Analysis: Local newspapers survive or close for different reasons

Local news can help residents hold elected officials 
accountable. (Photo by J. Mone, AP via Converation CC)

Beginning around 2005, community newspapers across the U.S. faced unprecedented financial stresses, which over time forced more than a third to close. While their closures have left communities in vulnerable "news deserts," they aren't random. Instead, the reasons smaller newspapers often close fall into a recognizable pattern. In her piece for The Conversation, Abby Youran Qin "identifies key drivers − ranging from racial disparity to market forces − that determine which towns lose their papers and which ones beat the odds."

Although local papers exist to serve their communities, they still need profits to keep the doors open. That is why some neighborhoods still have a paper. Qin explains, "Local newspapers survive where affluent subscribers and deep-pocketed advertisers cluster. That means wealthy white suburbs keep their watchdogs, while low-income and diverse communities lose theirs."

When poorer neighborhoods lose their paper and their investigative reporters, residents become more vulnerable to social power abuse. Qin writes, "Poor and racially diverse communities often face the harshest policing and interact more with street-level bureaucrats than wealthier citizens. That makes them more vulnerable to government corruption and misconduct."

Community newspapers often fail to serve their entire audience in equal ways. For instance, if everyone who worked at a local paper was white, would black events and happenings be equally covered? Over time, a pattern of bias in some news organizations caused racially diverse neighborhoods to distrust, dislike and not subscribe to the local paper.

"Diverse neighborhoods get hit twice. First, their local papers inadequately represent them," Qin explains. "Then, when people understandably turn away, subscriptions drop, advertisers pull back and the outlets shut down, leaving whole communities without a voice."

The structure of "market-dependent journalism," has also caused community newspapers to close, even when an area's population is growing. "The catch lies in who is moving in: Population growth saves papers only when it comes with wealth," Qin writes. "The news gap experienced by fast-growing communities may persist where local journalism depends primarily on traditional advertising and subscription revenues rather than diversified revenue sources such as grants and philanthropic donations."

Smaller newspapers are more likely to survive together. "In an era of decline, my analyses reveal a counterintuitive truth: Your town’s paper actually has better odds when nearby communities keep theirs," Qin adds. "Resilient local journalism clusters together. . . .When regional businesses support multiple outlets, the entire news ecosystem becomes more sustainable."

Letting go of partisan slants can help a community paper survive. "It turns out that there’s no significant link between a county’s partisan makeup and its ability to keep newspapers," Qin writes. Large subscribing bases and corporate advertisers often keep bigger newspapers afloat. Party affiliation isn't what drives their revenue.

Choosing to push politics left or right doesn't serve a local paper's interests. Qin explains, "But local journalism’s survival hinges on practical factors such as money and market size. Saving local news isn’t a left vs. right debate − it’s a community issue that requires nonpartisan solutions."