No easy solutions for loss of real journalism as newspaper industry sees declines

LONG SEEN BY MANY – especially by those in the industry, not surprisingly – as a cornerstone of democracy, newspapers have faced some tough sledding of late. For the dailies in particular, falling circulation and advertising revenues have led to cuts and closures. Certainly not good for those working in the media, but worse still for accountability.

Besieged by new technologies, fragmentation in the market and what seems to be an increasingly detached citizenry, newspapers do have much to worry about. But the industry has been its own worst enemy in many cases, as concentration of ownership led to homogenization and a decline in quality, often fueled by new corporate masters more concerned with stock prices than with the good journalism, the very thing needed to attract readers.

The threat of new forms of media to newspapers – and the instances of real journalism in television and radio – might not be an issue if the new avenues were providing actual news, but that’s typically not the case. Sure, there’s a steady stream of information – fueled by the likes of Google and Facebook – but there’s precious little in the way of the media’s essential role: coverage of governments, the courts, public officials and the like.

That gap in a prime democratic function is the focus of a new report from the Public Policy Forum, The Shattered Mirror: News, Democracy and Trust in the Digital Age.

“The vaunted media ecosystem ceases to deliver on its democratic role without this wellspring of original news, especially the variety we call civic-function news: the coverage of elected officials and public institutions such as legislatures, judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, city halls, school boards and supporting public services; issues and debates related to these officials and bodies; and the ability of communities to know about themselves for civic purposes,” reads the report, authored by former journalist Edward Greenspon.

He notes that where the news originates is more important than its avenues of dissemination. Propagating information on the Internet, for instance, is an easy task, but that doesn’t make it useful, relevant or even true – thus we’ve got much talk about fake news.

“The Internet, whose fresh and diverse tributaries of information made it a historic force for openness, now has been polluted by the runoff of lies, hate and the manipulations of foreign powers. The ‘truth neutrality’ of the dominant digital platforms is incompatible with democracy.”

In assessing the health of the media, the study looks at funding models, including tax incentives and perhaps subsidies, that could support journalistic organizations. The report is replete with ideas for both preserving real journalism and finding ways to fund it. The latter is a big part of the formula, as doing real news coverage requires resources – there are no end of people willing to blog or tweet about sports or celebrities, for example, but few who’ll wade through mounds of budget documents or sit through an endless stream of government meetings, hearings and commissions. The former is chaff that serves little purpose, while the latter is the lifeblood of a democracy that relies on an informed citizenry.

In the face of financial losses, most of the players in the industry – certainly the large corporate players – took to cutting journalists and their work as the first and foremost way of reducing costs. The resultant drop-off in quality only accelerates the decline, a fact typically overlooked by corporate bean counters who treat newspapers like widgets – you don’t have to look very far to see examples locally of that mindset that’s degraded and closed newspapers.

Ironically, even as we’re flooded with information – from online news sources to Facebook and Twitter and that ilk – there’s a greater need for a source to filter and interpret all of that raw data. That’s precisely what newspapers have been doing for centuries.

And while more people go online to get their news, few people are aware that most of the material provided by news aggregators such as Google or endlessly rehashed by bloggers comes from newspapers, the organizations with trained journalists on the ground, attending meetings and poring through documents.

That lack of awareness can be seen in a Pew Research Center study that found almost 70 per cent of Americans say that if their local newspaper no longer existed, it would not have a major impact on their ability to keep up with information and news about their community.

The organization, a key monitoring organization of media and industry trends, collects data that show newspapers play a much bigger role in people’s lives than many may realize. Newspapers (both the print and online versions, though primarily print) rank first or tie for first as the source people rely on most for 11 of the 16 different kinds of local information asked about – more topics than any other media source.

The loss of more real reporting will only lead to less information in an electronic media (including online sources) that has already descended into partisan bickering and screaming south of the border. Changes in this country, though less extreme, have not been for the better.

Often accused of relishing the negative (most commonly from those under examination), the media best serve the public when they challenge leaders on their actions, positions and statements. Yes, we also tell people stories about themselves and do our part to entertain, but the watchdog role is the cornerstone of the free press in a democratic system. ‘Why?’ is a perfectly valid question. Those who would make decisions that affect our lives must justify themselves – arbitrary ac-

tions are not acceptable.

As the Observer has noted more than once or twice, it’s much too commonplace for politicians and bureaucrats, including the local ones, to put their own agendas ahead of the public interest. Without anyone to shine a light on their actions, and to demand explanations, you can bet there would be even less accountability and far greater misuse of the public good and the public purse.

That watchdog function is what’s most at risk given the changes in the media, just as the oversight role in the corporate sector has been eroded by convergence and the rise of media conglomerates.

Somewhat removed from the industry’s internal issues by virtue of being local and independent, the Observer also takes seriously its role as the voice of the community in asking questions, while telling the people’s stories. Do we always get it perfectly right? Absolutely not, but we’re doing our part while remaining accountable to our readers.

Preserving that role in communities across the country and, indeed, the globe, is proving a massive challenge.