Hang it up, Hearst
A practitioner of new journalism provides a no-hankies account of how journalism is changing, even if we have to live without The P-I.
With the lamenting about the probable demise of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, you would expect to soon see something out of the Black Death: Robed men pulling donkey carts, carrying torches, ringing bells, and shouting, “Bring out your dead.”
It’s not just The P-I, either. The list of late, lamented media outlets and related casualties is fast approaching plague-death numbers:
- The publisher of The Daily Olympian resigned January 21st
- The Tucson Citizen will cease publication March 21 if no buyer is found
- The Minneapolis Star Tribune (a top-20 paper) filed for bankruptcy
- The Boston Globe announced that it’s cutting 50 jobs from the news/editorial staff
- The Seattle Times cut 31 jobs from its newsroom/editorial staff
- The Rocky Mountain News will close soon if no buyer is found
- Cox News will close its Washington D.C. bureau in April
- Cox has also put up for sale the Austin American-Statesman and several smaller papers in Texas and Colorado
- McClatchy is trying to see if the Miami Herald will help pay down $2 billion in debt
- The Tribune Company (Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times) filed for bankruptcy and cut 400 employees from the company overall, including about 100 from the newsroom
- The New York Times took a second mortgage on their new building to help pay down $225 million in debt
- The Christian Science Monitor went to an online-only publication in October
- Other papers that have drastically cut staff include: Orange County Register, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dallas Morning News, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Baltimore Sun, Raleigh News-Observer, and the Newark Star-Ledger.
Lamenting by mainstream media journalists over the demise of a mainstream media outlet is to be expected. But it should be tempered with some sober objectivity. During the campaign season, most of these journalists were hot to get on board the bus labeled “Change” without realizing that change included them with a bull’s eye on their collective back.
When I came to town in 1963, The P-I was celebrating its 100th anniversary. It has a proud heritage (The P-I globe is as much a visual image of Seattle as anything) — and baggage. A law school classmate refused to buy “that yellow rag” because it was Hearst-owned. He couldn’t forgive William Randolph Hearst or any of the clan for their unique brand of sensationalistic journalism. Some who have read W. A. Swanberg’s Citizen Hearst, one of the best biographies ever published, may beg to differ. Some who have read the modern P-I may not.
The death of any local institution is sad. Last August, I wrote for Crosscut of Weyerhaeuser Company’s demise as a manufacturing entity. Like The P-I, Weyerhaeuser was here almost from the beginning and had as much a hand in shaping the Pacific Northwest as anyone. Yet nobody shed many tears for Weyerhaeuser.
However, newspapers are unique, we’re told: First Amendment, Pentagon Papers, “All the news that’s fit to print,” and so on. But that also includes supermarket tabloids, Jason Blair, and, well, William Randolph Hearst. Recently The P-I’s David Horsey, in an editorial cartoon channeling Thomas Jefferson, conjured an end-of-Western-civilization scenario where without newspapers, which of course included The P-I, American democracy is doomed.
Horsey’s reliance upon Jefferson was a stretch. What Jefferson said was: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” In the context of his day, when newspapers were the only game in town, Jefferson was correct. Any good libertarian would have agreed with him, especially since Jefferson also said, “Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.”
But in the context of today, Jefferson the innovator and tinkerer, the Founding Father who always looked for a new way of doing things, might not be as morose as Horsey would lead us to believe. In fact, he might view the whole P-I kerfuffle with bemusement and a shrug of his shoulders. After all, when it came to their content, our third president was less enthusiastic: “Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.”
While we see precipitous decline in the traditional newsprint and ink publication, we also see an influx of electronic news and information portals such that anyone with a terminal has access to more news and commentary than at any time in history. The message isn’t dead, just one particular medium that delivered it.
But we’re constantly told by the mainstream media (MSM) that the “new journalism” types, bloggers in particular, aren’t up to professional standards. Sure, the blogosphere is untidy, often mean and undisciplined, and bereft of quality control. But there was a time when the same could be said of newspapers — just ask Jefferson, who was on the giving and receiving ends of hyper-partisan journalism of his day.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Tue, Jan 27, 7:58 a.m. inappropriate
The biggest issue faced by a democracy in today’s world is not the loss of newspapers – that is but a system of a larger problem, the fragmentation of the news market.
Today we have many sources of various qualities… (Quality issues are a different discussion). My fear is that when the consumer gets to choose who they read or listen to based on their specific interests, it reduces the concept of common or shared awareness. Back when you had multiple daily papers, while it limited the sources of news, as you thumbed through the paper, you at least were forced to see or hear topics and news NOT of direct interest to you.
Now the consumer gets to choose what kind of news and overall media they consume. If I want only left wing, or right wing, or Christian, or whatever, the new media sources are so specifically targeted that between where you live and what your media content choices are, you can effectively wall out anything else not of direct interest or of which you have a difference of opinion.
This fragmentation leads to polarization that is difficult to overcome in building consensus - regardless of if that consensus is to site a sewage plant, or rewrite a constitutional amendment, or discuss a new movie or play.
Both sides can refer to facts that the neither side had full command of, as the spin on the reportage becomes the sole source. In short, if you choose to believe in a flat earth, then you can surround yourself with media that only reflects and never challenges. You can choose to associate only with those who share similar opinion thanks to your on line social networking. At some point the real world may intersect and you will be either devastated, ill prepared, or overwhelmed.
Sadly, the fragmentation is far ahead of learning about the impact and the skill sets to insure you do not become isolated from new or contrary information. Crosscut at least offers some range in headlines. But as an example, if you read only HA and Daily Kos, subscribe only to Mother Jones, listen only to Air America… how do you deal with, or even converse with someone who reads only Free Republic, Little Green Footballs, subscribes to the National Review, listens only to Rush, and watches only Fox? This is how you end up with a democracy those stalemates on every initiative, and has a tough time finding consensus, let alone building it.
General daily papers force you to see the rest of the world. Back when there was a hand full of networks, everyone had the same general sources of information over a wider range of topics. If you had interest to learn more, there were more specific sources. But Monday morning around the water cooler, or Later that week at the bowling league, there was the ability to discuss topics and observe or learn of other opinions and ideas. Today at the water cooler, folks text their friends rather than interact with others.
Media used to build consensus. With the fragmentation of the marketplace, New Media leaves us with many more challenges on how to find common ground. The passing of general newspapers, along with general TV news, or radio leaves us with a serious shortfall of social commonalities. And that, to me, is what the loss of the P-I symbolizes.
Posted Tue, Jan 27, 8:04 a.m. inappropriate
Sorry... malfunctioning fingers... that first line should read,
"The biggest issue faced by a democracy in today’s world is not the loss of newspapers – that is but a symptom of a larger problem, the fragmentation of the news market."
Posted Tue, Jan 27, 9:50 a.m. inappropriate
i enjoyed both posts, as a longtime print guy who still loves and values that platform, and also blogs and Facebook. i don't know what the new normal will be, but i sure hope it is a rich array of good, solid information that people can use for making their own choices and political decisions, and, as hacknflack says, to be in community with each other.
Posted Tue, Jan 27, 10:01 a.m. inappropriate
gosh - a future that would rely upon trust and honesty, integrity and due-diligence in reporting - be it personal blogs, electronic news media, embedded reporters, you-tube, etc. Truth, or a version of it, will prevail. right? say it's so joe!
Posted Tue, Jan 27, 10:49 a.m. inappropriate
The idea of community is a good one - as long as it's a civil one.
One thing electronic communication has done is to revive the art of letter writing. In the days before e-mail, did we communicate in a writen form to the extent we do now? And in that writing, we find a better voice and more thoughtful soul...or at least I do.
Blogging and comments pages such as this one foster community. We talk with each other in ways that, were it not for them, we wouldn't do. I've made friends here and at Sound Politics and Horse's Ass that would have been unavailable to me otherwise.
In the "old days," news and information would be shared around a cracker barrel or pot-bellied stove. A newspaper would be passed from one pair of ink-smudged hands to another. They were too costly for everyone to have his own. In the telling and re-telling of chronicled events, democracy happened. Democracy happens electronically today.
Many devotees of "change" need consider how it's always the other guy who needs to change while they resist it - everyone else has to change so I can remain the same. I don't care where you go, you see it - in this regard, journalism isn't unique.
We will survive and prosper and be informed sans P-I.
I will miss seeing Dilbert in print, however.
The Piper
Posted Tue, Jan 27, 2:35 p.m. inappropriate
An interesting and thoughtful article. I especially enjoyed the following:
"...many think tanks now devote substantial energy and resources to pouring over public records and writing about what they find."
As I pored over this sentence, I realized that what they found were wet records!
Posted Tue, Jan 27, 2:50 p.m. inappropriate
It’s certainly true that newspapers disdained digital media for too long. Perhaps until it was too late.
And there is a huge transition going on. We are waiting for some sort of media equilibrium, especially a way that online advertising can foot the bill.
I’ve worked for four daily newspapers in four states for a total of 31 years. So for people like me, the transition is rough. But it’s hard to feel the lonely victim given the thousands who are being laid off.
One problem with the transition is how much the new media depend on the old. Aggregators need links. Even opinion blogs need news to react to, not to mention mainstream media to condemn. The loss of a daily newspaper in a large city diminishes those forums. The echo chamber gets larger.
Scott Sunde, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Posted Tue, Jan 27, 3:11 p.m. inappropriate
The first amendment applies to anyone with a press; the internet represents the democratization of the press, and the expansion of the first amendment. That established players assert entitlement is expected--reflexive and pathetic. If the established players want to claim the responsibility for "defending democracy," they can also have the results--an incestuous, orgy of special-interests that blur the line between private-public for the sake of profit-taking. St. Clair's right in that we're all served by greater competition. I suspect our democracy will be better served by it, as well. Once all these out-of-work journalists get over their sense of self-importance, I expect we'll see the rise of smaller, local papers. Newspapers will still be profitable; on a smaller scale is all.
Posted Wed, Jan 28, 5:51 a.m. inappropriate
Blame Craigslist.
Then be like Drudge: Love your advertisers. They make it all possible to put this up for free.
Posted Wed, Jan 28, 10:35 a.m. inappropriate
I'm not shocked that you were denied a press pass, even though you work for a legitimate and accredited organization. When given the option, it is always preferable to work without the light of scrutiny. Attitudes like this from our elected and appointed representatives and their collective staffs is at the heart of current disenfranchisement, which unless curtailed, can have only an unfortunate ending.
Posted Wed, Jan 28, 4:46 p.m. inappropriate
It's Publicola, not Politicola.
Posted Wed, Jan 28, 10:38 p.m. inappropriate
Let me know when Crosscut makes a buck and stops relying on the otherwise employed, retirees and parasitic reposting to fill its site.
The fact is both dailies in Seattle, and most dailies around the country, have seen their readership increase in recent years if one takes into account web readers. Ads are down because they didn't get on online ad sales early, and because the economy has stopped; circulation is down because people prefer a efficient, free alternative. They're dying because of economics, not problems of public interest. And the idea that hobbyist bloggers are picking up the mantle is garbage. Look at our writer here -- he leads with a list of newspaper woes taken without attribution, or periods.
Sure the newspaper business model is screwed, but show me the blog model that actually works. The truth is, these efforts -- efforts like crosscut -- are staffed essentially for free, which is to say they're staffed by the folks who have time to kill, money to burn and egos to feed. That's not to say they're bad people, poor journalists or fools. But it does raise questions about who will be let into the watchdog crew that our writer seems to so lightly malign.
Posted Wed, Jan 28, 10:39 p.m. inappropriate
So this must be an example of the brave new media world of Crosscut -- posting the incisive thoughts of one Scott St. Clair, who calls himself a "writer and activist" and "investigative journalist."
Do a bit of investigation yourself, Crosscut. The guy looks more like a character from "The Office." He's a media relations and HR consultant for the paper and "nonwovens industries." Huh? Yeah, this is much better than those stupid old newspapers.
From his web site:
Scott St. Clair Assocates, Inc provides executive search and human resource consulting services to client companies in the paper and nonwovens industries throughout North America and the world. Offering over 18 years of experience, Scott St. Clair Associates is uniquely equipped to advise and assist both clients and candidates.
Posted Wed, Jan 28, 11:21 p.m. inappropriate
DJ...
Read my bio - The site is still up because I simply haven't taken it down as of yet.
Thanks for reading...
The Piper
Posted Thu, Jan 29, 3:11 p.m. inappropriate
We clearly are headed to a post-journalism age when truth and objectivity will be diminished in value and sensationalism and pandering will be everything. We've been heading this way for a long time, and there is no sign that the general public objects. Reporters will likely end up in advocacy positions, as they are now in many countries. The emphasis will be on effective presentation of a viewpoint, and not on finding out the ``truth,'' whatever that may be. Perhaps the only place that absolute accuracy will remain prized is the sports pages, where scores and statistics cannot be fudged.
Posted Thu, Jan 29, 9:13 p.m. inappropriate
fyi, the daily print edition of The Christian Science Monitor is still publishing; they announced it will shift to online only in April. A print weekend edition will then start up.
Posted Fri, Jan 30, 1:09 a.m. inappropriate
Scott, I don't know which bio you mean. Do you mean the one you made up for Crosscut? That's not a bio. That's your claim to be an investigative reporter and such, unsubstantiated by anyone except you. Is there a bio on your business web site where you advertise your services for the "paper and nonwovens" industries? Or is that not you anymore? Gimme a resume or something to back up your claim that your opinion should mean anything.
Posted Fri, Jan 30, 1:19 p.m. inappropriate
DJ,
We live in the realities we create...If you wish to verify my bona fides as an investigative journalist, go to www.Ferry-Tales.org, and read the stories I've written about Washington State Ferries.
Again...thanks for reading...and for commenting. You're helping spike my numbers.
The Piper
Posted Fri, Jan 30, 3:31 p.m. inappropriate
The writer hits the nail on the head: The founding fathers would be bloggers today.
Newspapers quit serving the public interest decades ago. What we're seeing today is the well-deserved outcome. This is why most of them are socialist-leaning enterprises: They can't make it on competition.
Posted Sun, Feb 1, 6:02 p.m. inappropriate
Hey Scott, glad to help you with your numbers by pointing out your lack of credibility! I know the "new media" judges web hits as journalistic success. Unfortunately, it is no measure of quality or legitimacy. Is your stated role as activist the stuff you do for the right-wing Evergreen Freedom Foundation? Does serving that agenda make you an investigative journalist? Does it make you objective? You're no journalist. You're just another right-wing hack with an agenda. Doesn't anyone at Crosscut know the difference between advocacy and journalism? Sheesh.
Posted Mon, Feb 2, 12:17 p.m. inappropriate
Thanks dj, St.Clair doesn't appear to want to abide by an editor and a means of quality control, the sad and pathetic vulnerability of the blogosphere. billmitchell
Posted Mon, Feb 2, 4:33 p.m. inappropriate
Personally I'm in mourning at the thought the Seattle Times will be the only remaining MSM voice in Seattle.
Why a right wing historically war mongering organization like Hearst ever wound up with a left leaning paper like the P.I. will forever be an unsolved mystery for me. But nonetheless I'm grateful.
With the right leaning, business oriented Times, it isn't so much a question of what they will cover, but what they won't cover.
I predict that, after the P.I. is gone, if one reads the Times, the reader will never be aware that labor unions exist in Washington State, that people protest government policies, that people aren't happy with unequal pay for equal work, that people might want a living wage, that arrest/conviction statistics are heavily biased against minorities, or that women want to do anything else but stay at home with the kids and make chocolate chip cookies.
The demise of the P.I. is a sad day for Seattle.