Newspaper companies go out of business

"In the past, the government knew that the media would take legal action every time information was restricted. But now the government has gotten 'pretty canny in knowing' that with financial pressures 'there’s less fight in the media to battle for information.' "

I was utterly shocked when Brad Maas, the leader of the investigative team at Denver's CBS 4, spoke these words at the National Press Club Centennial Forum (Industry) on Sept. 9, 2008. There's no doubt that the government must lend a hand financially in cases where newspaper companies struggle to provide maximal and unbiased news coverage, especially on government-related issues. Not doing so would put the risk of hampering the freedom of the press into the government's hands. The government cannot simply let the economic crisis take the fate of newspaper companies because eventually they shut down or lose their voice in the marketplace of ideas. The newspaper companies' lack of money limits their scope of news coverage to stories that are cheap and easy to do and don't require in-depth research. The government needs to take a pro-active role to fund the print news medium to ensure that the voices of the press remain unstifled and uninhibited from fully expressing ideas.

It is painful for a reporter to even admit that the government has autonomous control over the amount of access the media has to information these days. I'm almost convinced that money really does make the world go around because the government controls the purse and inadvertently hushes the media. The reality is, newspaper companies who are struck heaviest with this year's economic depression can't afford to sue the government when officials conduct unfair moves such as withholding federal information, closing down cases that require further journalistic investigation, and suing newspaper companies for publishing government officials' phone, voting, or any other legitimately accessible records. That leaves these companies to publish less speech and not more. No one would dare take the risk of disclosing any governmental information if struggling newspaper companies know the government will sue, asking for money that they do not have. That is a clear violation of the first amendment rights to the freedom of speech.

The economic depression is taking a disastrous hit on newspaper companies nationwide. Newspaper companies are struggling to finance their publications, and older, more experienced employees are substituted for the younger generation reporters who will work for less pay and won't touch the controversial topics. Although most people would use newspapers as doormats or fly swatters, newspaper companies are willing to see some pages go to waste for the sake of reaching its few loyal readers.

Nevertheless, newspaper readership continues to decline. The Audit Bureau of Circulations reported that nearly two-thirds of the nation's newspaper circulation declined, including major companies such as The Washington Post and The Chicago Tribune. The Washington Post alone experienced a loss of 24,000 readers per week, averaging a three percent drop in newspaper readership (Media). The Chicago Tribune reported that it took out its book review newspaper section in favor of a smaller "books and media section" this month. In September, The New York Times resorted to pulling out the Metro Section altogether and instead added a couple pages after the national and international news pages designated for the metro section readers (Metro). In addition to the readership decline, print journalism is losing its credibility as an unbiased source of information since the government keeps a keen watch on what the papers say about them (Why). The lack of readership coupled with the firing of half the staff all point to the need for government to intervene. Editors are left to make content decisions that affect the level of readership interests. Money is fully susceptible to changing the usual spectrum of diversity in the stories to a more narrow scope. It's not the freedom of the press without the government to advocate positive freedom-- the financial assistance necessary to keep newspaper coverage impartial.

These are compromises that the newspaper companies should not have to make. After all, in order to ensure the freedom of the press and the robust exchange of ideas, the speakers, in this case newspaper companies, mustn't feel inhibited or limited in the scope of their press coverage and investigations just because they are balancing a tight budget and can't use more than six pages to tell the news. What is more critical is that the government needs to provide positive liberties-- a means of helping finance long-time operating newspaper publications that are on the brink of shutting down. If newspaper companies must forfeit their voice in the marketplace of ideas simply because it costs money to thoroughly research investigation and lawsuits, there is clearly an obstacle standing in front of the press.

However, this concept of the government's need to take an active role in cases where the newspaper companies need funding to keep publishing is not always beneficial. There is a flip-side to the government's involvement in funding newspapers. If the government provides extra budgets for each individual newspaper, the papers will become heavily dependent on government, leaving room for readers to question the objectivity of the news coverage. Essentially, the government will possess the power to control the media's press angle inadvertently by dangling monetary incentives to cover less politically controversial topics. The media is placing a huge risk of losing credibility if newspaper companies turn to the government to help their businesses get back on their feet.

The government's lack of intervention isn't the only cause of declining newspaper readership. With the diverse choices of media in a declining market, consumers will become more stratified and spread out. Eventually, newspaper readership will thin out because some of the consumers have made a definitive choice to use the Internet as their main source of information. With the Internet providing a 24/7 forum of information that is available with a click of the button, newspaper subscriptions and readership level have dropped about 2.5% during the weekdays and 3.1% on Sundays (Newspaper).

The American public has a right to access the gamut of media available today. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that all media resources have an equal chance to compete with one another. It is entirely necessary for the government to take the stand when newspaper companies go out of business because no funding will further decrease the availability of an important medium. The government should be supportive without imbuing its own ideas into the media.

Sources:

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4623 (Don't Blame the Journalism)

http://blog.press.org/?p=814 (Industry Downturn Spurs Gov't Push Back on Info)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E6D7103DF937A35756C0A9629C8B63 (The Media Business: Newspaper Circulation Continues Decline Overall)

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/index.cfm?fa=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=92228 (Metro newspapers eliminate key sections)

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2006-05-08-newspaper-circulation_x.htm (Newspaper sales dip, but websites gain)

http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=6990 (Smaller news budgets, less ammunition for open records fights)

http://openrecords.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/why-the-decline-of-newspaper-readership-is-bad-part-ix/ (Why the decline of newspaper readership is bad)