In Twilight of the American Newspaper,
Richard Rodriguez writes about the decline of especially the San Francisco Chronicle and comments intelligently on the ways that the newspapers we know are 19th-century creatures and tied to cities as they existed then. For him, the troubles of the newspaper are both a symptom and a result of the disappearance of the city as a place, as a geographical source of identity and a public space for ordinary people. Newspapers did a lot to create the culture of the city, and they did it on the back of a belief in the republic, more or less: of the importance of public life, and of the foundational role newspapers played in public life.
You can see that I think he's on to something.
On the other hand....
I renewed my subscription to the local newspaper here. When I did, my wife told me I was doing it out of pity. I realized immediately that she was right. I hadn't learned anything useful about my community from the newspaper for years, and have spent a lot of time bitching about the paper's editorials and news coverage and letters to the editor and sports coverage and classified advertising and just about everything I bother to look at. I like the Sudoku. I used to like the fact that it was an evening paper, and I could count on getting the late scores and boxes from the night before. But it shifted to morning publication. It's the kind of newspaper that, in theory, one should love and support, because it is independent and, since the death of its owner a few years ago, owned by a foundation. A friend jokes that chain ownership would improve it. I doubt that, but find that I yell less at other papers I read that are owned by Gannett or the Tribune Co.
I had a few weeks to ponder renewing my subscription, and during that time the world gave my local newspaper a few useful chances to prove its worth. One was an admissions scandal at my university. Another was more local--an African-American teenager was shot and killed by police under dicey circumstances and the community was embroiled. And a third was national--the health care debate. What we need journalism for, as the whiners (I'm a whiner too) keep reminding us, is to engage in the kind of enterprise reporting that will root out corruption, unveil the hidden workings of power, make it more difficult for interested parties to dissemble, and make intelligent public discussion more likely. How did my local newspaper do on those three tests? It failed, and it sucked while it failed. It used its reporters to repeat the official story on all three. On health care, it featured articles in which the local (Republican) Congressman explained his position without seeking out balancing opinions--something even the laziest reporter could do. On the admissions scandal, it did day-later reporting on what the Chicago Tribune published, and again repeated the official story. On the local police shooting of the teenager, it coupled reporting that simply repeated the official story with reactionary letters to the editor that blamed the victim. In every case, it made it easier to be stupid.
It didn't have to. On health care, for instance, a good local newspaper could have done excellent enterprise reporting explaining what the implications were for local employers, clinics, workers, medical professionals. Of course, considering the way this newspaper is ideologically driven, I probably would have bitched about that reporting too, but at least it would have shown some commitment.
So go ahead and blame it on the disappearance of a sense of place. But also on the fact that newspapers have for years been doing a shitty job at their core mission.
Richard Rodriguez writes about the decline of especially the San Francisco Chronicle and comments intelligently on the ways that the newspapers we know are 19th-century creatures and tied to cities as they existed then. For him, the troubles of the newspaper are both a symptom and a result of the disappearance of the city as a place, as a geographical source of identity and a public space for ordinary people. Newspapers did a lot to create the culture of the city, and they did it on the back of a belief in the republic, more or less: of the importance of public life, and of the foundational role newspapers played in public life.
You can see that I think he's on to something.
On the other hand....
I renewed my subscription to the local newspaper here. When I did, my wife told me I was doing it out of pity. I realized immediately that she was right. I hadn't learned anything useful about my community from the newspaper for years, and have spent a lot of time bitching about the paper's editorials and news coverage and letters to the editor and sports coverage and classified advertising and just about everything I bother to look at. I like the Sudoku. I used to like the fact that it was an evening paper, and I could count on getting the late scores and boxes from the night before. But it shifted to morning publication. It's the kind of newspaper that, in theory, one should love and support, because it is independent and, since the death of its owner a few years ago, owned by a foundation. A friend jokes that chain ownership would improve it. I doubt that, but find that I yell less at other papers I read that are owned by Gannett or the Tribune Co.
I had a few weeks to ponder renewing my subscription, and during that time the world gave my local newspaper a few useful chances to prove its worth. One was an admissions scandal at my university. Another was more local--an African-American teenager was shot and killed by police under dicey circumstances and the community was embroiled. And a third was national--the health care debate. What we need journalism for, as the whiners (I'm a whiner too) keep reminding us, is to engage in the kind of enterprise reporting that will root out corruption, unveil the hidden workings of power, make it more difficult for interested parties to dissemble, and make intelligent public discussion more likely. How did my local newspaper do on those three tests? It failed, and it sucked while it failed. It used its reporters to repeat the official story on all three. On health care, it featured articles in which the local (Republican) Congressman explained his position without seeking out balancing opinions--something even the laziest reporter could do. On the admissions scandal, it did day-later reporting on what the Chicago Tribune published, and again repeated the official story. On the local police shooting of the teenager, it coupled reporting that simply repeated the official story with reactionary letters to the editor that blamed the victim. In every case, it made it easier to be stupid.
It didn't have to. On health care, for instance, a good local newspaper could have done excellent enterprise reporting explaining what the implications were for local employers, clinics, workers, medical professionals. Of course, considering the way this newspaper is ideologically driven, I probably would have bitched about that reporting too, but at least it would have shown some commitment.
So go ahead and blame it on the disappearance of a sense of place. But also on the fact that newspapers have for years been doing a shitty job at their core mission.
posted by jnerone at 2:16 PM
0 comments
