By James Srodes on 4.21.09 @ 6:07AM
What do you expect from a newspaper industry that has outdone
Detroit in wasting its franchise?
As I mark my fiftieth year in the craft of journalism may I be
excused for letting loose a small raspberry at the flood of
handwringing going on over The Decline of the American Daily
Newspaper.
What do you expect from an industry that has outdone Detroit in
wasting its franchise? The hard historical fact of life is that
many great American news titles ended up being owned by absentees
and operated by cretins who thought they were manufacturing a
product when in fact journalism, in whatever format, is and
always has been a service.
There is a difference. In manufacturing, say widgets, if you can
make the same number of widgets with fewer workers and a leaner
mix of raw materials the productivity gain will translate into
expanded profits. But if one starts watering down a service with
fewer providers, with stingier resources, and empty information
calories instead of the news nourishment consumers want, well
then one deserves what one gets.
So when once-great newspapers (and I count the Washington
Post among them) systematically empty their newsroom of
truly first-class news gatherers, and when the product that
results is the work of lower-wage naifs who lack sources and
perspective, who confuse skepticism with partisanship, who
substitute snark for insight, then what in the pluperfect hell
does management expect to happen? Why should advertisers spend
their dollars pitching to a room that is rapidly emptying of
potential customers?
How we came to forget this truth that predates the founding of
our Republic I cannot say. Certainly 23-year-old Benjamin
Franklin knew the difference when he bought the weakest of the
eight weekly colonial newspapers exactly 280 years ago. The
Pennsylvania Gazette he took over serialized boring novels,
cribbed old articles from London magazines, and had become the
political tool of one of the factions of the day. By the time
Franklin was finished it boasted the largest circulation and a
readership that stretched from Charleston to Boston -- and
two full pages of paid advertising. What the new
Gazette provided was news that Americans had to have,
news of ships arriving and leaving, of fires, disasters, and
Indian raids, but also of business deals, goods being traded, and
of course of politics, lots of politics. He printed both sides of
disputes but took sides with arguments that carried the now
forgotten word -- authority. Readers argued with him but never
questioned his integrity.
In my time I worked for four daily news organizations and four
major newsmagazines of some repute. Of the dailies, two don't
exist at all, one is bleeding to death, and the fourth has moved
to a new format altogether. Of the magazines, one has vanished,
two have become irrelevancies and the fourth has deteriorated
into a shill for its owner's other media interests. The universal
response of managements and their “consolidations and
restructuring” has merely added to the hemorrhaging of a patient
already near bled to death.
Good riddance, say I. And goodbye to the Post and a host
of other dailies elsewhere if they continue to ladle out the thin
gruel they have been serving us with injunctions that we should
be grateful. At the same time it also is true that compared with
the America where I began my labors way back then, today there
actually is available more hard news, more authoritative detail,
more sophisticated analysis on a whole range of global issues
than the big dailies were able to provide with their once vaunted
foreign services and big Washington bureaus. It's called the
Internet.
While there is a lot of gibberish among the blogs and special
pleading websites, there also is a host of very fine information
services that offer analysis, expertise, impartiality, and (oh,
joy) authority on areas from intelligence, foreign policy, the
environment, politics, culture and the arts, science and health,
to almost any topic that interests you. Just go on line and there
it is, much of it in real time and without the filter of this new
generation of broadcast and print news providers who have trouble
naming the line of succession of American presidents from
Roosevelt to Obama without using their fingers.
There is bad news in the midst of this good news. If you cling to
the myth that a free and democratic society depends on all
citizens having equal access to news from the public arena the
development of a two-tier information system should cause
concern. For while the Internet information services are easily
accessible they are not free, indeed some cost thousands of
dollars a year both in subscriptions and downloading fees. Those
who cannot afford to be without the raw ingredients of reality
will find the money somewhere; the vast number of people may have
to do without.
But from where I sit that vast number of people apparently can't
tell the difference between what they used to get and what is now
thrown onto their doorstep in the morning or blared out from
their favorite television chatter show. Information has morphed
into entertainment and comforting prejudices edge aside often
unpleasant reality.
The confusion and uncertainty that so frightens us today is an
inescapable consequence. We get what we deserve.