There has been a great deal of commentary lately about how the internet is threatening newspapers' business model, but its most acute problems are within the organizations themselves.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
As local newspapers collapse all over the country, political operatives are going to have to rethink how to run races. I actually think this could be good for progressives, though that's only a tentative thesis.
One thing you learn pretty quickly in participating in local political races it that newspapers often operate effectively as interest groups, with the owner of the paper injecting his political agenda into the coverage to privilege certain types of candidates. The most obvious example this cycle is Darcy Burner, who faced a crushing political hit job from the Seattle Times after costing its publisher tens of millions of dollars. But that's just the political hit job that was actualized; for every Darcy, there are twenty candidates and officials who shy away from progressive positions for fear of annoying their local political reporter. I've talked to many Congressional candidates who support unpopular policies like free trade, the bailout, or keeping troops in Iraq because they are afraid of their local paper and its associated elite groups, like the local chamber of commerce.
These media outlets are often just part of the conservative good ole boys network, and yet, that newspapers and more broadly the media is owned by very wealthy people seems to be overlooked as a possible motivator of bad coverage. It's not like it isn't understood - Citizen Kane and The Insider are both cultural examples of how the public understands that power corrupts our media. It's more that it isn't even considered in discussing the future of media. Take this column from journalist James Suroweicki at the New Yorker, who writes.
For a while now, readers have had the best of both worlds: all the benefits of the old, high-profit regime-intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on-and the low costs of the new one. But that situation can't last. Soon enough, we're going to start getting what we pay for, and we may find out just how little that is.
Matt Yglesias points out the problem with this line of analysis, noting that "the problem newspapers are having with online isn't that the readers won't pay, it's that the advertisers won't pay." Media outlets are like any other institutions - they are responsive to their stakeholders. And with modern American media, you are the product, and you are sold to advertisers. Just watch the advertisements on Meet the Press; it's literally all huge corporations with government contracts. Is this connected to the lack of skepticism around the national security state on that show? I don't know, but the possibility has to be considered. It's certainly clear that auto dealers get incredibly angry at liberal comments on talk radio, and pull their advertising if they hear it. This has a strong effect on content.
At any rate, once you pull the advertising dollars away from traditional media, you pull these institutionally conservative stakeholders away from the table, and remove conservative lines of propagandizing to the public. I mean, if the Seattle Times didn't exist, Darcy Burner would have won in WA-08. So broadly, I don't know if newspapers cause more harm than they prevent, whether an awful media is better than no media. But it is definitely worth considering, even if you like your New York Times every Sunday.
You might not have noticed what with all now millions of people losing their jobs, the largest looting of a national treasury since probably the Sack of Rome and the dogged determination of Senate Republicans to revive the glory years of the Pinkertons, but the newspaper industry is evidently going Big Crunch:
The bankruptcy filing of the Tribune Company on Monday is just the latest, largest evidence that the American newspaper industry is suffering the hangover from an immense buying spree in 2006 and 2007 at what turned out to be the worst possible time for the buyers, just as the business was about to enter a drastic decline.
This diary will be updated daily with links to five newspaper articles related to the 2008 presidential campaign from key swing states. Please go to these articles and leave productive polite comments that counter the wide-spread right-wing filth that infests many local newspapers. This is a simple and easy way to try to persuade undecided voters in key states to vote for Obama (or against McCain).
See HERE for background and the list of newspapers involved.
(Action time, boys and girls! The first "American Blogger" winner takes flight--with YOU on board! - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
I'm proud to announce the launch of the Swing State Newspaper Project (apologies to Swing State Project for the similarity of the name), with the initial targeting diary HERE.
The idea came about in the American Blogger series initiated by Paul Rosenberg. You can jump right in by clicking the link if you want to, but to get yourself grounded, especially if you're not familiar with idea, or need a refresher, this diary explains it all for you.
Here was the original impetus for the idea,
If you've ever spent time reading local and regional newspaper sites on the internet, you've probably noticed a disturbing phenomenon; right-wingers have run amok in the comments sections of the newspapers. Progressives may rule blogs and online fundraising and organizing, but when it comes to influencing more traditional media, even if it's in an internet forum, we lag behind. Sometimes far behind. This becomes increasingly problematic as we draw closer to the election. Many more voters read online newspapers than read blogs. So it becomes very important to not only rebut these ignoramuses, but to provide additional context and knock down bad information in news articles covering the presidential race.
To combat this I suggested we monitor online newspaper sites in key swing states until the election. Readers would comment on stories, knock down attacks, add truth to the discussion, and in many cases, contact reporters directly to encourage better reporting (if they got it wrong) or thank them for outstanding writing (if they got it right).
After getting a lot of good ideas for how to carry this idea forward (see here), I've come up with a plan for how to proceed. We'll see how this goes. It may need to be modified or expanded if the project is a success, but I'm ready to get it started.
(This is our first AMERICAN BLOGGER winner--voted the best idea from our comment section of last week for your consideration. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
If you've even spent time reading local and regional newspaper sites on the internet, you've probably noticed a disturbing phenomenon; right-wingers have run amok in the comments sections of the newspapers. Progressives may rule blogs and online fundraising and organizing, but when it comes to influencing more traditional media, even if it's in an internet forum, we lag behind. Sometimes far behind. This becomes increasingly problematic as we draw closer to the election. Many more voters read online newspapers than read blogs. So it will become increasingly important to not only rebut these ignoramuses, but to provide additional context and knock down bad information in news articles covering the presidential race.
When reading the op-ed pages in your local daily newspaper, have you noticed column after column written by conservatives? A new report released today by Media Matters for America confirms what many have suspected -- that for the majority of daily newspapers across the country, conservatives dominate the op-ed page.
Our new report, "Black and White and Re(a)d All Over: The Conservative Advantage in Syndicated Op-Ed Columns," is a comprehensive and unprecedented analysis of nationally syndicated columnists from nearly 1,400 newspapers -- or 96 percent of English-language daily U.S. newspapers.
STATE BLOGS
