(Limor Peer)

These days, young people's attitude toward the news is: "If the news is that important, it will find me," according to Jane Buckingham, founder of the Intelligence Group, a market research company. Many (older) people who hear this, just shake their heads.

They shake their heads because this goes against two common beliefs: First, though often unarticulated, is the belief that in any well functioning society all citizens should get at least a minimal level of news. And second, this attitude reveals a passive posture toward the news - which flies in the face of the prevailing credo of an increasingly active audience/consumer/citizen.

So, let's examine these two beliefs. What unsettles many is that an idealized model of reality - people care enough about politics that they will proactively seek news and information about the goings-on of government as to exercise their right to hold the government accountable - does not seem to work. But has it ever worked? And is it realistic to think that it will in the future?

Michael Schudson of the University of California, San Diego makes a convincing argument that the ideal notion of the "informed citizen" - which is part of the basic set of civic ideals we hold which includes good government, an objective, watchdog press, and an engaged citizenry - never really existed.

So if that is true, what are we really saying? I think the main thing we take away from this is a realization that not everyone is interested in what news organizations put out to the same extent.

At a conference on the Future of Journalism last week, Phil Meyer of the University of North Carolina reminded participants that the news has always "trickled down" from elites to the masses, as has been described by Katz & Lazarsfeld's "two-step flow" model documented in their book "Personal Influence" in 1955. Certain people - Katz & Lazarsfeld called them "opinion leaders" - are more tuned into the news and they serve as sources of this information to their social circle. Using today's terminology, these people are "hubs" in an information network.

The implication for news organizations should be straight-forward: Don't try to reach everyone. As was repeatedly pointed out at the Harvard conference last week: You never really did. All those people who bought the newspaper didn't buy it for the news, or to be "civically-informed." Many read it for the crossword puzzle, the sports pages, or the classifieds. Since there was just no way for them to unbundle that information, newspapers benefited financially because they were able to aggregate a mass audience and professionally because they were able to subsidize news with entertainment.

Today, news organizations need to reach out to those who like and care about the news - and not try to get everyone. It is unclear exactly how large this group is, some speculate that about 10% of the population prefers news to entertainment. But in any case, contrary to what many believe, these people are not necessarily "elites." Markus Prior of Princeton University showed that the preference for news content (vs. entertainment) cuts across gender, race, income and education and that age matters only slightly.

So, thinking in terms of specialty or niche products rather than mass products means you have to rethink your audience - don't try to reach everyone, try to reach the people who want what you have to offer. In doing so, keep in mind that,

1. This group does not want to be passive consumers of news. Those who like and care about the news, are not just your best consumers - they are also the ones who are more willing to participate in the production of news. This group is active - they will not wait for the news to find them, but will actively seek news, interact with it, and create it.


2. And they will share it - they will participate in the distribution of news and information. They are the ones who pass on, blog, comment, Twitter, and post a link - and the people who know them will pay attention.

As Matthew Ingram said, "Are most websites designed with this kind of principle in mind? Not really." What would your Web site, and your newspaper for that matter, look like if it really went after this group?

Implications for a democracy in which all citizens can equally vote but not all are equally informed are and should be debated. But regardless of your view on that, news organizations should seriously consider having a lively, relevant, and engaging conversation with those who are willing to do so.


By Limor Peer (l-peer@northwestern.edu)
Limor Peer is research director for the Media Management Center and Readership Institute.