• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Foreword
 Table of Contents
 Part I: Statement of ANPA general...
 Part II: Economic analysis of competition...
 Part II (continued): Tables and...
 Part III: Newspapers and the antitrust...
 Part IV: Technological developments...
 Back Matter
 Back Cover














Title: Newspapers 1963
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00096283/00001
 Material Information
Title: Newspapers 1963 A presentation before the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee
Physical Description: 374 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: American Newspaper Publishers Association
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on the Judiciary
Donor: unknown ( endowment ) ( endowment )
Publisher: American Newspaper Publishers Association
Publication Date: April 25, 1963
 Subjects
Subject: American newspapers   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
General Note: Errata sheet inserted.
General Note: Presented before the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, 1963
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00096283
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 04216831

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Foreword
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
    Part I: Statement of ANPA general manager, Stanford Smith
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 20a
        Page 20b
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
    Part II: Economic analysis of competition in the daily newspaper business by Professor Jesse W. Markham
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
    Part II (continued): Tables and charts to accompany statement of Jesse W. Markham
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
    Part III: Newspapers and the antitrust laws -- Analysis and synthesis of statutes and judicial interpretations
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
        Page 288
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
        Page 299
        Page 300
        Page 301
        Page 302
        Page 303
        Page 304
        Page 305
        Page 306
        Page 307
        Page 308
        Page 309
        Page 310
        Page 311
        Page 312
        Page 313
        Page 314
        Page 315
        Page 316
        Page 317
        Page 318
        Page 319
        Page 320
        Page 321
        Page 322
        Page 323
        Page 324
        Page 325
        Page 326
        Page 327
        Page 328
        Page 329
        Page 330
        Page 331
        Page 332
        Page 333
        Page 334
        Page 335
        Page 336
        Page 337
        Page 338
        Page 339
        Page 340
        Page 341
        Page 342
        Page 343
        Page 344
        Page 345
        Page 346
        Page 347
        Page 348
    Part IV: Technological developments in newspaper publishing
        Page 349
        Page 350
        Page 351
        Page 352
        Page 353
        Page 354
        Page 355
        Page 356
        Page 357
        Page 358
        Page 359
        Page 360
        Page 361
        Page 362
        Page 363
        Page 364
        Page 365
        Page 366
        Page 367
        Page 368
        Page 369
        Page 370
        Page 371
        Page 372
        Page 373
        Page 374
    Back Matter
        Page 375
        Page 376
    Back Cover
        Page 377
        Page 378
Full Text


I'*

II~ IL_

i6 3
'13193161
19316 t,6

:) 19. i9,316























UNIVERSITY
OF FLORIDA
LIBRARIES


Journalism and Communications
Reading Room
VO01803 I3AS3NI5
VOO1801 JO AlIS83AINf
SNOIVNINflWIO ONV I
WSI1VNHflof J0 1OOHOS


















NEWSPAPERS

1963






















A Presentation By the American Newspaper Publishers Association
Before the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Judiciary
Committee, 1963









AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION








FOREWORD




This volume has been printed in response to many expressions
of interest in the full presentation by ANPA before the Antitrust
Subccmmittee of the House Judiciary Committee in March 1963.

It is intended as a reference work for ANPA members on the
full range of legal and economic topics covered in the presentation.
This broad subject matter seeks to place the daily newspaper in its
proper perspective in the United States in 1963. For that reason
the title is "Newspapers 1963."


Stanford Smith
General Manager


April 25, 1963







ini


CONTENTS



Page

FORWARD i

CONTENTS i x



PART ONE

STATEMENT OF ANPA GENERAL MANAGER, STANFORD SMITH


I. INTRODUCTION 3

ANPA Membership 3

The ANPA Findings 4

II. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE PRESS IN THE U.S. 6

Rise of the Independent Press 8

More Dailies Now Than in 1944-45 9

III. POWER OF CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESS 12

IV. LABOR UNION PRACTICES IN THE NEWSPAPER FIELD
AS RELATED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION 17

V. COMPETITION IN THE NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING BUSINESS 19

Ownership of Newspaper Groups 22

VI. TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHING 25

Some Advancements Minimized 27

VII. CROSS-OWNERSHIP OF NEWSPAPERS AND
BROADCAST STATIONS 28

VIII. LIMITED ROLE OF ANTITRUST LAW ENFORCEMENT
AS APPLIED TO NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING 30







iv
PART ONE (continued)


Page

IX. REPORT OF BRITISH ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS 32

X. CONCLUSION 34




PART TWO

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF COMPETITION IN THE DAILY NEWSPAPER
BUSINESS BY PROFESSOR JESSE W. MARKHAM


I. INTRODUCTION 38

II. THE STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL AND SELECTED LOCAL
NEWS-DISSEMINATION MARKETS 42

The Standard Metropolitan Area Study 43

The 50 County Study 47

III. THE STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL AND SELECTED LOCAL
ADVERTISING MARKETS 48

IV. MERGERS'AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS 52

V. CONCLUSIONS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPETITION IN
THE DAILY NEWSPAPER BUSINESS 57




PART TWO (continued)




TABLES AND CHARTS TO ACCOMPANY STATEMENT OF JESSE W. MARKHAM


TABLE I MEDIA-ENGAGED IN NATIONAL, .LOCAL AND CLASSIFIED
ADVERTISING 62

TABLE II STRUCTURAL TRENDS IN MEDIA OWNERSHIP, SELECTED
YEARS, 1945-1959 63

TABLE III THE SMSA STUDY 64

TABLE IV THE COUNTY STUDY 94

SOURCES OF DATA IN TABLES III AND IV 144








V

PART TWO (continued)


TABLE


TABLE

TABLE


TABLE


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART

CHART


v


VI

VII


VIII


I (a)


I (b)


I (c)


I (d)


I (e)


II

III


PART THREE


NEWSPAPERS AND THE ANTITRUST LAWS--ANALYSIS AND
SYNTHESIS .OF STATUTES AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS


Analysis and Synthesis of Statutes and Judicial
Interpretations


CHANGES IN NUMBER OF ADVERTISING MEDIA ENTITIES,
BY TYPES OF MEDIA, 1939-1961

TOTAL ADVERTISING VOLUME IN THE UNITED STATES

NEW U.S. DAILY NEWSPAPERS VS. DAILY NEWSPAPERS
WHICH SUSPENDED, MERGED, OR SWITCHED TO WEEKLY,
1930-1962

HOURLY WAGE SCALES IN THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS FOR
FIVE MAJOR CRAFTS

FITEEN-YEAR RECORD OF REVENUE AND COST INCREASES
EDITOR & PUBLISHER COMPOSITE DAILY

FIPTEEN-YEAR RECORD OF REVENUE AND COST INCREASES
10,000 ,25,000 DAILY CIRCULATION

FIFIEEN-YEAR RECORD OF REVENUE AND COST INCREASES
25,000 50,000 DAILY CIRCULATION

FIFTEEN-YEAR RECORD OF REVENUE AND COST INCREASES
50,000 100,000 DAILY CIRCULATION

FIFTEEN-YEAR RECORD OF REVENUE AND COST INCREASES
OVER 100, 000 DAILY CIRCULATION

U.S. NEWSPRINT CONSUMPTION 1946-1962

NEWSPAPERS AVERAGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 1947-1961


145
146, 147


148


149

150


151


152


153


154

155

156


159











PART THREE (continued)





I. Over-All Conclusions 160

A. Limited Role of Antitrust in Newspaper Field 160

B. Virtually All Antitrust Newspaper Cases Have
Involved Charges of Violations Based Upon
Alleged Abuses in Business Practices (Behavior) 161

II. Statutory Standards of Major Antitrust Laws: In
General 164

III. Jurisdictional Requirement of Interstate Commerce 166

A. Under Sherman Act 166

B. Jurisdictional Questions Under the Robinson-
Patman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act 172

Newspaper Advertising Space Is Not a "Commod-
ity" Within Section 2 (Robinson-Patman Act)
and Section 3 of the Clayton Act 172

IV. Newspaper Publishing is a Private Business Not
Subject to Regulation as in the Public Utility
or Other Regulated Business Fields 178

Conclusions Summarized 178

General Constitutional Considerations Relevant to
Statutory Regulation of Newspapers 178

A. Refusal to Accept Advertising 180

B. Refusal to Distribute Newspapers Through
Certain Parties 182

C. Refusal to Accept and Publish Material in
Nature of Public Notices 183

D. Refusal to Print Some Aspect of a News Story 184

Associated Press Case Not Decided on a "Public
Utility" Rationale 185

A Newspaper Is Not a Manufactured Article as in
Industries Engaged in the Production and Distribution
of Commodities 186







vii

PART THREE (continued)

Page

V. Primary Jurisdiction of Federal Communications
Commission Over Licensing of Radio-TV Under
Common Ownership of Newspaper Publisher: Relation
to Antitrust Law 191

VI. Refusal to Deal; Scope of Newspaper Publisher's
Right to Select Persons for Business Relationships 198

A. Individual Refusals to Deal--Newspaper Cases 199

B. Concerted Refusals to Deal 205

Press Associations and Related Cases 208

VII. Conscious Parallelism or Uniformity of Business
Conduct vs. Conspiracy 212

VIII. Monopolization or Attempt to Monopolize Under
Section 2 of Sherman Act by Single Newspaper
Publisher or Enterprise 216

Sole Daily Newspaper in Local Community: Lay vs.
Legal Concept of "Monopoly" 216

The Sole Daily Community Newspaper Is Neither a
Barrier to Responsible Performance of Press
Functions Nor a Monopolistic Threat 218

Unreasonable Per Se Antitrust Violations 227

Extended Rule of Reason Inquiry 228

Monopolization Under Section 2 of Sherman Act 228

The Legal Concept of Monopoly Power In the
Relevant Market 229

Required Proof of a General Intent or Purpose to
Exercise Monopoly Power 230

Application to Sole Daily Community Newspaper--
Union Leader Case 230

Union Leader Findings of Fact 231

Union Leader Conclusions of Law on Natural Sole
Daily Monopoly 234

Conclusions of Law on Wrongful Intent to Exclude
Competition 237







viii


PART THREE (continued)

Page

Illegal Group Boycott Induced by Union Leader 239

Discriminatory Advertising Rates 241

Court of Appeals Absolved the Gazette of Wrongful
Intent to Exclude Competition 242

NNE's Purchase of Gazette Stock Held Lawful 244

Doctrinal Significance of Union Leader Opinions
of District Court and Court of Appeals 245

IX. Judicial Recognition of Intramedia and Intermedia
Effective Competition in the Relevant Market 256

X. Advertising Rate Practices 270

A. ANPA Leaves Each of Its Publisher Members
Completely Free to Determine Within His Own
Independent and Unilateral Discretion the
Advertising Rates He Charges for Advertising
Space in His Newspaper or Newspapers 271

B. Unit or Combination Advertising Rate for Same
Advertisement in Several Newspapers of Same
Newspaper Owner 273

C. Newspaper Consent Judgments on Refusal to
Deal--Unit Rate Plan 279

XI. Newspaper Mergers in Relation to Celler-Kefauver
Amendment to Section 7 of the Clayton Act 280

Union Leader Case 281

Jurisdictional Questions Under Section 7 282

Supreme Court Approach to Adjudication of Section
7 Merger Case Outlined in Brown Shoe Company Case 283

(1) Economic Purpose of the Merger 287

(2) Market Factors Pertaining to Competitive Effects 287

(a) Size or percentage share of market
foreclosed 287

(b) Is there a trend toward vertical integration
attributable to competitive forces? If so,
what are the probable effects on the merger
under consideration? 288







ix

PART THREE (continued)

Page

(c) Is there a trend toward undue concen-
tration and what are its probable effects
upon competition? 289

Defining the Relevant Market 294

The "Reasonable Interchangeability" Test Applied to
Relevant Market 294

Failing Newspaper--Exception and Justification 301

XII. Joint Arrangements Between Newspapers: Criteria
of Legality Under Antitrust Laws 314

Applications of Principles to Joint Arrangements
Between Newspapers 322

XIII. Limited Role of Antitrust Enforcement and
Remedies Applied to Newspaper Publishing Business 329

The First Amendment Precludes Various Proposed
Congressional Enactments to Regulate the Press 334

XIV. Basic Constitutional and Factual Differences
Between the United States and British Press:
A Summary and Critique of the British Royal
Commission on the Press 335

Part I Purposes 336

Part II Background 337

Part III Differences in Circumstances 339

Part IV Constitutional Differences 340

Part V The Commission's Recommendations 343

Part VI Summary 346



PART FOUR


TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING


I. INTRODUCTION 351

II. THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF NEWSPAPER PRINTING
PROCESSES PRIOR TO THE POST-WORLD WAR II YEARS 352

A. The Composing Room and Engraving Department 352







x

PART FOUR (continued)



B. The Stereotyping Department 353

C. The Press Room 353

D. The Mail Room 354

III. THE RADICAL CHANGES IN NEWSPAPER PRINTING
PROCESSES SINCE WORLD WAR II 354

A. The Composing Room and Engraving Department 355

B. The Stereotyping Department 357

C. The Press Room 361

D. The Mail Room 365

IV. MAJOR NEWSPAPER PRODUCTION RESEARCH PROGRAMS
SINCE WORLD WAR II 366

V. INCREASED CAPITAL OUTLAYS SINCE WORLD WAR II 371

VI. ANTICIPATED FUTURE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS 372

VII. CONCLUSIONS 373






















PART ONE





STATEMENT OF STANFORD SMITE, GENERAL MANAGER
OF THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
MARCH 14, 1963, WASHINGTON, D. C.











STATEMENT OF ANPA GENERAL MANAGER STANFORD SMITH
BEFORE THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
MARCH 14, 1963, WASHINGTON, D. C.







My name is Stanford Smith. I am General Manager of the American

Newspaper Publishers Association.

ANPA wishes to express its thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, and to

the members of the Subcommittee for according this opportunity to

appear at this early stage of your hearings on the newspaper business.

In doing so we hope to provide the Subcommittee a usable factual

base as a guide for consideration of additional testimony.


AMPA Membership


ANPA is a non-profit membership corporation existing under the

laws of the State of New York. It was organized in 1887.

Membership in ANPA is held by newspapers rather than by individuals.

Our present membership of more than 860 daily newspapers represents

more than 90 per cent of the daily and Sunday newspaper circulation

in the United States. About half our members have daily circulations

under 25,000; about three-fourths of our members have daily circulations

under 50,000.

As a national trade association, ANPA concerns itself with matters

of over-all significance to the daily newspaper publishing business

and the profession of journalism. AMPA acts as a clearing house of

business information for its members by disseminating many bulletins,










research reports and other communications about all phases of the

newspaper business.

ANPA owns and operates a research laboratory devoted to efforts

to find more effective ways to produce daily newspapers of better

quality at lower cost. Ibis is accomplished through the ANPA Research

Institute. Including the research activities, ANPA has 112 full-time

employees in offices in New York and Chicago and the research center

at Easton, Pa.

ANPA neither concerns itself with nor attempts to dictate the

management policy of any individual newspaper or group of newspapers,

nor does AMPA participate in any manner in the determination of news

content or editorial policies of its member papers.

AIPA regards these hearings as a matter of utmost importance to

the newspaper business and to the people of the United States. We are

therefore respectfully presenting the results of detailed studies and

our views for the Subcommittee's consideration.


The AIPA Findings


In summary ANPA believes the facts demonstrate the following

conclusions:

1. Changes in the structure of the newspaper business in the

United States have been the result of natural economic, social and

political forces in a free society. In the extensive population

changes of the post-war years, new daily newspapers have been

established in rapidly growing suburban areas and smaller cities










while in some of the largest cities, some daily newspapers have

suspended or merged, as a result of economic pressures. These

economic pressures include the rising cost problems of distribution

in traffic-congested metropolitan areas; the ever-increasing wage

and salary scales; the increasing costs of equipment and supplies;

the tendency of suburban retail businesses to drain off some of the

trade from the downtown stores which are principal newspaper

advertisers; the competition of many other media including direct

mail and the ever-increasing number of radio stations; and the

entry of an entirely new advertising medium -- television -- into

vigorous competition with the older media.

2. The assumption that there is a continuing decline in

competition in the newspaper publishing business is based on

erroneous premises. We will present facts to demonstrate that there

is vigorous competition in the dissemination of news and advertising,

both among newspapers and with other media.

3. There is no factual cause for alarm about changes in ownership

of newspapers and other media, either through newspaper mergers, group

ownership of newspapers, or common ownership of newspapers and radio

or television stations. A leading authority on this subject, Professor

Raymond B. Nixon, editor of Journalism Quarterly, rightly concludes

that "More media voices (meaning separate media ownerships) compete

for the attention of the U. S. public today than ever before." No less

an authority than Chairman Newton Minow of the Federal Communications

Commission has said that "The better broadcasting stations in America










are owned and operated by newspapers ....The newspapers are community

and journalism oriented. They put more emphasis on local problems

and issues."

4. The newspaper business today is more enterprising in serving

readers and advertisers, more dedicated to public service and more

vigorous in its competition with other media than ever before.

Newspapers neither seek nor want any subsidy or special legislation

from Government, but rather we rely on the Constitutional guarantee

of freedom of speech and of the press as protecting the right to

serve the public of our free society in competition with any and all

other media in the dissemination of news and advertising.


HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE
PRESS IN THE U. S.


In any discussion of the quantity and quality of newspaper service

American society wants and needs, there is an abundance of subjective

opinion. Almost everyone assumes he should be able to edit a newspaper

to conform with his ideas. Literature on the American press abounds

in criticisms from newspaper publishers themselves, from editors and

reporters, from schools of journalism, from labor unions, from self-

appointed critics of the press, from Government indeed, from all

walks of American life. Constructive criticism from all these sources

brings much of the great strength of daily newspapers and their

increasing efforts at improvement.

TWo hundred years of experience have evolved the daily newspapers

of the United States as they exist today. In today's form, they are










the result of the pressures of a continuing struggle for survival.

Newspaper content and quality changed in pattern as conditions of

American life changed. To be sure, newspaper publishers like

James Gordon Bennett, Charles A. Dana, Joseph Pulitzer, William

Randolph Hearst, Adolph S. Ochs, and E. W. Scripps broke new ground

in their personal views regarding what kind of newspaper the people

would read. Opinions differ on the quality of the Journalism they

personally espoused but.the historic fact is that they were innovators.

Readership became the crux of the competition for circulation and

this in turn became the magnet for advertisers. Circulation and

advertising revenues evolved as the twins of economic survival

because the newspaper is a business enterprise that must make a profit

to survive. Its economic health determines whether it can perform

the functions of supplying news, ideas and editorial opinion which is

the ultimate purpose of the newspaper as an institution in a free

society.

In his authoritative book, American Journalism, A History: 1690-1960,

Dr. Frank Luther Mott, Dean Emeritus of the School of Journalism,

University of Missouri, clearly delineates American newspaper history

into periods based on the chief characteristics of newspapers in

each period. Like many other businesses and industries, newspapers

have changed greatly, just as the United States has changed in its

economic, social and political history.

From Colonial days to the 1870's, American newspapers were

predominantly established as the voices of political parties or










partisan groups. There was a paper for almost every shade of

political opinion. Dr. Mott observes that this partisan flavor of

the press was the reason that "villages of only a few hundred would

often have two papers, of differing political faiths."

Accordingly, we can easily understand why in that period a

conscientious citizen would need to read two, three or four

newspapers to get as much varied news and opinion as he can get from

one newspaper today.


Rise of the Independent Press


Professor Mott sums up the factors that led to the emancipation

of newspapers from domination by party or special interests:

"A chief reason for this change was the shift

in emphasis from editorial comment and preoccupation

with the affairs of government to the wider fields

of news and to more intimate human interests. This

change in the news concepts took the newspapers away

from the politicians and put them in the hands of

reporters. Doubtless the widespread loosening of

party bonds and relaxation of party loyalties

contributed to newspaper 'independence', though it

is probable that the contribution was reciprocal --

that is, the changing function of the newspaper

caused by the advent of the popular cheap press,

probably did much to weaken old party solidarity.










After all, the partisan newspaper had been one of

the leading means of keeping party members convinced

and faithful."

The change from a "party press" in America to the independent

press did not take place overnight. The changes evolved slowly as

part of the developing pattern of life in America. The rising

literacy among the people led to increased reader interest in varied

content in newspapers.

In tracing the history of newspapers it is difficult to establish

precisely the number of newspapers which were in existence each year.

The sources vary somewhat. It seems clear that the number of daily

newspapers in the U. S. reached its peak about 1909 or 1910 when

there might have been as many as 2,500 dailies in existence. This

was still in a transition period from the "party press" to the modern

concept of a newspaper and a period of rapid growth of the country.

The older newspapers which had been established as political organs

were gradually going out of existence. While some new daily newspapers

were also being established, the trend was downward in the number of

daily newspapers until the time of World War II.


More Dailies Now Than in 1944-45


For the years since 1919 we have a consistent source of the number

and total circulation of U. S. daily newspapers through the Editor &

Publisher Yearbooks. The record of the years since World War II reveals

a pattern of amazing stability with only slight fluctuations in the







10

number of daily newspapers and steady increase in total daily newspaper
circulation. The number of dailies is actually greater now than at
the end of the year 1944, as shown in the following table:
Year Number of Dailies Total Daily Circulation
1944 1,744 45,954,838

1945 1,749 48,384,188
1946 1,763 50,927,505
1947 1,769 51,673,276
1948 1,781 52,285,297
1949 1,780 52,845,551

1950 1,772 53,829,072
1951 1,773 54,017, 938
1952 1,786 53,950,615

1953 1,785 54,472,286
1954 1,765 55,072,480
1955 1, 760 56,147,359
1956 1,761 57,101,510

1957 1,755 57,805,445
1958 1,751 57,418,311

1959 1,761 58,299,723
1960 1,763 58,881,746
1961 1,761 59,261,464
1962 1,760 59,848,688

The above chart simply puts in graphic form certain facts which
are well known to newspaper executives. The years since World War II
have been a period of the "population explosion" and of great mobility









of the American people. The suburbs have grown rapidly, the automobile

has provided families with the means to travel greater distances to

work or for pleasure. The same automobiles have created unprecedented

traffic problems in and around most metropolitan cities. Retail

businesses have grown fast in outlying areas around large cities and in

the small and medium size cities. All these changes have resulted in

changes in the patterns of business activity. This, in turn, has changed

the advertising patterns and reading patterns in ways which defy easy

generalization.

The really valid conclusion is that under a free economy newspapers

can be published only in those areas where there are sufficient readers

and advertising sources to offer an adequate economic base for profitable

operation. As many newspapers will be published in any given market as

are economically feasible. Where some newspapers have suspended, merged

or consolidated in some metropolitan cities in the years since the end of

World War II, new daily newspapers have been established in surrounding

suburban communities so that the total number of daily newspapers has

remained virtually constant while the total circulation has steadily

increased.

We recognize in our present society, as in the past, the continually

evolving press has its shortcomings. Like other institutions of American

society, it will always have imperfections. Yet we are convinced that

the history of American journalism portrays the steady improvement in the

quality and accomplishments of the newspaper press as it has matured into

the newspaper of today which provides full coverage of the news of all

sides of controversial public affairs.










The United States is unique among the countries of the world in

guaranteeing in its Bill of Rights and in protecting throughout its

history the right of the people to have a free press and freedom of

speech. This is one of the rights given to the people by the Founding

Fathers which has stood us in good stead throughout our history. No

dictator could ever take over this country and subjugate our people

because the people are guaranteed the right to have a vigilant press.

If any segment of the press is not vigilant in the public interest,

the people will decide its fate.

Accuracy and fairness in news reporting prevails today because

these qualities inhere in the competitive struggle for newspaper survival.

Critics who pick and choose particular incidents of news reporting

which they subjectively attack as biased or distorted ignore the

paramount lesson of journalism history that, whether their criticisms

are unfounded or justified, honest and responsible journalism cannot

be legislated into publishers or reporters.

Newspaper readers are and must remain the final judges of the

quality of journalism practiced by the daily newspapers of America.


POWER OF CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE
THE PRESS


ANPA raises no question as to the authority of this Subcommittee to

inquire into the general business practices existing in the newspaper

publishing business and in other media of mass communications. This

Subcommittee has jurisdiction to explore matters substantially related

to courses of conduct by newspapers which the Subcommittee believes may










be questioned as incompatible with the Federal antitrust and trade

regulation laws.

We do not readily see, however, that inquiry into such other areas

of general laws to which newspapers are subject, such as libel law,

tax laws and the like, would be pertinent. In addition, there are certain

other matters ARPA believes are beyond the scope of valid legislative

enactment. In brief, these matters relate to the functions of the

press in gathering and disseminating information. Every Supreme Court

decision since the landmark case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931 has made

it indisputable that freedom of the press under the First Amendaent protects

the sole discretion of each individual newspaper publisher independently

to decide upon the news he chooses to print, the editorial comment

he elects to make, and the advertising he decides to accept for

publication, as discussed in detail in a Legal Analysis presented for

incorporation in the record as Appendix A to this statement.

The ANPA respectfully reserves the right of newspaper publishers

to object to any inquiry by this Subcommittee which might encroach

on the aforementioned area. We are most appreciative of the Chairman's

repeated assurances that these matters will not be the subject of inquiry

at these hearings.

In his address before the Overseas Press Club in New York on

September 27, 1962, Chairman Celler announced the main subjects of

these Hearings. The title of his address itself describes the core of

the concern which prompted this inquiry -- namely, "The Concentration

of Ownership and the Decline of Competition in News Media."










In more specific form, Mr. Celler expressed concern regarding the

continuing decline in the number of daily American newspapers and an

increase in the number of single newspaper cities. Coupled with this

concern, he singled out newspaper mergers and common ownership of

newspapers by the so-called "chains", as well as common ownership of

newspaper-radio-television. He implied that these conditions may be

related to a decrease in competition in the variety of news, views

and advertising media.

A major premise of Chairman Celler's talk appears to be that newspaper

readers, radio listeners and television viewers are being deprived of

the multiplicity of sources of information and ideas which is the

responsibility of the press and other media to provide.

The ANPA position is that these inferences are refuted by the

weight of historical and current evidence. In other parts of this

presentation, we shall demonstrate affirmatively by factual data and

economic analysis that in structure, behavior and accomplishments,

effective competition exists in the newspaper publishing business in

national and local or regional markets. We shall show that this

effective competition exists not only in newspaper media but in all

other media of communication with which newspapers compete.

In that connection, we have had the consultation services of

Professor Jesse W. Markham, of the Department of Economics of Princeton

University. He will appear as a witness at the conclusion of my

testimony to present a detailed Economic Analysis of Competition in

the Newspaper Publishing Business and its relation to the other media









of mass communication.

The factual picture in the United States is one

of amazing diversity of sources of news, views and

ideas in the complex of the newspaper press and other

mass media of communication by print, sight and sound.

Indeed, one might suppose that any informed American citizen, as

a matter of mere daily observation and experience, would readily attest

to the plurality of sources of information in the form of news and views

available to him. One might also understand why an administrative

agency or a court might take official notice of this diversity without

requiring statistical and factual proof.

In his Overseas Press Club address Chairman Celler also expressed

a desire to seek answers to certain questions he enumerated.

Three questions concern newspaper mergers. He asked, "First: Are

newspaper mergers 'good' or 'bad', or 'of no consequence'?" We

interpret this to mean, are newspaper mergers legal or illegal under

the Celler-Kefauver Amendment to Section 7 of the Clayton Act or under

the Sherman Act. This is a question that can only be answered properly

through a case by case adjudication on the whole record before an

administrative agency, the Federal Trade Commission, subject to judicial

review, or by the Department of Justice through a federal District Court

also subject to appellate review. Likewise, a private party by a suit

for injunction or for treble damages may seek to have the legality of

a newspaper merger tested in the courts.

Chairman Celler next asked, "Second: Are newspaper mergers










inevitable under existing conditions?" He was referring particularly

to a merger which results in what he labels "a local newspaper monopoly."

The attached ANPA legal memorandum shows how oversimplified and

misleading the words "newspaper monopoly" may be, especially when the

competition of radio, television and other media are not taken into

account in any given relevant geographic market in the lines of commerce

involved. Yet apart from this, the inevitability of a particular

newspaper merger as a means of economic survival for the one remaining

newspaper, or for the continued publication of two newspapers under

common ownership, can only be determined before appropriate tribunals

as part of the judicial process.

Chairman Celler's third question was this: "Third: What are

these conditions (i.e., conditions affecting newspaper mergers) and

how can they be changed?" We are cooperating with this Subcommittee's

inquiry into general conditions existing in the newspaper publishing

business with respect to mergers. Whether those conditions can be

changed by valid Congressional enactments is another question.

For example, we believe it would be clearly unconstitutional for

Congress to enact special legislation aimed at curbing only newspaper

mergers, nor do we seek special legislation on behalf of newspaper

mergers. Amended Section 7 of the Clayton Act is a general antitrust

provision on mergers which does not exempt newspapers. The same applies

to the Sherman Act. If a particular newspaper merger is questioned and

the jurisdictional prerequisites of interstate commerce and other

jurisdictional requirements are established, ANPA believes it must be









left to the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice to decide

whether or not to institute suit. We do not see how this Subcommittee can

propose valid legislation to prevent or unscramble newspaper mergers which

do not transgress either amended Section 7 of the Clayton Act or the more

stringent tests of violation of the Sherman Act.

In addition to believing that existing mergers in the newspaper field

do not Justify any generalization that they have caused a decline in

newspaper competition, we also take the position that the First Amendment

forbids Congress from making such mergers illegal per se. To single out

newspaper mergers would be discriminatory against newspaper publishers.


LABOR UNION PRACTICES IN THE
NEWSPAPER FIELD AS RELATED TO
MHE SUBCOMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION


The ANPA is thoroughly cognizant of the provisions of Section 6 of the

Clayton Act and of the Norris-LaGuardia Act exempting labor unions from

the reach of the antitrust laws under most circumstances. We point out,

however, that by the very nature of these exemptions it is both pertinent

and appropriate that the Subcommittee review this field to ascertain

whether or not these exemptions should be narrowed, broadened, left alone

or repealed.

This is particularly so since it is self-evident in the newspaper field,

as in many other fields, that there have in recent times been charges

from various sources of union practices of a restrictive nature encroaching

upon management prerogatives which would clearly be violative of the

antitrust laws in the absence of the exemption of the Clayton and Norris-

LaGuardia Acts. We make no judgment in this statement as to the truth







18

or lack thereof of these charges. We do suggest that they represent a

subject which should properly be brought before this Subcommittee and

that a conclusion be reached by the Subcommittee as to whether or not

action should be taken in this field.

We noted with interest a question asked the Chairman and his

answer at a recent press interview:

Q. "Are you going to look into union labor costs?"

A. "Yes. I realize that the costs of labor and newsprint are

bedeviling newspaper publishers and it would be very unfair

not to go into that."

We believe it important that the Subcommittee thoroughly explore the

facets of this vital subject which clearly lie within its jurisdiction,

fully recognizing that other matters relating to labor come within the

jurisdiction of the House Committee on Education and Labor and the

Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Stated another way, there

is no juridical reason why this Subcommittee could not recommend legislation

of an antitrust nature designed to curb union practices if these practices

can be shown to be aimed at or result in direct restraints on commercial

competition. Unions have been held subject to the antitrust laws in

those instances where the courts have found their conduct to be beyond

the scope of the above-cited exemptions. The subject of such antitrust

violations is clearly within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee and its

investigatory powers.

Further discussion of the scope of the exemptions as interpreted

by the Supreme Court and lower federal courts is beyond the purpose of

this statement. We are certain that the Subcommittee staff has ample










information in the area to which we have addressed ourselves and you

will find reference to this subject in the attached ANPA Legal Analysis.

We suggest that in light of the unfortunate events of the past

few months involving strikes against several large newspapers that the

Subcommittee has a duty to reach a determination as to whether these

labor union exemptions from the antitrust laws are compatible with the

current national public interest.

We know of no way in which the Subcommittee can investigate

increasing costs of labor in newspaper publishing without an inquiry

into this field. It may be determined that the labor unions' demands

have been reasonable and that their approach to collective bargaining

has in no way violated antitrust principles. Were a conclusion to the

contrary reached, the Subcommittee could then decide what kind of

legislation it would recommend to correct the abuses disclosed.

ANPA's position on this point can be simply summed up as a

recommendation for an equitable, non-discriminatory inquiry into the

relevant antitrust aspects of general application to labor and management

in this field. An investigation of competition among daily newspapers

and with other media of mass communications could not be complete without

a thorough inquiry into those areas encompassing labor union power and

practices relevant to our national antitrust policy.


COMPETITION IN THE NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHING BUSINESS


The ANPA Economic Analysis to be presented by Professor Markham

deals with the business functioning of competition in relevant newspaper







20

markets. This ranges over news, advertising and circulation competition

in the operations of newspapers. Newspaper publishing is a business

with all the attendant problems of prices, advertising and circulation

rates, costs, and growth in circulation and advertising revenue on which

profits depend. In addition, the First Amendment guarantees the press

an immunity from governmental interference not given to any other profit-

making private enterprise. Granted that newspaper publishing as a

business has no special immunity from the applicability of general laws,

such as antitrust laws and the labor laws, it does not follow that the

thrust of these laws is the same for the press as for industries which

have no special status under the First Amendment in the performance

of their functions.

For example, the First Amendment precludes Congress from treating

the press as a public utility, even though newspaper publishers regard

themselves as at all times under the responsibility of serving the

people of this nation for whom freedom of the press is guaranteed.

The ANPA Legal Analysis of antitrust newspaper cases confirms that

the Supreme Court and lower federal courts carefully distinguish wherein

the business of the press in its commercial aspects is subject to the

antitrust laws and, on the other hand, the functions of the press which

are immune from antitrust or other regulatory controls under general laws.

This distinction applies to questions of alleged concentration of ownership,

and other like matters of inquiry by this Subcommittee. We believe the

courts will continue to recognize that newspaper publishing is not the

same as ordinary industrial enterprises and will strike down the5 use

of the antitrust laws when they confuse the commercial activities of a






AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION


ERRATA SHEET


Deletions and Corrections


to

NEWSPAPERS 1963.


Page 174 -



Page 180 -


In second paragraph, second live, eliminate
from end between exclusive and dealing.


In next to last line third word should read
"As".


"of" third word



"as" instead of


Page 181 -




Page 185 -



Page 260 -



Page 288 -



Page 292 -



Page 295 -


Page 297 -





Page 321 -


Last indent first word should be "we" instead of "We".
5th line of same indent, third word from end, should be "no"
instead of "not".


Third paragraph from bottom, next to last line should read
"obligated to serve all comers without discrimination and on".


Fourth line from top should read "that radio and television
are stiff competitors of newspapers".


Next to last line of first indent should read "preserve the
'failing company' doctrine of International".


First line should read "companies, a test which was the focus
of the original Section 7".


Footnote 8/ second word should be "Bock" instead of "Book".


Footnote 2/ 2nd line should read "Judicial Recognition of
Intramedia and Intermedia Effective Competition in the".
Delete the last three words in the next line of this foot-
note. Third line correctly reads "Relevant Market."


Fifth line should read "Reason approach. Thus, in Maple
Flooring Mfrs. Ass'n. v United".










newspaper and the goals its publisher sets in deciding the kind and

quality of newspaper he elects to publish.

Professor Zechariah Chafee, Jr., is the author of Government and

Mass Communications, published in 1947 under the auspices of the Commission

on Freedom of the Press.

Professor Chafee warned against the fallacy that enforcement of the

antitrust laws can achieve the diffusion of newspaper ownership and plurality

of daily papers in every community. This theoretical and abstract goal

must yield to the economic reality that a community may be able to support

only one daily newspaper. Likewise, acquisition of that paper by the

owner of another newspaper or the owner of a group of newspapers in

another market or other markets may be the only way to economic survival

of the single newspaper in the city in question.

If it is assumed, contrary to what the ANPA believes is the factual

picture, that there is danger from concentration of newspaper or intermedia

ownership, we would ask, as did Professor Chafee: "What assurance have we

that the Sherman Act can do more for the press than for commodities?", so

far as concentration is concerned. We would ask the same question for the

Celler-Kefauver Amendment to Section 7 of the Clayton Act. For we are

convinced that the antitrust laws play their appointed role in the newspaper

field primarily by dealing with abuses the Government or a private party

can prove before a proper tribunal. The ANPA believes its over-all factual

study demonstrates that there is no present danger from excessive concentration

of ownership power in the newspaper business in the United States.









Ownership of Newspaper Groups



At this point let us examine briefly the facts of competition vs.

alleged concentration of ownership. A leading authority on the subject of

newspaper ownership and intermedia competition is Professor Raymond B. Nixon

of the University of Minnesota who is editor of Journalism Quarterly.

For several years Professor Nixon has compiled statistics on ownership

of daily newspapers by "newspaper groups" for publication in various reference

sources. He compiled and published these figures for the 50-year period

1910-1960 in the Winter 1961 Journalism Quarterly.

The number of groups and the number of newspapers in the groups have

increased steadily since 1910, but the average number of newspapers per group

has been declining in recent years. Professor Nixon found an average of 5.1

newspapers per group in 1960.

ANPA compiled similar data in 1962 and found that the average had

declined further to 4.7, the lowest number of newspapers per group since 1910.

The following table tells the story:



NEWSPAPER GROUPS

1910 1923 1930 1940 1945 1954 1960 1962 (ANPA Records)

Number of
Newspaper
Groups 13 31 55 60 76 95 109 134

Number of
Newspapers
in Groups 62 153 311 319 368 485 560 626

Average
Number
Per Group 4.7 4.9 5.6 5.3 4.8 5.1 5.1 4.7










The ANPA research in 1962 also showed that the daily newspaper business

in the United States is controlled by 1,160 different ownerships. This is

a net figure after taking into consideration all groups and all instances

of morning and evening newspapers under single ownership in some cities.

This broad base of ownership hardly indicates cause for concern over any

form of centralized control of the press in the United States.

Professor Nixon summarizes the trends in newspaper ownership this

way:

"Concentration of ownership in the daily newspaper

field has been becoming more intensive and less extensive.

That is, local 'monopolies,' inter-city dailies and small

regional groups have been increasing, while large national

chains -- in the United States, at least -- have declined

in size and circulation. At the same time the long-term

trend in total daily circulation has been steadily upward."

It is unquestioned that the number of cities with only one daily

newspaper has been steadily increasing. It is pertinent to note, however,

that the number of cities with one or more daily newspapers has also been

increasing steadily due to the establishment of daily newspapers in cities

which previously did not have a daily. Professor Nixon's study just

referred to shows an all-time high of 1,461 daily newspaper cities in 1960.

This is a reflection of facts previously mentioned that new and rapidly

growing suburban communities will attract entrepreneurs willing to invest

in the establishment of a new daily newspaper when the potential for readers

and advertisers is sufficient to warrant the capital investment. Frequently










these new publications begin as weeklies, later convert to twice-weekly

and eventually become dailies.

Regardless of the size or location of a city having only one daily

newspaper, there is diversified intra-media and inter-media competition

in the relevant market for both news and advertising. The ANPA Economic

Analysis to be discussed by Professor Markham will demonstrate this with

results of a national survey conducted for this purpose.

It clearly reveals competition in the news field among the local daily

newspapers, out of town metropolitan newspapers, weekly newspapers, specialized

local publications, local radio and television stations and news magazines.

Among these media the average person faces a problem not in being forced

to get his news from only one source but in selecting those which he prefers.

In the field of advertising, the local daily newspaper has a mass of

competitors. For national advertising it must compete with network and local

television, radio, magazines, metropolitan daily newspapers circulating

in its community, outdoor billboards, direct mail, specialized publications,

weekly newspapers, and even advertising gimmicks such as match books and

ball point pens. For local advertising its direct competitors are other

local publications such as weekly newspapers and shoppers, direct mail,

outdoor billboards, school and college publications, radio and television

stations, telephone directory "yellow pages", handbills and other local

advertising devices.

Another important facet of competition which the local daily newspaper

publisher confronts is competition for the reader's time. The average

citizen today is literally inundated with optional uses of his time for

reading, listening, watching or engaging in recreation. This massive










competition for the reader's time has been the subject of intensive study

by newspaper publishers and editors to seek the most effective methods

of interesting readers in the news, feature, editorial and advertising content

of the individual newspaper.

Another facet of competition which is present every day for every daily

newspaper is circulation competition. The many overlapping circulation areas

of each newspaper provide competition with other newspapers seeking to attract

new readers. This is competition of quality of the newspaper content,

timeliness and efficiency of the delivery system and price to the reader.

It cannot be ignored. Its existence is obvious when it is realized that

in every city, town, village and hamlet in the United States, every person

has a daily choice of so many different newspapers -- plus the many other

news sources also available to him.

Radio and television also carry responsibilities in providing news

to the public. As news media they compete with newspapers. They have

access to the same nationalnews wire services as newspapers. Their

willingness to invest in local news coverage and their effectiveness in

providing it can be judged only by their listeners and viewers.


TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN
NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING


In any consideration of mergers of newspapers and the reasons for

such mergers, we must examine the technological developments in newspaper

production since the end of World War II.

ANPA has prepared a detailed statement on technological developments









in newspaper publishing as a part of this presentation for incorporation

in the record of this Subcommittee's hearings as Appendix B to this Statement.

Briefly summarized, the production processes of daily newspapers changed

relatively little prior to World War II, but in the postwar years

revolutionary new equipment and concepts have been and continue to be introduced.

In recent years technical obsolescence has become a major problem, particularly

for metropolitan newspapers where the pressures of rising costs have been

great. The higher wage and salary levels, the higher costs associated

with delivery in traffic-congested urban areas, and the higher costs of

more advanced equipment have combined to force publishers to spend large

sums on plant and equipment modernization. ANPA surveys show daily

newspapers are now spending more than $100,000,000 annually on capital

outlay for modernization.

New equipment has become available in all departments of daily

newspaper production -- faster hot metal typesetting machines and photographic

composing machines in the composing room, automated plate-casting equipment

in the stereotype department, faster etching in the engraving department,

faster and more efficient full-color rotary presses and newer offset presses

for the newspaper press room, and automatic counting, stacking and bundling

equipment in the mailroom.

All these new items of equipment cost more than their older counterparts

but they are necessary for the modern daily newspaper to compete successfully.

For example, a manually operated linecasting machine cost less than $10,000

before the war but the modern high speed, tape operated machines introduced

in the last few years cost $24,000. Press costs have doubled since before











the war and more press equipment is necessary, as circulation and the

demand for advertising and editorial color printing increases. 7he cost

of equipping a medium size plant to photocompose ads with the necessary

darkrooms and rapid etch equipment is over $100,000. Prior to 1950

linecasting equipment in hot metal for this purpose was priced at one-

half this amount.


Some Advancements Minimized


All these developments are highly desirable from the standpoint of

newspapers in better serving their readers and in maintaining their

competitive position, but many of the advantages of such technological

advancements unfortunately have been minimized by adamant attitudes of

some labor unions toward preservation of needless jobs. For example,

the Teletypesetter came into use 30 years ago, but publishers in many

cities are still restricted under their union contracts in the amount

and type of Teletypesetter tape they will be permitted to use. Many

newspapers are still beset with the costs of fantastically useless

featherbedding known as "bogus", a union rule requiring that local

advertising supplied in ready-to-print mat form at the advertiser's

preference must be reset in type, proofread and corrected after the ad

has already run. Then the type which has been made perfect is thrown

away because it was not needed in the first place.

The way to make more jobs in the newspaper publishing business is

for publishers to modernize the entire production process, so that the

entire enterprise can compete successfully and thereby grow to the mutual

advantage of management in profitable operation and to the employees in











more Jobs at higher pay.


CROSS-OWNERSHIP OF NEWSPAPERS AND
BROADCAST STATIONS


One of the announced facets of these Hearings relates to the cross-

ownership of newspapers and radio or television stations.

Again, we can find authoritative comment based on reliable factual

data prepared by Professor Raymond B. Nixon who has been quoted previously.

In his studies, Professor Nixon used the term "media voice" to mean

independent ownership. For example, if a newspaper or newspaper

combination owns a radio or television station in any city, then all

the media under that ownership are treated as one voice in his studies.

This chart depicts the growth in inter-media competition:
UNITS
4000. _.


3500 - - -


3000


2500


2000


GROWTH OF COMPETITION: /
ALL MEDIA VOICES /

3679 VOICES IN 1461 CITIES I

,- -----
1 '
I
I


...... o ._
-- ----/----y---


/' 33Z4 COMPETING VOICES
1500 IN 1106 CITIES
1500---- ---


500-









In 1960 there were 1,461 cities in which one or more daily

newspapers were published. In 1,106 of these cities there were 3,324

competing voices and only 355 single-voice cities remained. Professor

Nixon makes this comment about the "single voice" cities: "Most of

these places are so close to a large city that the absence of any

locally competing voices appears to be of little importance."

In addition, we should note that 1,014 other cities without a

daily newspaper do have daily radio or television service, and in only

29 of these cities does a local weekly own or control local broadcastAng.

And what of the quality of the service offered by broadcast

stations owned by newspapers or persons affiliated with newspapers? When

asked to define his attitude toward newspaper ownership of radio and

television properties, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Newton N.

Minow told the Gannett Newspapers in a 1962 interview:

"Historically, FCC has held the view that all

things being equal, it is desirable to prefer non-

newspaper applicants. We should spread the voices

of communication into as many hands as possible.

That is sound theory.

"In actual practice, we find that the better

broadcasting stations in America are owned and

operated by newspapers. The answer is, newspapers

are part of the community, and their stations are

not up for sale.

"Newspapers are less prone to buy and sell










and trade in IV stations, which is one of the major

problems in broadcasting. Another answer is, the

newspapers are community and journalism oriented.

They put more emphasis on local problems and issues."

The Congress has never authorized any discrimination for or against

newspapers in the granting by F.C.C. of contested broadcast licenses.

The criteria to be applied by F.C.C. are solely related to the relative

merits of the contesting parties and their abilities to serve the public.

The ANPA has consistently advocated a policy in government that

newspapers or persons connected with newspapers should have the same

rights to compete for radio and television licenses as all other citizens.

We believe Chairman Minow's comment eloquently states the case for fair

and equal treatment of newspapers in contested broadcast license proceedings.


LIMITED ROLE OF ANTITRUST LAW ENFORCEMENT
AS APPLIED TO NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING


Perhaps one of the greatest benefits which can flow from these

Hearings is a clearer understanding of the constitutional dangers in

any Government effort to impose controls over the press through measures

designed to increase the number and variety of "voices" in the newspaper

field. The same applies to radio, television and indeed all media of

mass communication.

It is noteworthy that the late Professor Zechariah Chafee, Jr., was

one of the most articulate spokesmen on freedom of speech and press.

He was generally regarded as an ardent progressive thinker. Yet years











ago he warned against the mirage of an expectation that the antitrust

laws can be used as constitutional means for dealing with the objectives

and performance of a free press as viewed by proponents of increased

government intervention.

She members of the Commission on Freedom of the Press included

persons who have been nationally known as strong advocates of a greater

role of Government in affairs of the press. It, therefore, is especially

relevant to summarize Professor Chafee's conclusions.

Chafee first asks two questions. "First, what do we want from the

press?" "Second, will the antitrust laws give us what we want?"

Professor Chafee then gives his reflections which lead to his

conclusion that there are dangers in the actual operation of the antitrust

laws to the liberty of the press. He said:

"Besides being unlikely to give us the kind

of press we want, the antitrust laws may, if

extensively used, produce the kind of press we

do not want."

Chafee stresses the danger that a marked increase in use of antitrust

laws against newspapers or other communications media would vest in

Department of Justice officials and the courts "a large measure of control

over the press." Professor Chafee arrives at this over-all conclusion:

"I see no way out of this dilemma except

a very sparing use of the antitrust laws against

communications industries, in accordance with

past practice."

In answer to the basic question, "how can society get the kind of










a press it needs", Professor Chafee's final comment gives the essence of

the wisdom of the First Amendment's commands and goals:

"The press should not be responsible for its

quality and points of view to government any more

than to the advertisers or friends of the owner.

The true responsibility of the press is to the

individuals who read and listen and inwardly digest."

We believe this Subcommittee would look in vain for a more realistic

and statesmanlike version of the relation of the Government to a free

press than the foregoing summation of Professor Chafee's perceptive

comments and conclusions.

Since Professor Chafee's two volumes on Government and Mass Communications

were written, antitrust newspaper cases adjudicated in the courts

eloquently confirm his conclusion that sparing rather than excessive

antitrust enforcement against newspapers is the way to determine genuine

antitrust abuses in case by case adjudication.

The impressive fact is that in only a few cases has a newspaper or

a newspaper organization been found in violation of the antitrust, laws.


REPORT OF BRITISH ROYAL COMMISSION
ON THE PRESS


A recent Report of the British Royal Commission on the Press has

attracted attention in the United States and has been noted by you,

Mr. Chairman, in your public statements. It deals with problems of

newspapers which seem to be similar to those confronting the press

in this country. The similarity, however, is superficial.










The circumstances of the press in the United States differ markedly

from those which prevail in Great Britain. The concentration of newspaper

circulation in the mass nationally circulated London dailies represents

a situation which could scarcely be more markedly different from that

which prevails in this country.

Selling prices of newspapers, distribution methods, relationships

with government and many other factors are strikingly different in

Great Britain. The very division made by the Commission itself between

"quality" and "popular" newspapers is not one to strike a sympathetic

response in the United States. The Commission itself states that "It

is hard to define what is a good newspaper and what is a bad newspaper

except in terms of the success which it has in attracting the readers

whom it sets out to serve."

The recommendations of the British Royal Commission in 1962 relate

to three subjects: (1) a requirement that newspapers disclose their

ownership and control; (2) a reorganization of the General Council

of the Press to give it more power to deal with ethics of the press;

and (3) a recommendation for a Press Amalgamation Court to pass on

proposed newspaper mergers.

With reference to ownership and control of newspapers, this

disclosure is already a requirement of law under the postal statutes.

With reference to ethics of the press, this recommendation itself

is an example of the different role of government and the press in

Great Britain compared with the United States.

With reference to a Press Amalgamation Court, the required disclosure

that a proposed merger was under consideration by the court would so










undermine the weaker newspaper that it would lose its value to any

potential purchaser and could well be forced out of business.

Further details about the British Royal Commission Report and

our comment appear in our appended Legal Analysis.


CONCLUSION


In conclusion, we wish to emphasize to you, Mr. Chairman, our

appreciation for your often-expressed interest in the well-being

of the newspaper business and your understanding of the vital role

of the free press in the economic, social and political life of our

free country.

The daily newspapers of the United States are constantly seeking

to improve the service to their readers and advertisers -- the people

of the United States. A public airing of the true legal and economic

picture of the press through these Hearings can be extremely beneficial

in promoting better public understanding of the role of newspapers.

In turn, this promotes also a better understanding of the vital

role of the individual citizen in deciding the kind of newspaper

service he wants. The citizen exercises this judgment every day. We

suggest that the verdict of the people is favorable to newspapers

because nearly 60 million copies are bought every day. Newspapers

go into the homes of more than 85% of the families in the United States

on an average day. This further means newspapers must continue to strive

to render even better service in the face of more competition than ever

before.

I would like to close by repeating in abbreviated form the four










major points which we believe this presentation demonstrates:

The assumption that there is a continuing decline in competition

in the newspaper publishing business is based on erroneous premises.

The facts demonstrate clearly that there is vigorous competition in

the dissemination of news and advertising, both among newspapers and

with other media.

There is no factual cause for alarm about changes in ownership

of newspapers and other media, either through newspaper mergers, group

ownership of newspapers, or common ownership of newspapers and radio

or television stations. More media voices compete for the attention

of the United States public today than ever before.

Changes in the structure of the newspaper business in the United

States have been the result of natural economic, social and political

forces in a free society. In the extensive population changes of the

post-war years, new daily newspapers have been established in rapidly

growing suburban areas and smaller cities while in some of the largest

cities, some daily newspapers have suspended or merged, as a result

of economic pressures of rising costs.

The newspaper business today is more enterprising in serving

readers and advertisers, more dedicated to public service and more

vigorous in its competition with other media than ever before. Newspapers

neither seek nor want any subsidy or special legislation from Government,

but rather we rely on the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech

and of the press as adequate protection of the right to compete in a

free enterprise economy with any and all media for the dissemination of

news and advertising.

















PART TWO


ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF COMPETITION IN

TEE DAILY NEWSPAPER BUSINESS














STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR JESSE MARKHAM,
PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, PRINCETON
UNIVERSITY, IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT
OF STANFORD SMITH, GENERAL MANAGER OF
THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIA-
TION BEFORE THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
MARCH 14, 1963, WASHINGTON, D. C.










ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF COMPETITION IN

THE DAILY NEWSPAPER BUSINESS




I.

INTRODUCTION


This study is undertaken in response to the expressed concern of the Anti-

trust Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee over "the concentration of

ownership in communications media, especially the trend toward newspaper consoli-

dations."

Certain aspects of these issues clearly lie beyond the reach of economic

analysis. From Thomas Jefferson down to the current inquiries by the Federal

Communications Commission, a free expression of ideas has been a recognized,

accepted, and i-nquestioned prerequisite to the creation and maintenance of a

free and democratic society. Concepts such as "free expression of ideas" and

"free and democratic society" have more than mere economic content; they embody

fundamental principles by which civilized people govern themselves.

Moreover, the history of newspaper publishing in the United States reveals

abundant evidence that publishers are frequently motivated by factors other

than the usual economic incentives associated with the typical business firm.

Many newspapers, especially in the nineteenth century, entered the business to

crusade for a cause. Some were house organs of major and minor political parties;

others crusaded for local, regional or national issues; still others reflected

the editorial objectives and creative urges of their publishers.

There is abundant evidence that the press still helps mold public opinion

but newspapers must be alert, as is the case of all commercial enterprises, to

the general economic proposition that in the long run survival, absent continuous

subsidies from family fortunes or other income producing business ventures,










depends on total revenues equal to or greater than total costs. But it is

important to bear in mind that the conventional tools of economic analysis,

designed to explain the behavior of conventional profits-maximizing firms, are

not strictly applicable to the newspaper business.

Nevertheless, with these important modifications, newspapers may be mean-

ingfully analyzed as business entities operating in definable markets. In turn,

the markets in which they operate may be subjected to the economic standards of

effective competition. In broad terms, newspapers are in the information-

disseminating business. The information may be divided into two related but

distinct categories: (1) information of current interest to the public, pop-

ularly referred to as "news", including the reporting of international, national,

state and local events; editorial comment, and features, and (2) advertising,

which may be further divided into retail, general and classified.

The public buys newspapers to obtain both types of information, but the

price it pays often does not cover the cost of the newsprint on which the news

appears, much less the total cost of gathering and printing the information the

newspaper contains. The difference between the total revenue of a newspaper

and the receipts from subscriptions and single copy sales is made up of receipts

from advertising. Thus while the information generally referred to as "news"

and that referred to as "advertising" are marketed jointly, they are produced

under much different market conditions.

Newspaper publishers incur costs in gathering and disseminating "news" and

recover only a portion of these costs through receipts from the newspaper-buying

public; they are paid to transmit advertising to the public directly by the

advertiser. The differences in the nature of the two types of information and

the economic conditions under which they are produced warrant their treatment

as separate and distinct services. Broadly speaking, therefore, newspapers may










be viewed as operating in the news-disseminating market and in the advertising

market.

In assessing the effectiveness of competition in the news-disseminating

market the conventional criteria by which competition is judged, although not

entirely inapplicable, must be significantly modified. In the case of most

products and services, the effectiveness of competition often depends upon the

presence of a reasonably large number of competitors selling a near-homogeneous

product in the relevant market. That is, the more similar the products, the

higher the degree of competition in the market in which they are sold. The

higher the degree of competition the greater the assurance that the industry

operates in the public interest.

When the product or service is information, however, competition is

enhanced by diversity, or differentiation, rather than by homogeneity. To

illustrate, the value of a second car to a one-car family, even though the

second is a perfect substitute for the first, may be relatively high. But the

value of another newspaper identical with one just acquired is virtually zero.

Congress, the courts, and regulatory agencies such as the Federal Communica-

tions Commission have long recognized that the kind of competition that best

serves the public interest in information dissemination is product rather

than simple price competition; that is, competition that comprises a wide

variety of news coverage, editorial views and features made available to the

public through a wide variety of editorially independent media.

It is obvious that in these circumstances the relevant market for purposes

of assessing the workability of competition in Infomratlon dissemination must be

defined much more broadly than the daily newspaper market in a given metropoli-

tan area, city, town, or county. The radio and television stations, weekly

newspapers and magazines, daily newspapers imported from other cities, and a

wide variety of specialized publications, all compete with local daily newspapers











in transmitting information and news to the citizens of any specific geographi-

cal area.

It must be emphasized that the Justification for including this wide

variety of news sources in the same market rests on the unique features of the

Information-disseminating business the public's and public policy's preference

for diversity over homogeneity. Each of these types of media clearly possesses

distinctive features which make them far from perfect substitutes for each other.

Printed media rely entirely on visual perception, radio on audio perception,

and television on both. Competition within a given type of news source, for

example printed media, often may be less intense than competition among the

various news media. In the dissemination of local news the daily newspaper

competes with local radio and TV stations and local weekly newspapers; in na-

tional news coverage the competition among daily newspapers, radio, television,

weekly magazines and specialized publications may be more intense than that

between daily and weekly newspapers, or even between two dailies when one of

them specializes in strictly local news. But in spite of the differences among

media and the complexities of the partial market overlapping in the dissemina-

tion of various types of news, they are clearly competing news media.

As the various media compete with each other in the news-disseminating

market, it follows from the joint-service nature of news and advertising that

they also compete with each other in the advertising market. However, it does

not follow that the intensity of competition between any- two media is the same

in both markets, or that the effectiveness of competition between them should

be Judged on a basis of the same criteria.

The same diversity that makes for more effective competition in the news-

disseminating market gives each medium its distinctive characteristics as a

competitor in the advertising market. Moreover, the various entities that can










reasonably be included in both markets are not the same. For example, telephone

and other directories compete with newspapers for classified advertising but

cannot be included on the list of competitors in the news-disseminating market.

Similarly, direct mail and outdoor displays compete with all the news-disseminat-

ing media in the advertising market but not in the news-disseminating market.

Nevertheless, as is brought out in Table I appended to this statement, there is

reasonably high correlation in the number of competitors engaged in the dissemi-

nation of national and/or local news and the number of competitors in correspond-

ing categories of advertising.


II.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL AND SELECTED

LOCAL NEWS-DISSEMIMATION MARKETS


One of the most important developments of the twentieth century is the

rapid growth and spectacular change of the information-disseminating business.

Only four decades ago the public was completely dependent upon the printed

media for news.

As recently as 1920 the home radio set was a rarity and the home television

set unknown. By 1950 97 out of every 100 United States families had at least one

radio receiving set, and by 1960 90 out of every 100 families had at least one

television receiving set. Of each 100 families, 86 subscribe to at least one

daily newspaper and an additional number purchase them regularly from the news-

stands. Altogether, 583 television stations, 4,354 radio stations, 1,760 daily

newspapers, 8,178 weekly newspapers, and 8,616 periodicals including general

magazines and specialized publications convey the news and other information

to the American public.

Some discernible structural changes have accompanied this rapid pace of

growth and innovation (Table II). Between 1945 and 1960 the total number of










daily newspapers increased from 1,749 to 1,763. The number of dailies under

group ownership increased from 368 to 552. The number of cities having one or

more daily newspapers increased from 1,396 to 1,461. Between 1945 and 1959 the

number of standard broadcast and FM radio stations affiliated with newspapers

increased, but since 1953 the number has declined. Because of the phenomenal

growth in the number of such stations, the percentage of stations affiliated

with newspapers has declined substantially.

Over the same period the number of TV stations increased from 9 to 521.

Those with a newspaper affiliation accounted for 78.9 percent in 1953, but only

34.7 percent in 1959.

After allowances are made for joint and multiple ownership, the number of

independent entities engaged in disseminating news over the air and through

daily newspapers amounts to 4,993, comprising 1,211 daily newspapers, 2,957

standard broadcast, 485 FM, and 340 TV ownership interests. These data serve

only to indicate the overall structure of, and the growth and changes which have

occurred in what might be called the information-disseminating business; they do

not show the basic structure of the relevant market in which competition in

information-disseminating occurs.

The structural data more directly relevant to the state of competition must

reveal the number and variety of news sources readily available to members of

the news-consuming public where they reside. For this purpose, in the course

of this study tabulations were made for the number of news-disseminating and

advertising media serving 30 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas and 50

other counties in the United States.


The Standard Metropolitan Area Study

The Bureau of the Census identifies 215 Standard Metropolitan Statistical

Areas (SMSA) in the United States. While as a practical matter the size of these










areas varies, they generally include the area falling within a 50-mile radius

of the center of the core city. The basis for Census recognition of such SMSA's

is that for many purposes they can be viewed and analyzed as a meaningful social

and economic unit. They are generally served by highly coordinated, sometimes

the same, intra-area transportation and utility systems and the same radio and

TV stations. Newspapers published in each of the component political units

generally circulate throughout the area, and persons tend to shift both resi-

dence and place of employment within such area without experiencing a sense of

leaving the "home town ."

The sample of 30 SMSA's covered in this study (Table III) was selected on

the following basis: Five such SMSA's were chosen from each of the four major

census regions: the Northeast, North Central, South and West. The largest SM1A

in each region was chosen from each of the population groups 1,000,000 and

over; 500,000 to 1,000,000; 250,000 to 500,000; 100,000 to 250,000; and under

100,000. To assure the inclusion of areas representing certain aspects of the

newspaper business relating directly to the issue of effective competition, 10

additional SMSA's were selected from those in which a newspaper merger or

suspension bad occurred within the past 10 years.

Nearly ninety per cent, or 26 out of the 30 SMSA core cities, contain at

least two daily newspapers; eight core cities contain from 3 to 13, the largest

number occurring in New York City. All of the SMSA's in this study except

Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and Manchester, New Hampshire, are served by at least

two local daily newspapers, a host of Sunday and weekly newspapers, local radio

and TV stations, and specialized publications. In addition they receive regu-

larly National Sunday Supplements, all the 19 selected national magazines on

which circulation data are available, and a large number of daily, Sunday and

weekly newspapers published outside the SMSA.










A reasonably typical SMSA is Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York. This area

is served by 7 local daily newspapers, 1 Sunday newspaper, 8 weekly newspapers,

3 TV stations, 13 radio stations, and 18 local specialized publications. In

addition, 22 daily newspapers, 12 Sunday newspapers, 7 National Sunday Supple-

ments, and all of the 19 selected national magazines originating outside the

SMSA are circulated regularly in the area. Altogether, at least 110 sources

of news are accessible to the citizens of this area. The circulation of news-

papers, excluding weeklies for which data were not readily available, falling

in each of the classes indicated follows:

Circulation
Daily unday

Core City (2 dailies, 1 Sunday) 121,064 116,733
Rest of SMSA (5 dailies) 144,717
Coming in from outside SMSA
(22 dailies, 12 Sundays) 22,318 49,115

It is emphasized that the market under analysis here is news-disseminating.

The circulation of newspapers originating outside the SMSA, although certainly

significant, can scarcely be considered effective competitors to those In the

area for local and classified advertising. It is also very likely that such

non-local publications are less effective competitors in local news coverage

than the local radio and TV stations. However, it is clear that they are avail-

able alternative sources of news in whatever quantities residents of the SMSA

desire.

The four one-newspaper core cities in this study are of special interest

since they have sometimes been referred to as "monopoly" newspaper cities.

If by this it is meant that a single newspaper has effective control over the

news reaching the public, the data do not support this interpretation. A possi-

ble candidate for a "monopoly" newspaper town is Sioux Falls, South Dakota,

since its SMSA contains a single daily newspaper. However, the SMSA contains










4 weekly newspapers, one Sunday newspaper (core city), 2 TV and 4 radio stations,

and 6 specialized publications (all core city); plus 12 daily newspapers, 10

Sunday newspapers, 6 National Sunday Supplements, and 19 selected national

magazines originating outside the area circulating regularly in the Siouc Falls

SMSA. Altogether, residents of the area have access to 65 separate sources of

news.

The total number of news sources in our 30 StSA's studied is sufficiently

large to lay to rest any argument that a single newspaper, or any other news

source, monopolizes the news disseminated to the public.

However, the number of independently owned competing news media serving each

of the 30 SMSA's is somewhat smaller because of some joint ownerships. Even so,

after appropriate reductions in the number of news media to account for joint

ownerships, there remain enough sources of each type of news to assure effective

competition in the 30 areas (Table III). Moreover, because completely independ-

ent editorial policy and news disseminating often accompany joint ownership, a

simple reduction of the total news disseminating units to the number of Inde-

pendent ownership interests tends substantially to understate the structural

basis for competition.

Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that joint-ownership as such

has made for a less workably competitive market structure. Whether it does

depends almost entirely on how joint ownership comes about and on what the

feasible alternatives to joint ownership are. Where two newspapers are started

by a single ownership interest, or where an existing interest buys up a failing

newspaper in the same city, the presumption is that the total number of dailies

serving the city would be less were it not for joint ownership. The same is true

in cases where a TV station and newspaper can survive under joint ownership

but one would be a financial failure if operated independently.









A recently published study of the economics of joint ownership of media

makes a persuasive case that joint ownership substantially increases the pros-

pects for a given medium's survival and often may be the only means of survival.

The failure rate is generally much higher for independently owned than for

jointly owned media. Of the 200 newspapers with radio affiliations in 1940,

only 6, or 3.3 per cent, had been suspended by 1950; but of the 1,427 newspapers

not affiliated with radio, 110, or 7.7 per cent, had failed by 1950. A much

lower rate of suspension is also associated with radio and television stations

affiliated with newspapers.ia


The 50 County Study

Profiles of 50 different counties, similar to those of the 30 SMSA's, are

shown in Table IV. Since the counties were selected from those not appearing in

the list of SMSA's, they generally encompass the more sparsely populated areas

of the United States. The counties were selected by random sample of all the

places outside of SMSA's where daily newspapers are published.

A common characteristic of most of the 50 counties is fewness of daily

newspapers published in the county's principal city. Of the 50 principal cities,

36 contain a single daily newspaper that is also the only daily published in the

county. However, nearly all of these counties have several weekly newspapers and

specialized publications, a Sunday paper, several radio stations, access to a

fairly large number of TV stations, and have about ten to twelve daily and

slightly fewer Sunday newspapers from outside the county circulating within

their boundaries on a regular basis. In 28 of the 50 counties surveyed, the

number of daily newspapers circulating in the county is in excess of eight. In



i/ Harvey J. Levin, Broadcast Regulations and Joint Ownership of Media (New York,
New York University Press: 1960) pp. 96-99.









addition, the 19 selected national magazines and most of the national Sunday

Supplements circulate regularly in all 50 counties.

Fourteen of the 50 counties are served by more than one local daily. None

is under joint ownership. In 41 of the 50 counties there is no joint ownership

of radio and newspapers, and in none of these counties is there joint ownership

of newspapers and television.


III

THE STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL AND

SELECTED LOCAL ADVERTISING MARKETS


As pointed out earlier, newspapers operate in two seemingly distinct mar-

kets, advertising and news dissemination. But while these two markets are seem-

ingly distinct, they clearly are closely interdependent. The value of the

advertising space to the advertiser depends decisively on the newspaper's cir-

culation. On the other band, circulation depends in part on the advertising

carried, especially retail and classified advertising.

Approximately 70% of the total receipts of American daily and Sunday news-

papers is derived from selling advertising space, the other 305 represents

receipts from subscriptions and single copy sales. The inter-relationship of

these sources of revenue confronts the newspaper with a complex economic problem

not generally encountered by the ordinary business firm. For example, in most

industries, even .those characterized by substantial competition, rising costs

are expected to be at least partially compensated for by rising prices. How-

ever, if newspapers attempt to raise their subscription or newsstand price they

are likely to reduce circulation. Even though such a price increase may increase

total revenues derived from the sale of newspapers, the reduction in circulation

may lead to a decrease in demand for advertising space and therefore to a









reduction in total revenue. On the other hand, an increase in advertising rates,

absent comparable rate increases for rival advertising media, may lead to a

diversion of advertising expenditures away from newspapers to other media. Cost

and revenue decisions in the newspaper business, therefore, are more complex than

for most other types of business enterprises.

This portion of the study focuses on the structural basis for workable com-

petition in the advertising market as distinct from the information disseminating

market taken up in the previous section. Advertising is unquestionably one of

the most rapidly expanding activities in the American economy. In 1940 total

advertising expenditures amounted to slightly over $2 billion; by 1950 it had

reached $5.7 billion and in 1960 total advertising expenditures amounted to

nearly $12 billion. Expenditures for advertising have therefore slightly more

than doubled over the past decade. But while the volume of advertising expendi-

tures has been growing the number of independent business firms serving as

advertising media has been growing at an' even more spectacular rate. Between

1940 and 1959 the total number of operating radio stations in the United States

increased from 814 to 3,904; over the same period the total number of TV sta-

tions increased from 6 to 521. Between 1940 and 1961 the total number of

periodicals, including magazines and specialized publications published in the

United States increased from 6,468 to 8,616; the number of business publications

from 1,330 to 2,804; and the number of pieces of third-class mail the class of

mail used most often for direct advertising received by each person in the

United States increased from 41 to 100 between 1945 and 1960. Over the same

period, 1945-1960, the number of daily newspapers increased from 1,749 to 1,763

(Table V).

These changes in the composition of firms engaged in advertising and the

widely different growth rates among media have had substantial effects on the

division of the advertising dollar among media (Table VI). In 1935 45% of all









advertising dollars were spent on newspaper advertising; the remaining 55% were

spent on radio, outdoor advertising and a variety of printed media. Television,

of course, had not yet entered the picture. By 1961 advertising expenditures

in newspapers accounted for 31%, even though they had risen from $.8 billion to

$3.6 billion, and television accounted for 14%. Participation by other media

in advertising revenue remained considerably more stable, although radio par-

ticipation rose steadily between 1935 and the advent of television in 1945, and

by 1961 bad declined again to approximately its 1935 position.

The fluctuating shares of various media in total advertising expenditures

alone would suggest competition in the advertising market. Technological

innovations have imparted to the advertising business a highly dynamic charac-

ter. As new advertising methods and media are introduced, the share going to

older established media tend to decline. The process is continuous. In 1920

any advertiser, whether national or local, could advertise only in the various

printed media. The 1920's and 1930's saw the spectacular rise of radio; the

1950's and 1960's have marked the television revolution. As new media are

introduced the established media are subjected to increased competitive pres-

sures.

Broadly speaking, there are three distinct advertising markets: national

advertising, local advertising, and classified advertising. In national adver-

tising the level of concentration is extremely low much lower than in most

important businesses in the United States. Most of the various types of media

contain a substantial number of firms; yet, in 1961 no single media accounted

for as much as 10% of total national advertising. The three major television

networks, engaged primarily in national advertising, accounted for only 7% of

total advertising. The four largest daily newspapers in terms of total

revenues, the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, New York News, aid Los Angeles

Times, together accounted for an insignificant 1.6% of total U. S. national









advertising, and for only 14% of national newspaper advertising. It is clear

that no single firm or group of firms accounts for a substantial share of the

roughly $7 billion spent annually on national advertising.

The data required for calculating the level of concentration in local

advertising are not available. No statistical agency, government or private,

breaks down advertising expenditures by cities, metropolitan areas, or coun-

ties. However, the wide range of alternatives open to local advertisers is

shown in Tables III and IV.

In all the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas the range of alterna-

tives is substantial. In large metropolitan areas such as New York and Chicago

the number of independent firms engaged in local advertising runs into the

hundreds. In the core city of New York alone the local advertiser can select

among 13 daily newspapers, 7 Sunday newspapers, 49 weekly newspapers, 6 televi-

sion stations, 28 radio stations, and 471 direct-mail lettershops. The number

of firms in each category serving the entire Standard Metropolitan Statistical

Area is much larger. In the smaller SMSA's the number of independent firms

serving local advertisers is considerably smaller but is still substantial.

Again, as in the case of the news disseminating market analysis, the

Albany area may be viewed as fairly typical. The core city of Albany contains

two daily, one Sunday and three weekly newspapers, two television stations,

four radio stations, and thirteen direct-mail lettershops, a total of 25

local advertising outlets. In the entire SMSA, the total number of local

advertising outlets amounts to 54.

As would be expected from the data developed in the 50 counties study for

assessing the level of concentration in the news. disseminating market, the num-

ber of alternatives open to local advertisers in the more sparsely populated

regions of the United States is considerably smaller. With only a few excep-

tions, however, local advertisers in these counties have the option of using at









least one daily newspaper, a television station, several radio stations or the

facilities of direct-mail lettershops.

In all local markets the number of effective competitors in classified

advertising is considerably smaller. For most individuals who are seeking a

job, attempting to rent a house, or trying to sell one of a variety of personal

assets, there is no effective substitute for the classified ad section of the

local newspaper. However, local radio stations have begun to broadcast classi-

fied ads and telephone and other directories can be considered effective competi-

tors of newspapers in the limited sector of the classified advertising market

where the advertiser seeks a listing of long duration.


IV.

MERGERS AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE

NEWSPAPER BUSINESS


Members of this committee are well aware that in any assessment of the

structure of an industry, business mergers take on special significance. A

merger not only has the result of diminishing the population of independent

enterprisers by at least one, but it may also substantially enhance the size

of the acquiring firm. In general, therefore, merger has a double barrel

effect on the structural basis for competition. It is not only a means whereby

independent competitors are reduced in number, but historically it has also

been a means whereby acquiring firms attained disproportionate size with

respect to their smaller competitors often to the competitive disadvantage

of the latter.

The effect of mergers on industrial structure, however, cannot be judged

solely from the number and size of mergers. Assessment of the full impact of

merger on competition also requires some consideration of what would have

happened had the merger not occurred. In certain cases the option before the









acquired firm is not whether it shall merge or carry on, but whether it shall

merge or go out of business. It is even possible, indeed it has sometimes

happened, that two failing firms may find merger a means of survival. In such

cases mergers not only do not reduce the number of independent entities in an

industry but rather make possible the maintenance of a larger number than could

otherwise be maintained. Congress of course recognized these possibilities

when in enacting the Celler-Kefauver Amendment to Section 7 of the Clayton Act

it made that law inapplicable to cases where the acquired firm was in a finan-

cially failing condition.

There are several reasons why one would expect a rather large number of

mergers to occur in the newspaper business. More so than is the case in most

other industries, the assets and human skills used in newspaper publishing are

unique; that is, it is virtually impossible to think of an alternative use to

which such human resources, newspaper printing presses and all the other

specialized machinery that go with newspaper publishing could be put. Hence when

a newspaper publisher, for whatever reason, decides to stop publishing, his most

likely or only customer is the owner of another newspaper. The turnover of firms

in the newspaper business would also suggest the frequent occurrence of mergers.

Between 1930 and 1961, 801 new daily newspapers entered the business while 720

left through suspension or merger. An additional 263 left the daily newspaper

business by switching to weekly.

A good deal has been said in recent years, much of it in the press itself,

about newspaper mergers. Actually, several factors affect the number of news-

papers in existence at any one time (Table VII); merger is only one of such

factors. Between 1930 and 1961 the number of daily newspapers declined by 179,

but all of the decline occurred in the depression years of the 1930's and during

World War II. Of the 983 newspapers that ceased to operate as dailies, 263

of them shifted to weeklies. The total number of dailies that actually left the









newspaper business, therefore, amounted to only 720, a number that was more than

offset by the 8(A new dailies that started up. Of these 720, suspensions

accounted for two thirds while mergers accounted for one third.

Looked at another way, the number of new dailies that started up amounted

to nearly 31 times the number lost to the business through merger. The number

of mergers was smaller than the number that shifted from daily to weekly and

amounted to only one half the number of suspensions.

In the course of this study the reasons reported in the press and trade

journals for newspaper suspensions, mergers, or switching to weekly were

catalogued for the ten-year period 1952-1961.

Of the 185 daily newspapers that switched to weekly, merged, or were sus-

pended in this period, the reason was reported in the press and trade Journals

surveyed in 74 instances. As would be expected, daily newspapers ceased being

daily newspapers for a variety of reasons most of which add up to financial

difficulty: costs rising relative to revenues, sustained losses, property

seized by the U. S. government for back taxes, inability to negotiate loans,

insufficient circulation and advertising revenues, substantial declines in cir-

culation, prolonged labor disputes, outright bankruptcy, death or ill health

of the publisher, merger to improve the quality of the combined newspaper, and

in one case, the publisher was arrested on embezzlement charges.

Of the 74 cases reported, the reason for suspension, merger, or switch to

weekly in 21 of them was explicitly identified as serious financial difficulties

* in most cases sustained losses over a period of years. In 47 additional cases

the reason given was either "ever-mounting costs", a sharp decline in advertis-

ing revenues, a combination of the two, prolonged labor difficulties, or a

substantial decline in circulation in the face of mounting costs and labor

troubles.









While it cannot be ascertained whether the newspapers in these instances

were sustaining losses, it appears fairly evident that they were in financial

trouble. It can be reasonably concluded, therefore, that in 68 of the 74 exits

from the daily newspaper business for which reasons could be found, the cause

was financial difficulty. In the six remaining cases the reasons given covered

a wide variety of circumstances, such as the death or ill health of the publish-

er, or serious legal problems. These data may not be conclusive but they estab-

lish a strong presumption that about every newspaper that has dropped from the

daily newspaper publishing list over the past ten years has done so for finan-

cial reasons. Many of them were suspended. It is highly probable that those

that merged or switched to weekly did so in order to avoid the same fate.

We turn now to the basic economic facts that seem to underlie the exits

from the daily newspaper business for financial reasons. While many large

metropolitan newspapers have enjoyed mounting circulation and satisfactory

profits over the past ten years, the newspaper business generally has been

unquestionably caught in a cost squeeze. In the fifteen-year period 1946-1960,

there have been only two years in which expenses rose less than revenues for

all newspapers combined (Chart Ia). In the remaining thirteen years, expenses

have gone up more rapidly than revenues. As a consequence, since 1946 news-

paper costs have risen 225 per cent while revenues have risen only 175 per

cent. This failure of revenues to keep up with mounting costs has been charac-

teristic of all newspaper size groups.

A factor contributing substantially to the rising costs of newspaper

publication is labor costs. The total output of newspapers in physical terms

is measured approximately by the consumption of newsprint, the total input of

labor by the number of employees. Between 1947 and 1961 newsprint consumption

rose 54 per cent (Chart II) and the number of employees by 45 per cent (Chart

III), or nearly as much. The physical output per employee has, therefore,









scarcely risen at all.

Over the same period, hourly scales for the five major craft unions more

than doubled (Table VIII), and this comparison does not take into account

substantial increases In fringe benefits. This very large increase In wage

rates has not been offset by rising productivity per employee, but has reflected

almost entirely in rising costs of newspaper publishing.

As a result there has been a gradual but persistent increase in the number

of newspapers reporting losses on their annual operations. On the basis of

statistics of income reported by the Internal Revenue Service, U. S. Treasury

Department, in 1946 508 newspapers filed returns showing no net income. By 1960

this number had mounted to 1,020. Since the Internal Revenue Service data make

no distinction between daily and weekly newspapers, it is Impossible to tell how

many of the firms reporting losses were daily newspapers.

Those who have given careful study to the newspaper business have set forth

a variety of reasons as to why in recent years daily newspapers have been

suspended, merged, or switched to weekly, but most of those reasons add up to

changes that work to the financial disadvantage of those newspapers that ulti-

mately succumb. For example, Raymond B. Nixon and Jean Ward reported some

of those reasons in the Winter 1961 issue of Journalism Quarterly as follows:

1) The decline in partisanship of the U. S. press. Few news-
papers are started or kept alive today for political reasons; the
modern political party or pressure group hires a public relations
director and makes use of all the available mass media.

2) The growth in objective reporting among American newspapers.
As newspapers have become more and more alike in their reporting of
the news, and presenting both sides of controversial Issues, there
has come to be little more reason for two competing newspapers than
there would be for two competing telephone companies.

3) The desire of advertisers for larger circulations and less
duplication of readership. Once a newspaper is set into type and the
plates pub on the press, the cost of production per copy goes down as
circulation goes up. Unless a city is large enough to support papers
that appeal to distinctly different types of readers (as, for example,










the New York Times and the New York Daily News), advertisers obvious-
ly prefer a single "imaibus" daily to eempeting papers.

4) The growth of the suburbs. For example, while the number
of competing dailies in New York City proper has declined, the rise
of successful new dailies in suburbs like Long Island has been
phenomenal. A suburban dweller seems to prefer one downtown paper
and one suburban paper to two or more papers from downtown. and for
understandable reasons.

5) The growing competition from the electronic media. As one
studies the trends of the last 30 years, this appears to be the
single most important factor in the disappearance of locally competing
daily newspapers. Certainly it is the circumstance that offers the
most plausible explanation for the lack of any real agitation for more
newspapers in most cities where there is now a single ownership. It
also helps to explain why a previous study found no significant dif-
ferences in the news and editorial content of non-competitive and
competitive newspapers in cities of less than 400,000 population.


V.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPETI-

TION IN T1H DAILY NEWlPAPER BUSINESS


The newspaper business comprises a complicated admixture of two highly

dissimilar but related markets, the news-disseminating and the advertising

markets. Effective competition in the.news-disseminating market, under stand-

ards long established by public policy, requires a wide diversity of news

reaching the reading and viewing public through widely diverse media. On the

other hand, workable competition in the advertising market varies with the num-

ber of reasonably homogeneous substitutes available to national, regional and

local advertisers. These are different standards. But the desirability of

diversity in one requires acceptance of something less than an obvious

state of workable competition as measured by conventional standards in the other.

The evidence clearly supports the conclusion that the news dissemination

market, by the standards public policy has laid down, is effectively competi-

tive. In most of the 30 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas included in









this study the public has available far more news sources than the constraining

force of time permits it to use. Typically, residents of these areas have

access to, and regularly use, several daily papers, weekly papers, numerous

specialized magazines and other publications, about a dozen radio stations and

several TV stations. In addition, a large number of daily and weekly newspapers,

19 selected national magazines, and numerous other miscellaneous news sources

reach these areas from outside on a regular basis. The number and variety of

news sources readily available to residents of the 50 more rural counties

studied are more limited. Most of the counties contain only a single daily

newspaper. However, when other media are included, and when appropriate

allowance is made for news sources reaching these sparsely populated areas from

the outside, the total number of news sources available can be considered low

in relatively few counties.

Similarly, the evidence supports the conclusion that these same media

form a structural base for effective competition in most types of advertising

markets. In the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas numerous newspapers,

radio and TV stations, magazines, direct mail organizations, and other media

vigorously compete for most national and local advertising. The one possible

exception is classified advertising, where in single newspaper core cities the

alternatives to newspapers are limited in number. In the 50 counties studied

the range and number of alternatives open to advertisers is much more limited.

However, most local and national advertisers have the option of using at least

one daily and one weekly newspaper, a TV station, several radio stations and

specialized publications, and the facilities of direct-mail lettershops.

These conclusions are not materially affected when the data are adjusted

to allow for the joint-ownership of media. In recent years joint-ownership

between newspapers and radio stations has declined both absolutely and










relatively, and between newspapers and TV stations it has increased absolutely

but declined relatively because of the phenomenal growth in station numbers.

Nor does it appear that mergers, at least in recent years, have led to a

reduction in the number of daily newspapers Since 1945 the number of dailies

has stayed approximately the same with the number of births offsetting the total

exits through suspension, merger, and switching to weekly. A total of 369

daily newspapers have left the business, 175 by suspension, 117 by switching to

weekly, and 77 by merger. Of the three reasons, merger has been the least

important. The immediate or proximate cause of most exits, however made, appears

to have been financial difficulties.

In conclusion, the power a single newspaper has over either the minds of

men or business firms seeking access to customers through advertising appears

generally to be neither dangerous nor unchecked. This conclusion follows from

an application of the economist's standards of workable competition as modified

by the particular features of the information-disseminating business.

In short, there does not appear to be a "monopoly" press by the economists'

generally accepted and conventional definition of that term as the power to

control the market, or even when defined as possession of substantial market

power. When used in some other sense, it becomes a term of art, and its

interpretation in this sense lies outside the field of economics.





















PART TWO CONTINUED





TABLES AND CHARTS TO ACCOMPANY STATEMENT OF

JESSE W. MARKHAM












TABLE I



MEDIA ENGAGED IN NATIONAL, LOCAL, AND

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING


National

Daily Newspapers

Weekly Newspapers

National Sunday Supplements

National Magazines

Specialized Publications

Network Radio

Radio National Spot

Network Television

Television National Spot

*Direct Mail


*Outdoor

*Calendars, Match Covers,
and other


Local

Daily Newspapers

Weekly Newspapers

Local Sunday Supplements



Specialized Publications

Local Radio

Radio Local Spot

Local Television

Television Local Spot

*Direct Mail (including
Handbills)

*Outdoor

*Calendars, Match Covers,
and other


Classified

Daily Newspapers

Weekly Newspapers







Local Radio
--


*Telephone and
other Directories


* Not in the news-disseminating market









TABLE II


STRUCTURAL TRENDS IN MEDIA OWNERSHIP, SELECTED YEARS,

1945 1959


Independent and Joint Ownership
of Daily NewsDpaers


No. Group
Owned
Newspapers


No. Ind.
Owned
Newspapers


Cities With
Daily
Newspapers


Standard Broadcast, FM & TV Stations With
NewsDamer Affiliations


Standard
On Affil-
Air iated 4%


FM
On Affil-
Air iated 4%


TV
On Affil-
Air iated d


1945 76 368 1,381 1,396 943 260 27.6 53 17 32.0 9 1 11.1

1953 95 485 1,300 1,448 2,375 478 20.1 626 199 31.8 126 87 78.9

1959 109(1) 552(1) 1,211(1) 1,461 3,388 431 12.7 628 143 22.8 521 181 34.7


(1) 1960


SOURCES: Harvey J. Levin, Broadcast Regulations and Joint Ownership of Media
New York University Press, 1960) p. 53; Journalism Quarterly, Winter


(New York:
1961; and ANPA.


Year


No.
Groups







Table III
Population
over 1,000,000


THE SMSA STUDY

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: New York, New York


Northeast


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- stations Statio Sunday Direct- Selected ised
papers papers Papers St S ions pp Le or National Publca-
iants Shops Magazines tions



In core Not
city
cty Applicable

13 7 49 6 28 471 6 12 975


Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable

12 1 118 26 97 13 1 68


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available

101 62 ___________7 6_____ ____



TOTAL 126 70 167 6 54 7 568 19 19 1,043


Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships


568


1,043





THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Albary-Schenectady-Troy, New York


Population
500.000 -


1.000.000


Northeast


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- T Rad Sunday mail Direct- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter ories National Publica-
sents Shops Magazines tions



In core Not
city
Applicable

2 1 3 2 4 13 1 -- 11


Rest of Not
SMSA
Applicable

5 - 5 1 9 9 16 -- 7


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
22 12 7 19



TOTAL 29 13 8 3 13 7 22 17 19 18


Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships






THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population


In core
city


Rest of
SMSA


Coming into
SMSA from
outside


ing for joint-
ownerships


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Wilkes Barre-Hazelton. Pennsylvania




THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)


Population


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: .Thngt-r.n m Panngyylvanja


000i tV'V\


Northeast


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special
News- News- News- tioV Rad Sunday Mail Direct- elected izeda-
papers papers Papers Statio Stations Supple- Letto ris ation Pio




In core Not
city Applicable

1 1 2 5 1 1 -- 2


Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable

1 -- 11 -- 4I. -- 11 -- 1 _____


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
15 10 7 19



TOTAL 17 10 12 2 9 7 1 12 19 3


Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships






THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population
under 100,000


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Manchester. New Hampshire


Northeast


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Drect Telephone 19 Speciale
News- News- News- T Radio Sunday Mail Direct- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter ories National Publica-
ments Shops Magazines tions



In core Not
city Applicable


1 1 -- 1 4 13 2 8


Rest of Not
SMA Applicable

-- -- 1 -- -- 1 --


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available

15 8 19


TOTAL 16 9 1 1 4 7 14 2 19 8


Net total
alter account.
ing for joint
ownerships





THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population
over 1,000,000


Number of


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Chicago. Illinois


North Central


1~ Y


Daily
News-
papers


Sunday
News-
papers


Weekly
News-
Papers


TV
Stations


adtio
Stations


National
Sunday
Supple-
ments


Direct
Nail
Letter
Shops


Telephone
Direct-
ories


19
Selected
National
Magazines


Special-
ized
Publica-
tions


In core Not
city !Applicable


5 3 46 4 28 264 3 -- 508


Rest of Not
SSA applicable

6 2 134 25 69 56 -- 91


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available

80 45 7 19



TOTAL 91 50 180 4 53 7 333 59 19 599


Net total
alter account.
ing for joint
ownerships


18o






THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Indianapolis, Indiana


Population
500. 000 -


0,3 00 000


North Central


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- Sta ions SRatios Su M nal izca-ed
papers papers Papers Stations Stations P Ltt ories Magazines ions




In core Not
city Applicable

3 2 1 3 10 41 2 -- 61


Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable

-- -- 1 1


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
34 20 7 19



TOTAL 37 22 2 4 10 7 41 2 19 61


Net total
after account.
ing for joint
ownerships





THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population
250,000 500,000


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa


North Central


Number of Daiy Sunday Weeky National Direct T telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TV RaSunday Mail Direct Selected ied
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter ries National Publica-
ments Shops Magazines tions



In core Not
city
Applicable

2 1 -- 3 10 23 1 24


Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable

1 1 14 - 1 3 4 -- 1


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
25 15 7 19



TOTAL 28 17 14 3 11 7 26 5 19 25


Net total
alter account.
ing for joint
ownerships






THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population
100.000 250.000


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Ft. Wayne, Indiana


North central


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TV ai Sunday a Direct- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter ories National Pnblica-
anets Shops Magazines tions



In core Not
city
Applicable
2 1 1 3 5 16 1 -- 3


Rest of Not
SMSA
Applicable

-- -- 2 -- -- -- 3 -- --


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
14 13 7 19



TOTAL 16 14 3 3 5 7 16 4 19 3


Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships





THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population
under 100 000


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: sioux Falls, South Dakota


North Central


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- T7 Sadio nday ail Direct Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Suppl- Letter ories National Publica-
rents Shops Magazines tions



In core Not
city
Applicable
1 1 -- 2 4 5 1 6



Rest of Not
Applicable




Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
12 10 6 19



TOTAL 13 11 4 2 4 6 5 1 19 6


Net total
alter account.
ing for joint
ownerships






THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population
over 1,000,000


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Washington.


D. C.. -Marv1and-Vtr~trdft


South


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- NNews- ews- T Radio Sunday ail Direct Selected ized
papers apers Papers Stations Stations Supp.- Letter ories National Publica-
ments Shops Magazines tions



In core Not
city
Applicable

3 2 -- 4 14 150 1 - 286


Rest of Not
SA Applicable

2 12 17 28 2 - 15


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available

__69 41 7 19



TOTAL 74 43 12 4 31 7 178 3 19 301


Net total
after account-
ing for joint
ownerships


178


T). -avadVrii





THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Miami, Florida


Population
;on .m 1


nooo -0no


South


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TVSunday Mail Direct- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations supple- Letter ories National Publica-
me nts Shops Magazines tions



In core Not
city
Applicable

2 2 3 11 35 1 17


Rest of Not
Applicable

1 1 6 8 1 1 2


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available

36 24 -6 19


TOTAL 39 27 6 3 19 6 36 2 19 19


Net total
after account.
ing for joint
ownerships


3






THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population
p50.00 o00.000


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Tulsa, Oklahoma


South


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TV Radio Sunday Mail Direct- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations supple- Letter ories National Publica-
entspapers papers Pape Mag ines ti




In core Not
city
Applicable

2 1 2 3 9 25 1 16


Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable

2 2 15 -- -- -- 10 -- 1


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
16 12 7 19



TOTAL 20 15 17 3 9 7 25 11 19 17


Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships


17





THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population
100.000 p50.000


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Baton Rouge, Louisiana


South


Number of Dai3y Sunday Weekly National Telephone 19 al-
New- News- News- tTo Rad Sunday Mail Trel Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Sup ories National Pblican-




In core Not
city
Applicable

2 1 -2 7 9 1 -- 8


Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable

---- 2 -- -- -- 1 -- --


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available

0 10 10 7 19 _



TOTAL 12 11 2 2 7 7 9 2 19 8


Net total
alter account.
ing for joint
ownerships






THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population
under 100,000


In core
city


Rest of
SMSA


Coming into
SMSA from
outside


after account.
ing for joint
ownerships


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Lawton, Oklahoma





THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population
over 1.000.000


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Los Angeles-Long Beach, California


West


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- Sunday al Diret- Selected ied
papers papers Papers Stations Stations SPtb s io s lica-
entSe Shop s Magazines tions




In core Not
city
Applicable

3 2 36 7 28 215 1 189


Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable

28 7 114 32 197 29 88


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
1 30_ 7 19_



TOTAL 72 39 150 7 60 7 412 30 19 277


Net total
alter account.
ing for joint
ownerships


150


277






THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Portland.


Or~gnn-Wa~h1n0tnn


Population
500,000 -


1 000,000


West


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TV Radio Sunday Mail Direc- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter ies National Pablica-
ments Shops Magazines tions



In core Not
city Applicable

3 1 2 3 16 44 2 46


Rest of Not
SusA 0
Applicable

2 4- 1 6 I4 6 -- 5


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available

24 14 7 19



TOTAL 29 15 16 4 22 7 48 8 19 51


Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships


Oreann-Wa ...h ng_..




THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population
250.000 500.000


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Salt Lake


City, Utah


West


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TV Radio Sunday Mail Direct- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter ories National Publica-
Monts Shops Magazines tions



In core Not
city
Applicable

2 1 2 3 12 18 1 20


Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable

-- 5 -- 1 ---


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
10 9 6 _19



TOTAL 12 10 7' 3 13 6 18 1 19 20


Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships






THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population


In core
city


Rest of
SMSA


Coming into
SMSA from
outside


alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Santa Barbara, California





THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population
under 100.000


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Billings, Montana


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TV Snday ai Direct Selected ied
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter aDirs National Publica-
aents Shops Magazines tions



In core Not
city
Applicable

2 1 1 2 7 5 1 -- 5


Rest of Not
SASA
Applicable

-- -- 1 -- -- -- 1


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
8 8 5 19



TOTAL 10 9 2 2 7 5 5 2 19 5


Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships


10.


2


Wet+






THE SMSA STUDY


Table III (Continued)
Population
over 1,000,000


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Boston, Massachusetts


Northeast


Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TV Ra Sunday il Direct- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter ories National Publica-
rants Shops Magazines tions



In core Not
city
Applicable

6 3 15 3 16 74 2 -- 117


Rest of Not
ShsA Applicable

11 -- 60 -- 14 49 19 43


Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available

31 16 7 19


TOTAL 48 19 75 3 30 7 123 21 19 160


Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships


123




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs