I found two items of particular interest in Tuesday's News & Observer. Both were distressing.
The first was a front page story, along with several sidebars, regarding shenanigans carried on by former governor Mike Easley. Previous articles had revealed shady real estate deals that got the guv a big discount on a waterfront lot, and too much behind-the-scenes involvement in getting his wife a cushy job planning lectures at North Carolina State University. In hearings before the state board of elections on Monday, Easley's good friend and former chair of the N.C. State board of trustees McQueen Campbell admitted not only that he had provided nearly $100,000 in free but unreported airplane flights for Easley, but that Easley had asked Campbell to arrange $11,000 in repairs and upgrades to his personal home, then had him reimbursed from campaign funds that pretended to be for "unbilled flights." Doubtless, there is more scum to come.
The second story, less prominent at the bottom of a page in the B section, reported that newspaper circulation for April-September 2009 was down 10.6 percent from the same period in 2008, suggesting that the long term decline in newspaper circulation is accelerating. It has already gotten so bad that award-winning newspapers like the Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer have shut down their print editions this year, and others are under intense stress as readers migrate to free news on the Internet or display news apathy altogether.
Here's the problem with that: as disquieting as news about the former governor's misbehavior is -- along with previous stories about other officials -- it's something the public needs to know. Public officials need to be held accountable, no one does that better than good journalists. It's likely, however, that none of those stories would have come to light if not for the faithful digging of newspaper reporters. With advertising down even more than subscribers, news budgets are shrinking and so are newspaper staffs: not only are there fewer pages in the paper, but fewer reporters digging for important stories.
Sadly, many Americans still don't appreciate what newspapers do for them: a Pew Trust study published in March 2009 showed that only 43 percent of Americans said the loss of their local paper would be a detriment to the community, and just 33 percent said they would personally miss the local paper if it ceased to exist.
Something's rotten in the state of American minds. Dependable, investigative, community-oriented journalism is essential for an accountable and truly democratic society. If Americans want to maintain real freedom, they ought to be willing to pay the price -- including the minor cost of a quality newspaper.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that there are two reasons for the decline. One is the campaign by politicians to discredit the printed media as biased and ultra liberal. The other is the fact that the American public will not take the time to sit down and read an in depth article. It wants news fed in short, instant blurbs on the Internet. Therefore it is believed that newspapers are outdated and should fail in favor of that immediate technology. Very unfortunate.
"Dependable, investigative, community-oriented journalism is essential for an accountable and truly democratic society." I couldn't agree more. However, the question I am asking myself, and I'll pose to you too Tony, is whether such journalism can only take place in a newspaper. Moreover, does the death of a newspaper necessarily mean the death of journalism? I certainly don't think so. I think good journalism is here to stay, though I'm sure the medium will change. Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Aide from journalism, printed newspapers have always lived on advertising revenue. So, the basics for delivery is folks ringing cash registers associated with ads in newspapers. That is what is changing. Good journalism has always been a by-product, not the main thing. So as economic models change their will be consequences. Perhaps we should be developing other vehicles for good journalism to ride upon?
Post a Comment