Neal R@nts

The New Newspaper Model

It would seem that everyone is talking about the death of newspapers these days.  What people are really talking about are large metros, right?  I believe to make such a broad statement as "newspapers are dying" is a generalization that fails to recognize a growing segment of local newspapers.  It is the suburban weekly.  I have theories why so many have sprung up in recent years and how they must change in the future to establish a new paradigm of local coverage.  There's no question that there will be local news coverage; I don't believe there will ever be a news vacuum as long as the first amendment isn't incrementalized into oblivion.

It's important to take a moment to examine one of the issues that have brought the newspapers to the brink of where they are.

Among all the conversation about being lazy, not caring, media bias, unwillingness to adapt, etc., I find that a very real and obvious thing happened--not overnight, but like frog who is put in the pot with the water temp slowing increasing to a boil.  It is the suburbanization of major metropolitan areas.  The newspaper readership slowly migrated to the suburbs whilst the newspaper and their newsrooms continued their obsession with the major metro city council and all the goings on that most of us find boring, frankly.  They've been covering the hole and missed the doughnut!  The migration was beyond their control, but the failure to recognize it and deal with it is their own fault.  A savvy organization would have recognized the need to have their reporters out covering every suburb.  The reporter should have no need to even come to the office except for the most important meetings, yet, they still came in every morning, sat down at a desk, wrote stories by calling people on the phone, and then submitting the story to the copy editors. 

The question: why?  With technology, there is no need whatsoever to have the reporters come in.  They should be in the suburbs where the readership is.  Instead, they all cluster in a big newsroom, just as they always have and focus on stories about city hall where the 'burbs don't give a whit.  Talk about being locked in a paradigm.  They have small bureaus in the burbs (and surprisingly, they're closing them!); they should have the small bureau downtown and be shifting their talent to the burbs now.

So the question is, what form will the medium take?  My personal view is that the local weeklies will morph into a different ilk of newspapers.  If the large metro disappears, the role of the local weekly will shift.  They will see their roles as being broader--that being to hold the powerful accountable, to guard the public interest.  Today, the local weekly is a lot of feel good, Eagle Scout, garden club, school and chicken dinner coverage.  That is an essential role and (dare I say) the responsibility of a local weekly paper--and one that readers can't get enough of.  The rule: relevance is an algorithm of timeliness (an event that took place a month ago has less relevance than one occurring yesterday), geographic proximity (people care more about the pothole at the end of their street than some politician who was caught taking bribe in the metro center 10 miles away), and event weight (9-11-01 was a major event to all of us). If we know the Eagle Scout, there is greater relevance because of the geographic proximity to the individual.

But imagine what life will be like when the journalists who view themselves as investigative reporters are allowed to do what they should do well--hold the powerful accountable.  But they'll cover news from the suburbs--where the readership is.  And they'll serve as important links to television stations who want and need to reach the same audience (let's face it; they'd best learn from the newspapers that giving face time to some metro politician who, in no way has an effect on the lives of most people outside the city limits isn't going to be a recipe for building viewership).  As a colleague once said of newspapers who were obsessed with some petty criminal who happened to occupy a city seat, "we think it's sad and pathetic, but beyond that, we really don't care."

That pretty well sums it up.

And what if the major metro were to put a digest together of the major stories from all the suburban papers?

I believe I have just laid out a survival plan for the metropolitan newspaper.  It is essential to their continued existence.  Unfortunately, most will die before they ever "get it."  But, for those who are smart and realize that they need to invest in the war and not the battle, they'll emerge with a whole new model.

I believe Media General may be on the way to figuring it out.  Their experiments have thus far been exercises in how not to do something, but they're edging ever closer, and without an investment in old ideas.  That said, closing bureaus may be moving them farther from the answer.

Marginalizing Our Most Basic Freedom

Note:  This is a story written some time ago.  Given current events and FCC actions regarding the new "localism" rule making, it seems to be more relevant today.

- November 1, 2007

The big story on talk radio lately is the Fairness Doctrine.  I can certainly understand why talk radio has launched a crusade against it.  The Fairness Doctrine, a law being reconsidered that dictates that any communications outlet that utilizes the public airwaves present balanced coverage within the political realm, would pretty much end talk radio—and, by the way, AM radio.  The Fainess Doctrine is not a new idea.  It first came on the scene in 1949.  Eventually the law and its enforcement was assigned to the FCC.  Various court challenges all but eliminated the Fairness Doctrine entirely over time.  It is really hard to believe that in 2007, with the many editorial voices that bombard and saturate the public from so many sources, that Senators Kerry and Durbin would think such a law is necessary.  The Fairness Doctrine would erode a basic freedom that was of such importance as to have been rated number one on the freedoms that Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the constitution set forth.  The Fairness Doctrine opens the door to fascism and threatens every constituency—after all—who is to be the judge of what is “fair”?  Talk radio may be the target today, but enforcement of such a law will know no party over time.  As the political pendulum swings, any voice that is in opposition runs a risk of being squelched or diluted under the guise of fairness.

Using the FCC to control the media is not a new concept.  Because electronic media utilizes public airwaves and spectrum, other rules have been drafted in the name of fairness.  The Cross-Ownership Restriction, a law that prohibits a newspaper from owning a television station within the same market, grew out of an instance involving Senator Fritz Hollings, where he had disagreement several decades ago with his treatment of a story in his home state of South Carolina.  Since the local newspaper and television station were both owned by the same company, he felt the story might have been told differently had there been two, distinctly differing voices within the market.  [Interestingly, most television stations were begun by newspaper companies; in a sense, we have them to thank for the television we watch today.  Most newspaper companies were gambling on the new medium of television by erecting expensive towers and powering up expensive transmitters at a time when less than one in every ten households owned a device over which they could watch television.]  The restriction on cross-ownership was drafted at a time when there were three editorial voices in any market: newspapers, television, and radio.  Whether the law was necessary then is questionable, but why now, in a day where the Internet makes anyone a publisher overnight–where positions and various opinions abound?  If a newspaper wants to own a television station in a market, let them.  Let them all own a television station.  It seems that allowing cross-ownership would create more editorial voices, not fewer. If a newspaper owns a television station, would not the other television stations in the market have a strong incentive and motivation to start a newspaper to compete?  In the electronic age, publishing a newspaper is possible with a minimum of capital.  Even so, it is a very shallow argument to say that denying cross-ownership encourages a broader array of editorial voices in any market.  Senator Hollings, in the age of the Internet, continues to push to deny waivers to companies like Fox. In the final analysis, the law will almost certainly be struck down in the courts as unnecessary and outdated.

We should oppose any obstacle that jeopardizes the long-term survival of the press.  The press represents an all-important fourth leg of the stool in our governmental process.  Alongside the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government, the American press has long stood as an important member of the governmental process as it seeks to hold the powerful accountable for their actions and inactions.  We can ill afford to live without an American press any more than we can exist in a government absent of the judicial, legislative, or executive branches.  Bloggers cannot fill the shoes of the American press.  The majority of the subject matter of most bloggers is reaction to information in the press.  While we love to disagree with the American press and label it “biased” or “unfair”, the press has been instrumental in the governmental process since the days before we even had constitutional rights.  Circulation of newspapers continues to fall; television viewership continues to erode.   We should be fearful of a society where newspapers and television stations can no longer afford to staff newsrooms with journalists who not only inform us, but enforce honesty and integrity among those we elect to power.

Recently during a conference of Internet and technology professionals, we were told of a newer, faster Internet being developed by the government in Alexandria, Virginia.  The new Internet promises unparalleled speeds and greater reliability with greater security.  I, for one, am skeptical and fearful of an Internet that is controlled by the government.  It was because of the lack of government intervention that the Internet grew as it has to become the medium that it has.  It is unwieldy and uncontrollable.  Yes, it has avenues where the undesirable lurk and criminal behavior is one link away at any time.  There is both morality and immorality everywhere on the Net.  It is a spray of everything the world has to offer.  It, for better or worse, is a reflection of society, warts and all. The government, given the opportunity, will likely not only tax the Internet; they will seek to control the message, squelch dissent, and the censor content, as evidenced by history.  We have only to look to the Fairness Doctrine and the cross-ownership restrictions on our American press to gain a glimpse of the potential.

The Fairness Doctrine, if it were to be reenacted, would drive talk radio and any other voice of dissent to the Internet.  We  can only hope that our most basic freedom–the  right of  free speech is  still  alive  and  well.