ShareThis Page
Joyce Terhaar: Communities lose when newspapers die or slide into decline | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Joyce Terhaar: Communities lose when newspapers die or slide into decline

Joyce Terhaar
| Saturday, March 9, 2019 7:00 p.m
847086_web1_847086-1c9211145622429db605d612575b305b
Joyce TerHaar

It is a story of corruption that will stay secret, politicians who will need fewer votes to win, even dangerous communicable diseases that will spread faster as our best scientists struggle to fight them.

The story is the slow and painful demise of local newspapers, a story whose ending is not yet written but which — without bold intervention and strong reader support — could bring catastrophic repercussions.

Whether you follow the news or not, whether you trust journalists or not, the financial challenges slaying local newspapers will affect your community, your wallet, your quality of life. In some cities, they already have.

We’ve watched local newspapers lose revenue to tech giants for the better part of the last quarter century. In recent years, the outcome has become dire, with nearly one in five — almost 1,800 newspapers — closed in the last 15 years.

Even more prevalent than closures are what Abernathy calls “ghosts,” those newspapers that are a shell of what they were. Tens of thousands of journalists left newsrooms in the decade ending 2017.

You can blame the insatiable grab for profits from hedge fund ownership like Alden Global Capital and its Digital First Media. But even companies with deep commitments to their journalistic mission have been forced to issue one layoff after another, dismantling newsroom staffs that once kept a check on the powerful.

When they walked out of the newsroom, those journalists took with them their connections to the community and their knowledge of issues and people. We’ve all lived through the result: Your newspaper’s best coverage still might be very good; there’s just not nearly enough of it.

What happens when a community loses a newspaper, or when the newspaper no longer has enough reporters to cover the news? The Federal Communications Commission as far back as 2011 had a bleak prognosis: “More government waste, more local corruption, less effective schools and other serious community problems.”

It was right:

• It costs you money: Higher wages for government employees, higher deficits and — perhaps a more esoteric example — higher costs for municipal borrowing. Last May, researchers at the University of Notre Dame and the University of Illinois at Chicago found all three after looking at how local newspaper closures affected public finance. “… local newspapers hold their governments accountable, keeping municipal borrowing costs low and ultimately saving local taxpayers money.”

• It might hurt your health: Scientists with the U.S Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization told the health news site STAT last year they use local newspaper reports to watch for the spread of infectious diseases and are handicapped in communities without newspapers.

• Fewer people hold power: When local newspapers go out of business, several recent studies show, we don’t vote as often or stay engaged with politics. That means fewer people elect our politicians. Think about the last time you voted. Did you vote in every race on the ballot? Or did you skip some because you couldn’t easily find verified information about the candidates?

Without local newspapers, who reveals injustices like the widespread sexual abuse by Catholic priests reported by the Boston Globe in 2003? Or leads a community-wide discussion of race relations and the impact on housing, crime and education, as Ohio’s Akron Beacon Journal did in 1993? Or exposes high death rates among Las Vegas construction workers as the Las Vegas Sun did in 2009? These are just three examples of public service so exemplary they received a Pulitzer Prize.

We can’t afford to lose this kind of journalism. You can help by subscribing to at least one local newspaper. The Knight Foundation last month announced a major effort to help, committing $300 million to organizations including those that pay for local journalism, like the American Journalism Project, Report for America and the investigative journalism nonprofit ProPublica.

We should pay attention to what other countries are doing, too, even though government intervention rightly raises some hackles.

Late last year, the Canadian government announced it would spend $600 million to protect public service journalism, using tools such as tax incentives. A British inquiry into what it will take to sustain high quality journalism last month rightly questioned whether it’s time for government intervention given the market dominance of Facebook and Google, and made recommendations including possible journalism subsidies.

What about that market dominance?

It is, after all, threatening public service journalism, an essential part of our democracy and citizen power. In January, we saw Facebook pledge to spend $300 million in the U.S. to help local newspapers, a year after Google promised the same amount.

It’s a good start, but not nearly enough: The duopoly controls most online advertising revenue, benefits from news content, yet doesn’t pay for the substantial cost of quality journalism. Bold intervention is what we need. Will it take the British?

Joyce Terhaar is a board member with the American Society of News Editors and the former executive editor of The Sacramento Bee. Follow her on Twitter @jterhaar. The column is written in recognition of Sunshine Week, held annually to highlight journalism’s role in fighting for government transparency.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.