THE US REPORT

Commentary by Kay B. Day

During hearings on Cap and Trade in April, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) told former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, "You gotta have some threat sometimes—you have to say to incentivize you, we’re going to give you some assistance, but there are going to be consequences." The exchange illustrated Waxman's disdain for Main Street, in the opinion of some conservatives.[Photo of Waxman screen shot/TUSR.]Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) treads dangerous constitutional waters by declaring “government's going to have to be involved in one way or the other" in order to help struggling media companies. Waxman made that statement, as well as acknowledging such support raises “red flags” when the Federal Trade Commission held a workshop themed on journalism surviving the “Internet Age.”

Media reportage on the FTC journalism workshop included a brief overview of Waxman’s remarks at Breitbart.com—a wire story from Agence France Presse. At US News and World Report, a columnist offered analysis on  the future of news—“Rupert Murdoch vs. Arianna Huffington.” Consider comparing those two and ask yourself why the founder of a blog directory relying largely on “citizen journalism” is even quoted in context with a media mogul who employs thousands of people in non-government-sponsored jobs.

Comments on The US News and World Report article bordered on hilarity. One reader wrote: “Murdoch, however, also uses news as an ideological tool to build power. Huffington's contribution, on the other hand, seems genuinely aimed at empowering the public.”

Take a look at HuffPo’s ‘Politics’ page any day of the week. And tell me why this website is classified as news—it’s a blog directory and the news has a slant more glaring than that of Fox (in my opinion).

Of course the USNWR reader perceives Murdoch as being ideologically driven, buying the talking point the White House has pushed in hopes of knocking down the most influential cable network. We all know how that ploy worked. Just take a glance at cable network ratings.

Here’s the real problem media has, and the problem was created by media. Free content. Newspapers, magazines and whatever lies in between give the content free of charge. If you’re a branded national entity, you’re lucky enough to get advertising revenue.

If you’re a website like The US Report, you’ll earn pennies from 3rd party ads like Google’s AdSense and Amazon Associates. You’ll earn more from syndication via companies like Newstex, in the form of royalties, if you’re credentialed and you put up good content.

In addition if you’re an indie site, good luck with search engines. They have no brain capability for content, credentials or standards. If you have money to spend, however, it is likely you can achieve a coveted rank.

Media’s problems in general shouldn’t be confused with the plight of newspapers’ problems in particular. Newspapers have lost touch with their own communities, relying on community sections going out in different editions to specific areas. If it weren’t for those community sections, it’s likely newspapers would have folded long ago. There is an overwhelming reliance in section A of most hometown papers on wire service stories—the Associated Press and McClatchy dominate national and international and even state news. I recall writing an annoyed email to my own newspaper when it became apparent a wire service was covering Florida’s battle over moving the primary ahead as the general election approached. That made no sense to me.

I subscribe to my hometown newspaper; always have. It’s a part of my lifestyle. It’s also part of my repertoire—I’ve written for a newspaper since I began working as an independent writer more than 2 decades ago (when I was young enough to not know better.) I’ve seen the quantity of local, state and regional content decline in the paper I pay for.

And on a business note, I’ve seen the fee I am paid to write a newspaper story decline to 1/3 of what I was paid in the 1990s. And I didn’t have to shoot photos then.

Worth mentioning are newspapers of yesteryear. If you want to have a little free fun, visit your library and read some of the archived papers. Newspapers covered their own states and many had Washington correspondents then. Newspapers also ran recipes, had real book editors and even ran poetry (the horror!). There was also a more diligent effort to do actual reportage rather than advocacy journalism that’s all the rage right now. At present, the Op-Ed page has mated with the news section. 

Consider this: the largest wire service in the nation outsources content to nonprofits who have a definite political bent.

A perfect example of the failure of newspapers’ mission: absence of real coverage of the debate on global warming. Another example: many high profile newspapers acting as a de facto lobby for liberals when Main Street, both Democrat and Republican, tilts more to a centrist position.

To be honest, I’d like to see media outlets charge for content and also develop a model to directly offer bloggers and indie website owners content use for a fee. We indies could then set subscription fees (I say that with a glint in my capitalist eye). The film and music industry are successful at this—they’re much more successful than purveyors of the written word. Writers see copy scraped right and left. Good luck doing anything about it.

But above all, I don’t like to see a politico like Waxman go anywhere near media. Some conservatives perceive U.S. media as approaching a state run complex as it is. I can’t think of a single more negative influence on the market than a California legislator whose opinion of the American people, in my opinion freely and legally expressed, is equivalent to my opinion of the detritus gulls leave on my car at the beach.

Media should solve the problem facing media. Government should stay out of it. And Waxman should read the U.S. Constitution.