News for the Rich, White, and Blue: How Place and Power Distort American Journalism

by Nikki Usher

As cash-strapped metropolitan newspapers struggle to maintain their traditional influence and quality reporting, large national and international outlets have pivoted to serving readers who can and will choose to pay for news, skewing coverage toward a wealthy, white, and liberal audience. Amid rampant inequality and distrust, media outlets have become more out of touch with the democracy they purport to serve. How did journalism end up in such a predicament, and what are the prospects for achieving a more equitable future?

In News for the Rich, White, and Blue , Nikki Usher recasts the challenges facing journalism in terms of place, power, and inequality. Drawing on more than a decade of field research, she illuminates how journalists decide what becomes news and how news organizations strategize about the future. Usher shows how newsrooms remain places of power, largely white institutions growing more elite as journalists confront a shrinking job market. She details how Google, Facebook, and the digital-advertising ecosystem have wreaked havoc on the economic model for quality journalism, leaving local news to suffer. Usher also highlights how the handful of likely survivors―well-funded media outlets such as the New York Times ―increasingly appeal to a global, “placeless” reader.

News for the Rich, White, and Blue concludes with a series of provocative recommendations to reimagine journalism to ensure its resiliency and its ability to speak to a diverse set of issues and readers.

Genres: Journalism, Nonfiction, Politics, Book Club

376 pages, Paperback

Published July 6, 2021

Reviews

[Lori L (She Treads Softly) · Rating 3 out of 5]

News for the Rich, White, and Blue: How Place and Power Distort American Journalism by Nikki Usher is a recommended, informative examination of journalism from 2016-2019 and the direction newspapers should take. (Highly recommended for for professionals in the industry.)

It is obvious to anyone who was ever devoted to reading their local daily newspaper that journalism and newspapers have changed over the years with the prevalence of the availability of online news. Obviously this switch hit the newspaper industry hard with a loss of income resulting in a reduced staff. Currently, according to Usher's research, the main supporters who are continuing to pay for their daily news are largely rich, white, and liberal. Naturally, the news is written with a slant toward the views of those who are paying for it and keeping the newspapers relevant and in business. Usher states in the opening, "Like many journalists, scholars, industry observers, and policy makers, I was frustrated by the blind spots of national journalists whose media bubble insulated them from the groundswell of right-wing populism in the United States. It became clear to me that place, partisanship, and inequality were increasingly intersecting when it came to how people felt about news and where journalism seemed to be on the decline."

As the journalists serve the readers who will pay for the news, they are increasingly losing touch with the larger scope of diverse public opinions and thus reinforcing the distrust in their coverage. It is a vicious cycle that leads to a continuation of the present state of journalism. Additionally, there is an increasing lack of specifically local and regional news stories as the well-funded media outlets write to cover the viewpoints of a global "placeless" reader.

In part and greatly summarized: Chapter one tackles the reasons behind the change in newspapers. Chapters two and three pinpoint the audience who pays for news, the reasons for journalism's realignment of their focus, and the implications of this. Chapter four looks in-depth at Washington DC correspondents and their role in journalism, as well as the increasing Beltway-Heartland divide in news. Chapters five and six examine how the "place-based dynamics of digital economics shape the future of newspapers at an institutional level" and compares newspapers to the New York Times to show the areas that will shape the future of newspapers. Finally, chapter seven scrutinizes data about supporting newspapers through nonprofit philanthropy and how this support furthers the current charges of news having media bias as the papers are located in liberal cities. Usher concludes with recommendations to overhaul the current practices to increase the ability of journalists to reach a divergent group of readers and cover a varied set of issues.

One recommendation would be to purchase the hardcover edition of News for the Rich, White, and Blue due to the many charts and graphs included in the text and notes covering all the research and data Usher compiled don't translate well to an ebook. Now, while interesting, this scholarly novel can also be repetitive and the information included can be dense. Anyone who has an abiding interest in journalism and the current state of news should read this work and take the conclusions seriously. There may be some additional changes that have happened since the focus of the book since 2020 certainly resulted in many changes.

Disclosure: My review copy was courtesy of Columbia University Press.
http://www.shetreadssoftly.com/2021/0...

[April Helms · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is so hard to evaluate. Much of it is good- solid, data-based conclusions as to why newspapers and news media is drifting more and more to being accessible only for the "blue" areas and by the wealthy. Usher goes into why the current models (especially the ad-based model) doesn't work anymore, and why most papers are going to struggle on a subscription and online ad model. The best example she gives of a Miami paper that did stellar coverage when Fidel Castro died- their metrics skyrocketed- but their work did not generate a single additional dollar. News for the Rich, White and Blue was a chilling read. Unfortunately, where this work falls flat, is in the chapter on solutions. This makes me wonder how well Usher understands the industry. One solution I agree with: newspapers (and businesses in general) need to have paid internships if they want more diversity in the newsrooms. But several other solutions are deeply flawed. The main ones: drop coverage of smaller events and meetings. Concentrate all efforts of investigative journalism. Rely more on "citizen journalists" who would be paid a stipend to go to meetings, take notes, and send them off to the paper (sort of like a court reporter).

I'll take the second item first: I'd love to see news media do more with investigative journalism. It's badly needed, and that's where the industry tends to shine brightest and make the most lasting impact. The problem? It's also by far the most expensive and time-consuming. A quarter of a million dollars is actually on the low side when it comes to how much doing a deep dive can cost. With smaller papers on squeezed budgets and the larger chains only concerned about ROI, this, unfortunately, is just not going to happen unless a LOT of foundation support crops up.

The first point- about forgetting about the smaller events- was the most irksome. The flaw can be summed up like this: Watergate was a bungled burglary- until it wasn't. No, I did not say that, and I don't recall who did- but it fits.

I've lost track of how many times a mundane meeting wound up being a big story locally, but I don't think I could ever top what happened to a friend and former colleague. He had three stories go viral nationally within about two years. All three also generated a month plus worth of stories that the Almighty Algorithm gods found especially delectable. All three stories stemmed from events that Usher would have advocated not bothering with. To be fair, two of those stories we would have found out about and could have done follow-ups, but it would have involved scrambling to play catch-up. The third and arguably most consequential story? Had my friend not been there to see what transpired and to ask the hard questions before cover stories could be concocted and spin created, we would have never had that story. It would have been neatly swept under the rug, with no way to verify what actually happened.

The reality is you aren't going to find the big stories without shoe leather on the pavement, even for the routine and mundane. If you want to find the big stories, you need to know the communities, the people who make it tick and the issues that will divide them and bring them together. By ignoring the smaller things, you risk missing the forest for the trees.

The third idea- the concept of citizen journalists — is actually one idea I like in theory. It would increase interest (and understanding) of journalism and news coverage. It would get people more involved in their communities. It could bring previously unheard voices to the forefront.

The problem? This was done before.

The idea of Citizen Journalism was all the buzz in the early 2000s. In fact, another friend and former colleague started a non-profit to train citizen journalists and provided a platform for publication. I took his workshops, out of curiosity, and they were solid. His nonprofit produced some great journalism. The problem is, once the grants dried up, it disappeared. So did many other efforts nationwide. Little to nothing remains of this grass-roots effort now. From what I've read about the current attempts to restart this, I doubt it will last. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, but there are a lot of issues and obstacles that scuttled the first efforts that haven't been addressed in the current day.

[Ashley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Insightful, well-researched, and at times dense, News for the Rich, White, and Blue: How Place and Power Distort American Journalism is exactly what it sounds like. Nikki Usher argues that newspapers and news outlets have systematically focused on their rich, white, and democratic readers as they are the most likely to adhere to subscription models. In a modern era where advertisements are more profitable on social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook, newspapers are left behind and funding becomes more scarce.

Usher's analysis is repetitive, but convincing. A quarter of the book (located in the Appendices) covers the research methods that Usher conducted in her own research studies, and then all the sources and interviews obtained from others are also posted. Every condition is viewed, from distance from Washington, donors, local participation, and the different cultures which exist in each region--all of which have an impact on what news is and how well funded it in throughout America. My favorite parts of the book were focused on newspapers I grew up with, such as The Boston Globe and The New York Times, and how they were both exceptions to the rules in a way. Other details that surprised me was what cities had hired the most reporters in recent years. I would have never expected Duval County, Florida to be hiring more news reporters than places in California.

Something I found ironic while reading Usher's book is that it also will likely be picked up by the very people who are invested in newspapers: the rich, white, and democrat-leaning individuals. In this book, Usher discusses that local news must focus away from weather and health information, and instead cover more locally meaningful stories which are inclusive to their neighborhoods. Most of the information gathered for the book was between 2016-2019, which poses a very unique time in history with the popularization of "fake news" and related slang. This book is written in a way which caters to the highly educated, and also those who love newspapers as they are now. It is unlikely that the poor rural elder farmer will pick this book up and find it meaningful, even though it validates a lot of the Republican's fear of Democrat-dominated media.

[Jessica · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thank you to Net Galley for providing me with an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.

Nikki Usher's News for the Rich, White, and Blue: How Place and Power Distort American Journalism is an important work for our time, and will all but certainly ruffle the feathers of the many left-leaning reporters who have forever bristled at the accusation that American journalism has a liberal bias. Usher confirms this bias is more prevalent now than ever before, along with a bias towards wealthy, white subscribers. The logic behind her argument is hard to contest: the internet revolution has rendered print news nearly obsolete, along with the revenue brought in by print ads, forcing subscribers to pay ever-increasing fees to access paywalled content. Due to the political realignment of the past decade or so, wealthier people are more likely to be white, liberal, and living in coastal cities, making them the target audience for major news corporations such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. While small, niche outlets have managed to remain independent, mid-sized outlets are dying fast, and are either getting bought out by major corporations or disappearing entirely. On the journalists' end, the decreasing number of news outlets has led to greater job competition, favoring graduates who attended prestigious private universities and were able to work unpaid internships while in school--and are therefore more likely to have come from wealthy backgrounds themselves.

As fascinating and timely as News for the Rich, White, and Blue is, the execution is far from flawless. There are many instances of "In this chapter, I will. . . " and, after devoting most of the book to bravely taking on the many issues of the news media that will surely not make Usher any friends on Twitter, she quickly reverts to a more bog-standard liberal conclusion at the book's end, as if to assure her fellow reporters that no, see, you are still the good guys. But more than anything, the greatest issue with News for the Rich, White, and Blue is that what was argued in a full-length book could have easily been accomplished in a fifty-page essay. Much of the book is simply re-affirming what we already gleaned from the Introduction.

Nevertheless, News for the Rich, White, and Blue is still worth the read, if for no other reason than to explain an increasingly relevant phenomenon that few people are putting into words. (Ironically enough, I would also recommend getting the print version in this case, since the graphs and charts were difficult to read on an e-reader).

[Garret · Rating 4 out of 5]

Usher does a fantastic job throughout this book, highlighting the issues with a news industry struggling to connect with new readers. The points on news ownership, the places where news is covered and the impact on audiences are very well worded and explored thoroughly. Most people likely know of a news desert, but Usher helps explore the prejudices that form about these audiences and helps tackle a more unique stance that the "good old days" of journalism were an ideal, but not the reality.

I think that Usher has a very understandable presentation of this in the early chapters, which I believe are the most important, but the writing can get dense with data on advertising and public funding. She cautioned about this in the introduction, but the latter half of this book can be a slog, especially for those reading casually. (I was personally reading this and taking notes, so it wasn't a personal downfall for my own experience.) The only section I didn't particularly enjoy was the section on the New York Times going global, but that's more of an issue I have with all journalism criticism, and Usher is good about mentioning they are an outlier for media analysis.

This is a great book for journalists and communications professionals. It provides some really insightful analysis about the future of the news industry. It is worth picking up, though it isn't as breezy a read as some other books on the topic. It provides a lot of good information and will get your gears turning as you read the local news.

[Guy · Rating 5 out of 5]

It has become clear in recent years that the way news is produced and consumed in America is just as complicit in the erosion of our democracy as our two-party dominated electoral systems. Nikki Usher’s book – News for the Rich, White, and Blue – is a well-researched deep dive into that phenomenon. She details how the revenue model that used to support newspapers – large and small – has disappeared in the past 20 years, thanks to tech giants like Google and Facebook who are able to target customers for advertisers in a way that newspapers never could. With the death of the old revenue model, came the rapid consolidation and closing of smaller and mid-sized papers. As that happened, people turned to cable TV for their news, and have been fed a nationalized perspective – further fueling the polarization that our electoral systems continue to solidify. As if that weren’t enough, social media AI algorithms feed Americans the most sensational of “news” as that’s the type of info that gets the most shares and engagement. So, Americans no longer agree on basic facts as they form their opinions. Fortunately, there are ways to begin to repair this damage, which Usher discusses extensively. The decay of local journalism can be reversed and doesn’t need to pose an existential threat to our democracy. #newsfortherichwhiteandblue #nikkiusher #thefourthestate

[Molly K · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this a fascinating read. Usher adds quality, experience and information to what has been long-suspected by the general public: how the elite control and manipulate the press. To warn readers: it is US-centric (which isn't a personal criticism of mine, but it might be to those who are planning on reading this for wider knowledge.)

It was a highly informative, well-researched book and I walked away a lot more cynical with regards to the media that I choose to consume. Would recommend to anybody interesting in politics, journalism - or for that friend whose just a little naive with regards to what they read in the Press.

Thank you to NetGalley for providing me with an ARC in exchange for an unbiased review :)

[Ruslan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book shows the situation among the publications in the United States and the trends in the media overseas. However, the book can also serve as an example for the media in Europe. Particularly interesting are the examples and the focus on local media, which are experiencing more and more problems to survive. I recommend it for people with an interest in the topic.

[Kaitlin Green]

Not rating this one since it was required reading for my Community Journalism course! But it was a really thought-provoking read, and Usher made a lot of compelling arguments about the state of journalism and what issues prevent news for being by and for everyone. Definitely expanded my worldview, especially as someone who's not going into tradition reporting!

[Carly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Truly remarkable. Usher is brilliant and thoughtful. I’m certain I will re-read it.

[Anjali · Rating 5 out of 5]

10/10. major syllabus material!!!