Internet Usage vs. Newspaper Subscribers

Since the announcement of SB 208 there have been a lot of statistics thrown around about who uses the internet and who doesn't. The newspaper's argument is not enough people use the internet in Utah, especially the 65 and older. They also believe the control should stay in a third parties hands. SB 208 supporters say lots of people use the internet and the legislature can stay neutral on the publishing of legal notices. Since facts have been called into question on both sides of the isle, we thought it would be interesting to research this information and find some real answers.
Lets begin our research using the medium in question--the newspaper:
According to the Deseret News (Dec 17, 2008, See Here), Utah is the 2nd highest state in the nation for internet usage. In 2007 we hit 82 percent of households using the internet, this is up from 63 percent two years previous (Oct, 31, 2005, See Here). Now according the United States Census, in 2005 there were 791,929 households in Utah. (2005, See Here). Now let's assume we are still in 2005 and only 63 percent of the households use the internet. 63 percent of our 791,929 households in Utah gives us 498,915 households are internet users. Still how many people use the internet? The average household size is 3.07 giving us nearly 1,531,669 potential internet users in the state of Utah. Even if there is only one person in the household who uses the internet, this would be 498,915 people.
Now for newspaper subscribers: In the same article from Dec 17, 2008 Utah was the 6th lowest state in newspaper subscriptions. The 2007 data reported we had 12 subscribers for over 100 residents. With a population of 2,427,350 this equals 202,279 people.
The difference shows at least 296,000 more people use the internet than subscribe to the print newspaper.
Now for demographics. Over the age of 65, the Salt Lake tribune reported, 70 percent of this demographic do not have the internet. (See Here) The Pew Research Center & American Life Project (same place the D-News got some of their 2005 data) actually shows 41 percent of people over the age of 65 use the internet. Interestingly between the ages of 50-64 - 72 percent use the internet. (See Here) Als, their 2009 Generations Report states:

"While just over one-fourth (26%) of 70-75 year olds were online in 2005, 45% of that age group is currently online (2009)." (See Here, Page 2)

Since the introduction of broadband, the report has found older generation usage of the internet has tripled, with 37 percent going online for the purpose of reading the news. (Page 5)
We have now established more people are using the internet than reading the print newspaper. We have also established more of the older generation is using the internet for news than believed and this is increasing very fast. What you didn't know is 70 percent of internet users go online to read the news. (Page 5); by this rational we can assume a lot of people read newspapers, either online or in print. The newspapers have all ready recognized this, they know legal notices needed to go online; therefore they have created a website to do so (See Here). Now the legislature wants create a website to do the same and now we have an argument.
What is this argument really about? Not internet usage and demographics.
It is about two things:
1. Money
Both entities will charge you to publish your legal notices. It is going to come down to who will do it cheaper and save tax payers money. If the newspapers new legal notices web page charges the same rates or higher, they lose. If the Utah website charges higher rates than newspapers, they lose. SB 208 has shed light on an issue that cuts into the pockets of Utahns. Supporting SB 208 means we want the cheapest and most efficient way of getting this done. If the bill fails and pushes newspapers to give the best and cheapest service possible, then so be it.
2. Power
Newspapers like being the distributors of information. Joel Campbell in a recent comment to this blog made mention I want you all to believe bloggers are the only ones who can communicate online. He would in turn want you to believe only newspapers can distribute legal notices and the possibility of another entity (government or not) could even attempt to do so would be preposterous. Newspapers are not the only medium to receive information and to believe legal notices BELONG in newspapers is misguided. Will removal of the these legal notices bring down newspapers? No. It will take away some of the power newspapers have been used to as distributors of information.
This is not an anti-media bill, nor are my comments. However I feel passionate about finding ways to ensure people save money. Publishing of legal notices costs people money, in some cases a lot of money. If we can easy that burden, that fee, that tax, I say lets do it.

A Conversation Regarding SB 199

The following is one of many possible conversations Sen. Curt Bramble could have had in deciding to write SB 199:

 

Constituent: Sen. Bramble, how is the legislature going?

Sen. Bramble: Going well, but I am running out of good ideas for my own legislation. How are you doing?

Constituent: We are doing okay; we are on our way to pay our $5 PTA dues.

Sen. Bramble: $5 PTA dues?

Constituent: Yes, every year we have to pay $5 to our local PTA? It is so expensive!

Sen. Bramble: Why do they charge dues?

Constituent: Well they need money for training, conferences, workshops, supplies, and newsletters. Then the PTA in turn votes as a council to push issues in the community, state and nation to help better education. Not to mention all the fundraising they do to put thousands of dollars into the school system.  Accomplishing all of this takes money.

Sen. Bramble: This is horrible idea! They should be able to do that for free, not charge $5.

Constituent: Oh some PTAs charge more, try $7 and other PTAs charge fees of only $1.

Sen. Bramble: I can't believe this, this injustice! We need to change this!

Constituent: Well are you ready for the kicker? Not all of the dues go to Utah PTAs. We send, on average, $1.75 to the National PTA.

Sen. Bramble: That is it! I can't take this anymore. I am going to write legislation that BANS the PTA from all schools; unless they are willing to get rid of these ridicules dues. If that means your schools loses out on valuable supplies, fundraising dollars and parent participation; then so be it. But we can't continue to have an institution like this running in Utah. Who cares if we are last in per pupil spending, the PTA has to go.

If you think this conversation is absurd, read SB 199. (See Here)

 

 

 

SB 199 - Revenge? Other Bloggers think so

Under the shadow of Sen. Buttar's latest embarrassment an intense conversation is brewing regarding SB 199.  I thought I would post some links to keep you all in the loop of this terrible bill:

KVNU -

• Save the PTA - Voucher Empire Strikes Back
• More Engaged Parents or a Threat to the PTA

Paul Rolly SLTRIB -

• Utah were number one

The Beehive Bulletin -

• Sen. Bramble and the Utah PTA

This bill is clearly an attack at the PTA and a waste of tax payer money.  

SB 199 – Paul Rolly Blog Post

I thought I would spotlight Paul Rolly's Salt Lake Tribune blog post on SB 199. See Here

Mr. Rolly does a great job highlighting why this bill is nutzo!

He says in his blog:

If Bramble's SB199 is passed into law this year, Utah will be the only state in
the nation that prohibits the PTA from participating in school activities.

A spokesman for the national PTA office in Chicago said no other state
has a provision that comes close to the Utah proposal, and to his knowledge,
there has never been such a law targeting the PTA in that manner.

Hey likens this bill to the antics of Sen. Chris Buttars and our loco liquor laws here in Utah.

Email you Senator and stop this bill from passing. You can find a link on the right side bar for email options and search options.

Comments are always welcome:

Sen. Bramble’s PTA Hate Bill - SB 199

Senator Curt Bramble is on the rampage again, this time he is out to get the PTA. His new rant comes in the form of SB 199. Apparently he is upset at the PTA and their requirement of dues. The current relationship of public schools and the PTA must be damaging to society in the eyes of Mr. Bramble. For this bill is targeted directly at the PTA and their relationship with public schools.

This bill requires an education entity to allow all parent groups equal access
to certain opportunities and resources.

He makes this sound like there is some sort of discrimination towards parental groups. Has parental group violence reached an all time high? Do we need new parental group hate crime laws? I can be the first to recognize the tension between the PTA and other groups, but is it really this bad?

He proposes to all but eliminate the PTA and their relationship with our local schools. His bill, SB 199 states schools are not to work in conjunction with a parent group that requires the payment of dues as a condition for participation. See Lines 52-58.

Why is this absurd? Two reasons:

1. Not all PTA dues are the same. Some PTAs charge more and others less. Each PTA organization sets their dues— $5 is not universal. Rolling Rivers Elementary PTA in Granger, charges only $1, North Sanpete High PTA charges $2.75. Is Senator Bramble really saying we should stop working with them because they charge $1 a year? What about the PTAs that do not charge a due and instead get their funds via fundraising?

   
   

2. More importantly - This could be a huge loss to schools! In Ogden, the local schools partner with Goldenwest Credit Union and the local PTAs. Every year they coordinate a 5k Race and donate plus match all the entry fees to the runner's school of choice. The PTAs jump all over this donating, man power, time, money etc. This is all done to help the schools pull off this huge event. PTA participation is crucial to the success of the event. The Goldenwest 5k has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Ogden schools. According to Sen. Bramble's legislation, this partnership would now be illegal. He could be jeopardizing thousands of dollars that go to our kids?
   

Why is he on this vendetta against the PTA? Maybe because Sen. Bramble's 2008 election opponent was RaDene Hatfield, the president of the Provo PTA Council (See Paul Rolly for the rest of the story) and is upset with their alleged involvement in her campaign.

Whether you are pro-voucher or not, this bill is disturbing and damaging to Utah's students. Bramble is out to get the PTA on this one and is going to hurt education in the process.

Comments Welcome: