired (or wireless) student body to read blogs too.

So why do they still read the paper? I thought newspapers were doomed – especially among the educated youth? Surely this technologically savvy next generation (and these kids ARE technologically savvy, as I discover on a regular basis) is aware of the changing nature of news media, right? Kids here on my campus were every bit as engaged with the election of 2008 as were students on campuses across the country. They are ideologically in line with most college kids, though a bit more conservative because most are from East Tennessee (though considerably less conservative than their parents; straw polls of students showed about 55-60% support for Obama among the students in 2008 while their parents went 70% for McCain).

So my guess is that students at this small liberal arts college are not much different than college students elsewhere.

Have we misread the death of newspaper readership then? Are we wrong to assume that the only people still willing to read the paper editions are elderly people who can’t adjust their eyes to the screen, or middle age types who just want to pour over the print with a cup of coffee? Have we prematurely declared the death of newspapers?

My guess is no. Newspapers really are in trouble. But the reason they are in trouble is not because of blogs. It’s because of Craigslist and other online classified sites. As my students discovered while scanning 1859 editions of the Glasgow Missouri Times and the Paris Kentucky Western Citizen, advertisements took up a significant portion of the page. As we marveled over the quack medical treatments (baldness cures were very much in vogue in the 1850s as well) we sensed just how critical ad revenue was for the “penny” press. Certainly the same is true today. But with alternative advertising schemes available for people to sell their excess stuff, there is little revenue flowing into the still-cheap newspaper.

So here’s a suggestion for all those struggling newspapers out there. Buy out Craigslist and any other sizable classified forum. And then start charging users for placing ads, while funneling revenue to newspapers. It makes a lot more sense than charging users for the content of newspapers. And it might save a traditional medium that young adults still enjoy.