Newspapers’ plight not an issue for government
Monday, May 11, 2009 at 1:39PM 
I can't imagine starting the day without my newspaper. [Photo by Kay B. Day]Should the US Senate be going anywhere near a discussion about the future of newspapers? If you value personal liberty, the answer should be a resounding ‘NO.’ But the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing on May 6 focused on “The Future of Journalism.” Those giving testimony included a former managing editor of The Washington Post and the founder of an Internet blog directory.
The subcommittee is chaired by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). One suggestion involved permitting newspapers to operate as charitable organizations. Frankly, that designation is sorely overused by too many entities already. But that’s a topic for a tax rant. A federal government subcommittee has no business even discussing the future of newspapers or any other media, for that matter.
The handholding between select politicians and media is one practice that has led us to where we are today. A perfect example—only when a tabloid broke the story of family-values touting presidential wannabe John Edwards (D-N.C.) did pomp media follow suit. And they gave him a gentle slap on the wrist. By now, if you’re not aware of established media’s preference for the Democratic Party, you are rather like a bareheaded person walking in a thunderstorm without an umbrella, denying the fact your hair is wet.
There’s more to newspapers’ troubles than media bias. There’s a complete lack of understanding in many—not all—newspapers and other traditional media like TV news when it comes to the American people. Newspapers have increasingly relied on wire content that may not reflect the interests of their advertisers or subscribers. Besides that, newspapers set a precedent of giving content away free, hoping to ride the wave of advertising revenue. By now even the New York Times has realized this model doesn’t bode well for future revenue.
There’s an interesting assortment of video content at C-SPAN, giving visitors a look at the 2009 White House Correspondents’ dinner on Saturday. If you watch the video, you’ll see various members of the political class—traditional media journalists, controversial comics, award-winning actors. The whole evening, complete with red carpet rolled out, was chummy. Pomp media has obsessed about Wanda Sykes’ wish for conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s kidneys to fail [loud laughter] and President Barack Obama’s jibes at Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, among other remarks.
But what’s more interesting to me is the quasi-nepotism between government and the industry traditionally devoted to, as Obama said, “inform the public and pursue the truth.” You simply cannot pursue the truth if you do not divulge your bias. I personally do not believe you can position yourself as a member of the Glitterati and practice unvarnished journalism.
Newspapers should do some soul searching and then dialog among themselves. There are a number of solutions; the papers just aren’t approaching their product as a product. Rather they’re taking an approach a poet might take towards poetry, a genre notorious for government subsidies and few profits. A government subcommittee should not be involved in the future of journalism.
The US Constitution specifically limits the power of government when it comes to the press. That is a limit no one should tamper with, even when it seems like a good idea to journalists. And as for blog directory founders testifying before Congress about journalism, I’d suggest inserting the word ‘advocacy’ somewhere in the descriptive.
Caroline Huber, writing for Editors Weblog quoted Kerry as one who “believes it is important to ‘preserve the core society function served by independent and diverse media’ and questions whether online journalism will ‘sustain the values of professional journalism the way the newspaper industry has.’ Kerry’s statement says it all, and is the best reason I can think of for government to take a hands-off approach to media regardless of format. Values are few and far between.
Newspapers' plight not an issue for government by Kay B. Day for The US Report
Reader Comments (2)
I have a professional and a personal opinion on the matter. As someone in the industry, it's been plainly obvious how newspapers have become less relevant to the daily consumer. Ad revenue, because readership is down, has suffered as a result. Plus, companies spend less during recessions, and ad revenue for major brands is one of the first things that can be trimmed. A "bailout" wouldn't solve the problem, unless the newspapers did what the automakers should do - and use their money to innovate. If they created digital news realms that rivaled the Situation Room online, there would be no problems, at all. They could probably even afford to continue printing their papers, which exist only as a justification to have an online site sometimes, like the NYT.
Personally, I think print media is pretty much done. It's our time now!
Ryan, I'm not sure. The content methodology at present really challenges a small publisher--even the big ones. But I like the feel of a newspaper in my hands.
I think newspapers ignored the opportunity to create a revenue friendly model--most have done a great job with Websites. But if I can get everything on the Web, why should I pay to subscribe? As always, thanks to ya for coming 'round and commenting! best, Kay