go to mobile version »

Most Commented

Crosscut articles of the past 10 days with the most reader comments.

ALL COMMENTS »

Newspapers »

 
Crosscut Focus: Red Ink by the Barrel.
 

Growing up without newspapers

Sixth of a series: The youngest member of the Crosscut editorial team weighs in.

Editor's note: This is the sixth of a series of articles on the financial crisis facing The Seattle Times.


I've never worked for The Seattle Times, nor have I held a job at any daily newspaper. For a brief time last summer, I enjoyed the byline glory and slave wages of freelance writing for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and for a year in my early 20s, I worked for almost nothing at a monthly arts publication in the Midwest. I've read about the Times layoffs with surprise — but not at how many people they're letting go; rather, I've been surprised by how many they have to let go.

Maybe things have been different out here in the Northwest, but I was under the impression that newspapers were already lean machines due to displacement by not the Internet first and foremost, but television.

By the time I was growing up in the 1970s and '80s, many of the towns where the Air Force stationed us were already down to one, morning-only newspaper. Like a lot of people, my parents subscribed only to the Sunday editions. My parents got their daily news from TV, as did most everyone else we knew. I'm not saying this was adequate or that the quality was the same; it's just what they did. It's not that we weren't readers. My mother hauled us to the library at least once a week, from which we would cart home thick histories and novels and biographies. I was always being told to get my nose out of a book. There were always stacks of National Geographic, Scientific American, and Popular Mechanics to pore over, just not many newspapers. In retrospect, this seems inexplicable, but my high school current events teacher used copies of Newsweek as a text, not the Belleville News-Democrat.

Already by the time I was in college, newspaper readership rates in general had seriously declined. Sadly, I suppose, since it has a reputation as a strong paper, no one I knew read the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as if it were gospel, or even with any regularity, at least not without having to supplement with other news sources. Most didn't read it at all, opting instead for National Public Radio or The New York Times for superior national and international coverage and The Riverfront Times, our weekly tabloid, for the local stuff. Perhaps this is because I'm part of the comparatively cynical Generation X, but most everyone I knew regarded mainstream media with intense distrust. We picked up a copy of our city's only daily newspaper and failed to see ourselves in it; very little resonated. Maybe this was our fault; maybe not.

Yet we thrilled to discover Utne Reader and Z Magazine and pledged our allegiance to Harper's, even if we'd been brought there only by way of Harper's Index in the aforementioned weekly tabloid. To challenge our viewpoints with anarachist-libertarian provocation, we St. Louisans sent away to far-flung places like Port Townsend, Wash., for a copy of Liberty. Some of us thought mainstream media had been co-opted by corporations and the far right; some of us thought mainstream media had been co-opted by liberals and big government. Liberty met us in the middle.

Even if we wrote for our high school and college papers, which I did, few of us entertained the notion of going into journalism as a career. One of my professors, who worked for the Post-Dispatch as a copyeditor to supplement his teaching income — or maybe he subsidized his copyediting by teaching — cautioned against it. Not that there were any jobs. There were never any jobs. When I graduated in 1994, the country was in the middle of a recession, and if there were jobs to be had at the only games in town, they didn't advertise them. Which brings me to my yearlong stint basically as a volunteer at a monthly arts publication, which was never a profitable venture and eventually closed up shop. I know several graduates of prestigious journalism schools who never found jobs in traditional journalism. One edits an entertainment Web site. Another writes labels for New Age self-help CDs. Still another makes a far better living than any of us as a copywriter for a car insurance company.

I remember being intensely involved in a bulletin board system run by a friend of mine in the early 1990s, pre-Web. The bulletin board featured plain text posts without any bells or whistles, but we had a many-months-long discussion on the philosophy of war. We "bbsers" argued passionately, drawing upon research and personal experience in tandem in a rich public dialogue unlike anything you'd find in the newspaper. To this day, some of the best quality exchanges on the Internet are low on features and pizzazz but high on user gusto.

1 | 2 next page

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!


Comments:

Posted Thu, Apr 10, 10:35 p.m. inappropriate

good article: I always hate to see people lose their jobs, but like you, I also have trouble relating to a nostalgic view of newspapers.

I know what you mean by reading papers with a sense of distrust. I don't understand the widely held view that newspapers facilitate democracy by being part of a public sphere. Whether regional or national, they strike me more as bastions of very selective sensibilities, carefully fostered to sell subscriptions and advertising. I remember, growing up In Brooklyn, The New York Post and The Daily News, both of which tended toward sensationalist gossip. And of course there was the New York Times, the upper-crust pretension of which I found mystifying, as though I were observing aliens from another planet. Straight, white, middle-class, male aliens. (All those papers have since changed to varying degrees.)

So even though job cuts do suck, I've been happy to see journalism take new forms on the web. For me, Seattle's IndyMedia was a major watershed. Since then, citizen journalism and its democratic energies have been largely co-opted by the phenomenon of blogs, which tend to be venues for self-promotion, even when they purport to be reporting on news. Still, I think the web has a lot of potential to transform our notions of what is newsworthy, what counts as "quality" reporting, and what views should fall under the umbrella of journalism. But it's got a long, long way to go.

Posted Fri, Apr 11, 8:08 a.m. inappropriate

RE: good article: I guess it's a generational thing, but I'm disturbed by all this distrust, disaffection, and blind faith that society will somehow be just as wise or wiser without the institution of the newspaper.

It might be because I came of age when The Washington Post singlehandedly brought down a corrupt president. Or because I was there when The Seattle Times exposed Sen. Brock Adams. Citizen journalism is a great development, but often the most important journalism requires deep pockets and the fearlessness that comes with being too big to ignore.

Posted Fri, Apr 11, 9:59 a.m. inappropriate

RE: good article: Chuck, I would think the accomplishments you mention say more about the existence of tenacious reporters with a sense of purpose than about the newspaper as an institution. I wonder how many journalists would disagree here, especially if they've had good stories turned down because they were deemed inappropriate or uninteresting to a particular audience's sensibilities.

I totally agree that lack of resources poses a serious problem for quality, but that's not a case for saving the newspaper per se: it speaks to the problem of what new institutional structures might emerge, and how they can get funded. I'm more optimistic about seeing these endeavors appear on the web than about saving the newspaper. The tricky thing is that they might not even be recognizable as "journalism" in how we're used to thinking about it. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Posted Sat, Apr 19, 11:26 a.m. inappropriate

It's not about nostalgia: Whether newspapers are electronic or on paper doesn't really matter. What should matter for those of us who want real news and local accountability is supporting the best independent, informed, local journalism. For better and for worse, most original content in any community starts with the newspaper. Most stories on the web are just repackaged, redirected or "blogged" topics that some newspaper first reported. Crosscut does a great job, but a good deal of your stories are analyses/reactions/rebuttals of stories first reported in the Times or the PI. Same pretty much goes for our local NPR stations. The original content starts in the paper. Yet newspapers nationwide are shrinking, cutting jobs and, in some cases, desperately trying to survive by imitating the lunacy of TV by focusing on entertainment rather than serious news. Original content is diminishing and, so far, there doesn't appear be a market solution.

Join Crosscut now! Subscribe to Newsletter About Crosscut Advertise Web Feeds