For today’s lead item, I turn it over to my colleague, Rick Edmonds, Poynter’s media business analyst.

Add another to the long list of financial challenges for U.S. media outlets in 2024: Of those who pay for digital news (itself a low fraction), at least 60% pay less than full price.

The finding comes in a first-time measure in the annual Digital News Report, released today, from the respected Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University.

Here are the details:

• In the U.S., the researchers found a median monthly cost of $16, just under $200 a year.
• Surveying 480 users, they found that 31% paid that or more, 60% paid less than the median, and another 10% said that they didn’t know. Those who paid $1 or less a month made up 7% of the total.

The Reuters report is international in scope, and the deep discounting is not unique to the U.S. Figures in the United Kingdom are similar. But Scandinavian countries had a much higher percentage of full pay, led by Norway, where only 38% get a discount and the median price is a good deal higher at more than $25 a month.

Why is there so much discounting and what could be done to encourage subscribers to pay more?

From a publication’s point of view, discounting makes sense for several reasons. Even a modest number following through to full pay is a net addition to paid audience numbers, more likely to accept full pay than those asked to from the start.

Those with cheap subscriptions may read less than more committed customers, but they add to pageview totals, still prized by advertisers. One additional digital customer costs next to nothing to serve. Also, the outlet at least captures an email address to which it can send newsletters and solicitations.

But there is an important downside, emerging this year. Canceled subscriptions jump with attempted conversions to full pay. Those on the rate for a year or two may decide they don’t read enough to justify the expenditure.

Consultant Peter Doucette told me that new subscriptions are still being added in 2024, but an uptick in drops is driving flat or declining audience numbers.

Plus it continues to be true as both Reuters and Pew Research have documented that little more than 20% are unwilling to pay for news at all and don’t see a scenario where they will.

The Reuters report summarizes the challenge and offers recommendations this way:

Not every publisher can expect to make reader revenue work, in large part because much of the public basically does not believe news is worth paying for, and continues to have access to plenty of free options from both commercial, non-profit, and in some countries, public service providers. But for others, building digital subscriptions based on distinctive content is the main hope for a sustainable future. Discounting is an important part of persuading new customers to sample the product but publishers will hope that over time, once the habit is created, they can increase prices. It is likely to be a long and difficult road with few winners and many casualties along the way.

Past Reuters reports have made headlines with findings of a lack of trust in news media (especially in the United States) and news avoidance by more than a third of adults because many find journalism polarizing or depressing.

Several years ago, I asked Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, director of the Institute, whether it was fair to call its projects, always meticulously researched and well-written, a downer. He said that he would prefer a characterization of “realism” and argued those in the trenches need awareness of the trends in play more than mere optimism and encouragement. (Nielsen is leaving Reuters this fall for a professorship at the University of Copenhagen.)

For all the issues identified, this year’s edition ends on a constructive note:

Some kind of platform reset is underway with more emphasis on keeping traffic within their environments and with greater focus on formats proven to drive engagement, such as video. Many newer platforms with younger user bases are far less centred on text and links than incumbent platforms, with content shaped by a multitude of (sometimes hugely popular) creators rather than by established publishers. In some cases, news is being excluded or downgraded because technology companies think it causes more trouble than it is worth. Traffic from social media and search is likely to become more unpredictable over time, but getting off the algorithmic treadmill won’t be easy.

While some media companies continue to perform well in this challenging environment, many others are struggling to convince people that their news is worth paying attention to, let alone paying for. Interest in the news has been falling, the proportion avoiding it has increased, trust remains low, and many consumers are feeling increasingly overwhelmed and confused by the amount of news. Artificial intelligence may make this situation worse, by creating a flood of low-quality content and synthetic media of dubious provenance.

But these shifts also offer a measure of hope that some publishers can establish a stronger position. If news brands are able to show that their journalism is built on accuracy, fairness, and transparency — and that humans remain in control — audiences are more likely to respond positively. Re-engaging audiences will also require publishers to rethink some of the ways that journalism has been practised in the past; to find ways to be more accessible without dumbing down; to report the world as it is whilst also giving hope; to give people different perspectives without turning it into an argument. In a world of superabundant content, success is also likely to be rooted in standing out from the crowd, to be a destination for something that the algorithm and the AI can’t provide while remaining discoverable via many different platforms. Do all that and there is at least a possibility that more people, including some younger ones, will increasingly value and trust news brands once again.

Thanks to Rick for today’s lead item. Now onto the rest of today’s newsletter …

Posting more bad news

(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Another day, another terrible story involving Washington Post publisher and CEO Will Lewis.

The New York Times’ Justin Scheck and Jo Becker report that Lewis and incoming Post editor Robert Winnett “used fraudulently obtained phone and company records in newspaper articles” when both worked in London. This was according to someone who the Times said was a former colleague, a published account of a private investigator and an analysis of newspaper archives.

Scheck and Becker wrote that Lewis assigned one of the articles in 2004 when he was business editor of The Sunday Times and another article was written by Winnett. The Times wrote, “The use of deception, hacking and fraud is at the heart of a long-running British newspaper scandal, one that toppled a major tabloid in 2010 and led to years of lawsuits by celebrities who said that reporters improperly obtained their personal documents and voice mail messages.”

All along, Lewis has said that his only involvement with the phone-hacking scandal was to look into it after it became public. “But,” the Times wrote, “a former Sunday Times reporter said on Friday that Mr. Lewis had personally assigned him to write an article in 2004 using phone records that the reporter understood to have been obtained through hacking.”

A second article from 2002 had Winnett’s byline and a private investigator who worked for The Sunday Times, according to The New York Times, “later publicly acknowledged using deception to land the materials.”

There’s more.

The New York Times reported that their review of Lewis’ career “also raised new questions about his decision in 2009, as editor of The Daily Telegraph in Britain, to pay more than 100,000 pounds for information from a source. Paying for information is prohibited in most American newsrooms.”

The Times wrote, “In a meeting with Post journalists in November, Mr. Lewis defended the payments, saying that the money had been put into an escrow account to protect a source. But the consultant who brokered the deal said in a recent interview that there had been no escrow account and that he had doled out the money to sources himself.”

This is just the latest in two weeks’ worth of awful attention the Post is receiving following executive editor Sally Buzbee leaving the paper. Lewis replaced Buzbee with Winnett and another one of Lewis’ former colleagues, Matt Murray.

Politico Playbook’s Eugene Daniels, Ryan Lizza and Rachael Bade report that the latest Times story has lowered morale even more inside the Post, and raised more questions about Lewis’ leadership. They report that one high-profile Post staffer texted them, “I have asked my friends and family to stop sending me links to stories about Will Lewis. Every scoop is worse than the last. I can’t focus on my work when each headline heightens what’s beginning to feel like an existential crisis.”

Another Post reporter told Politico Playbook, “People are like, ‘Do we really want to work here anymore?’ People are freaked out. They, for the first time or in a long time, are considering exiting. I don’t think people want to be there if this is what it’s going to be like.”

After each one of those stories, the same question comes up: Can Lewis survive as publisher? In the end, that will be up to owner Jeff Bezos, who hasn’t said anything publicly or internally at the Post.

A Post reporter told Politico Playbook, “Bezos has been a very good owner of The Post up until this point. And now we have a sort of a moment. … Can you really stick with this guy who is doing all of this? If Jeff is sticking with him, then, like, what can you do? You have to make your own decisions.”

Here’s more on everything from NPR’s David Folkenflik, including additional reporting: “New Washington Post chiefs can’t shake their past in London.”

Veteran media reporter Brian Stelter tweeted that senior Post staffers got together Sunday night for a party to celebrate Buzbee. Gee, think they will have any tea to spill?

Stelter also tweeted, “Another Wash Post tidbit: Will Lewis was going to fly to France for this week’s Cannes Lions ad festival, but he’s no longer attending, for obvious reasons.”

Oh, and then The Washington Post dropped this story Sunday night from Isaac Stanley-Becker, Sarah Ellison, Greg Miller and Aaron C. Davis about Winnett: “Incoming Post editor tied to self-described ‘thief’ who claimed role in his reporting.”

I’m sure there will be more on this as the week goes on. Yikes, what a mess at the Post.

Let’s debate

The first presidential debate between President Joe Biden and Donald Trump is fast approaching. It’s set for June 27 and will be televised on CNN.

CNN will share its feed so that other cable and broadcast networks can air the debate, but it comes with plenty of conditions, according to the Los Angeles Times’ Stephen Battaglio.

For instance, any network that shows the debate must display the CNN “bug” — meaning CNN’s logo. The other networks can include their own logos, but they can’t block out CNN’s. CNN also is requiring other networks, both in coverage and in promos for the event, to call it the “CNN Presidential Debate Simulcast” and use artwork provided by CNN.

Battaglio wrote, “As of Friday, rival network executives said they were pushing back on some of CNN’s requirements. Some networks may choose not to promote the simulcast on their air if they are forced to mention CNN every time.”

Hey, the way I see it, CNN landed the debate and is producing the entire thing, including providing the moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. They can require whatever they want from the other networks, which don’t have to simulcast the debate if they don’t like CNN’s demands.

Meanwhile, rules for the debate have been announced, as well.

The debate will be 90 minutes long with two commercial breaks. Candidates cannot meet with staff at any point, even during the breaks. Both candidates must stand behind their podiums, and will not be allowed to have any prewritten notes. They will be given a pen and paper, and water.

If it’s not a candidate’s turn to speak, their microphone will be muted. There will be no audience.

What about RFK Jr.?

Will Robert Kennedy Jr. qualify for the debate?

According to CNN, “All participating debaters must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency and receive at least 15% in four separate national polls of registered or likely voters that meet CNN’s standards for reporting.”

Those polls include CNN, ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, Marquette University Law School, Monmouth University, NBC News, The New York Times/Siena College, NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist College, Quinnipiac University, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.

CNN wrote, “Kennedy has received at least 15% in three qualifying polls so far and is currently on the ballot in six states, making him currently eligible for 89 Electoral College votes.”

That’s far short of the 270 Kennedy needs, so it’s unlikely he will meet the debate’s qualifications.

Is this the end?

NBA broadcaster and Hall of Famer basketball star Charles Barkley, in 2022. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill)

Charles Barkley, arguably the greatest NBA (and sports) analyst of all time, says next season will be his last as a broadcaster. But does he mean it?

Let’s review. Barkley is an analyst on TNT’s “Inside the NBA,” long considered the gold standard of sports studio shows. There’s a good chance that TNT’s owner, Warner Bros. Discovery, will lose NBA television rights when its current contract expires after next season. The new rights deals should be announced soon, and are expected to go to ESPN/ABC, NBC and Amazon Prime. There has been much speculation that the “Inside the NBA” crew, which includes analysts Kenny Smith and Shaquille O’Neal and host Ernie Johnson, could get wooed by another network should WBD lose rights.

But during an appearance from the NBA Finals on NBA TV on Friday night, Barkley said, “I ain’t going nowhere other than TNT. But I have made the decision myself that, no matter what happens, next year is going to be my last year on television.”

Barkley, 61, seemed genuine, and also seemed to realize that he was making a grand statement. He has talked about not wanting to broadcast forever. But he also has talked about retirement before.

If Warner Bros. Discovery’s chances of landing a new TV deal with the NBA can somehow rise from the ashes, maybe Barkley would keep going with his “Inside the NBA” pals.

The Athletic’s Andrew Marchand wrote that perhaps ESPN/ABC could make Barkley an offer he simply could not refuse. Marchand wrote, “A sweetheart deal for Barkley to do the opening night of the regular season and then the playoffs would be a win-win for everyone. Barkley would not have to work as hard and would continue to make millions while gracing the ESPN studio shows, lifting them up during the biggest games of the season, including the finals.”

Marchand added, “It is also hard to see Barkley go because — what is he going to do? The man is a talker. He cuts through because he is the same on the air as he is off and treats his former best friend Michael Jordan just as he would you or I. That is the secret sauce of Barkley — there is sincerity without a filter. He will seemingly talk whenever to whomever and whatever.”

Media tidbits

• Politico’s Michael Schaffer with “The Disappearing Tucker Carlson.”
• Catching up on this from last week. Washington Post sports columnist Jerry Brewer with “The Media’s Role in Fracturing Sports.”
• Front Office Sports’ A.J. Perez with “Pro Football Focus’s Dysfunction Comes at the Worst Possible Time.”

Hot type

• The New York Times’ Madison Malone Kircher and Callie Holtermann with “What Really Happened Inside Miss USA?”
• The Wall Street Journal’s Katherine Blunt with “The Influencer Is a Young Teenage Girl. The Audience Is 92% Adult Men.”

More resources for journalists

• Got a story you’d like to write for Poynter? Email pitch@poynter.org with your idea, approximate timeline and word count.
• Are you an upcoming-and-coming newsroom manager?
• Work-Life Chemistry: Ditch work-life balance for a more sustainable approach.
• Manage big responsibilities without direct reports? Try Lead With Influence.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.

The Poynter Report is our daily media newsletter. To have it delivered to your inbox Monday-Friday, sign up here.