Let newspapers succeed or fail on their own merits

Ripped from the wires ... Michelle Malkin is amazed that she has to explain why government bailouts of newspapers is a bad idea:

By Michelle Malkin

It was supposed to be a joke. As an endless parade of corporate beggars marches to Washington in search of handouts for their beleaguered industries, some of us in the news business snarked that journalists would be next in line. I launched a Newspaper Bailout Countdown Clock on my blog after The New York Times Company's bonds plunged into junk territory in October. A few weeks later, columnist Jon Fine published a tongue-in-cheek memo in BusinessWeek outlining a federal newspaper rescue proposal.

The jibes were meant to be facetious critiques of for-profit enterprises demanding massive taxpayer expenditures under the guise of preserving the "public interest." But now, in a rather unfunny turn, the newspaper bailout push has actually come to pass.

The Republican governor and the Democratic attorney general of Connecticut went on the record last week in support of government intervention for failing local newspapers. God save us from bipartisanship. Their joint statements pushing a salvage program came in response to news that The New Britain Herald, The Bristol Press and 11 weekly papers across the state face closure. About 100 jobs are at stake. This is bad news, no question. But cause for apocalyptic talk and expansive meddling by politicians? Please.

"This is the worst financial turmoil I have ever seen, not only in our state but in our nation," Gov. M. Jodi Rell lamented as she expressed her support for some sort of government/media salvation plan. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal asserted: "The newspaper is an information lifeline. It provides really an essential service." Among the "essential services" Blumenthal thinks taxpayers should prop up: marriage notices and school sports announcements.

These items are easily and effectively disseminated online. Connecticut consumers who are passing up the newspapers that offer these products obviously don't agree with Blumenthal that it's "essential" to get them in dead-tree form. But Rell seems to believe that quaintness is an argument for government funding: "There's something about having that paper and being able to sit there with your cup of coffee or your tea and read through and find out not only the news but the real feel for a community."

Local lemonade stands give you a "real feel for a community," too. Should Johnny and Susie get handouts for keeping it real? Should we resurrect Woolworth with some of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's bottomless bailout billions while we're at it? Why not bring back town criers with public subsidies, as well?

Unperturbed, seven Democratic state legislators stepped up further pressure by sending a letter to Connecticut's Department of Economic and Community Development seeking help for the dying newspapers. With straight faces, they wrote: "As elected officials, ourselves, we want [the] public to have access to independent news about what is going on in government and our communities. We share the sentiments of our nation's leaders who wrote the Bill of Rights that a free press is an essential part of democracy."

How "free" can a "free press" be if it is leveraged with government funding? How free would they be to criticize other corporate enterprises seeking local, state or federal help to keep them afloat in hard times? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? A press beholden to the ruling class — a press that cannot stand on its own two feet and the strength of its product — is a press better off dead.

Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

Comments?

Comments

[DanielC]

This beckons the realignment of the thought process from the printed form to the binary form of press.

My take is Conn. citizens would be better served with free-broadband access via the new format that we in SC are working towards with the opening of the TV channels to Wi-Fi.

Now if the State of Conn. can manage those towers and provide low cost if not free broadband then the news/press that is really free to express itself would be a much better investment imho.

dsc

PS. But then the folks of Conn. would not have something to line their kitty litter boxes with... hmmm

[Denney Clements]

Daniel: I agree with that. But it's also interesting to note that newspapers have already received a federal bailout of sorts, the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970. With the blessing of President Nixon, the act allows two competing newspapers in a given city to combine advertising, circulation, production and management departments in a single corporation. Only the newsrooms would remain in competition. This amounted to an exemption from the antitrust laws, which would ordinarily regard such an arrangement as monopolistic. In response to the act, newspapers in numerous cities created so-called Joint Operating Agreements: Detroit, Denver and Fort Wayne, among many others. Many of the weaker papaers failed anyway after a time.

While this arrangement did not include federal money, it did amount to a subsidy for weaker newspapers -- in cities that still had competing newspapers -- that otherwise would not have survived. The glaring exception seems to be Detroit, where the Free Press and News ended their JOA a few years back -- and both have survived and are doing reasonably well.

The public-policy justification for this little federal goodie for newspapers was, you guessed it, promotion of competition as a public benefit. As you may be gathering from the tone of this comment, I always thought the whole JOA business as bogus -- a Nixonian corporate-welfare giveaway to newspaper owners -- though I suppose it did save some newsroom jobs. The folks in the weaker papers' other departments, however, lost their jobs.

So this isn't exactly new turf that folks in Connecticut are plowing. But like Malkin (and Daniel) I think news orgs would be better off developing their web operations. I know we are. The basic business model of the newspaper just doesn't work anymore and, sad to say, it's just a matter of time before newspapers on paper recede into history.

dc

p.s. For those interested, here's a pretty good piece explaining the disadvantages of the NPA in greater detail:
http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/91/6/joa.asp

[Richard L. Wolfe]

I think the newspapers should be bailed out. They are not only useful for lining liter boxes, they are also excellent for cleaning glass. Didn't the morons in Washington see this coming when they opened Pandora's Box to ease the credit crunch?

[Richard L. Wolfe]

With apologizes to Daniel: Puts on his liberal hat and argues for newspaper bailout. Many senior citizens and poor disadvantaged Americans don't own a computer or even a television. Many senior and poor disadvantaged Americans are computer illiterate. These people depend on the newspapers in the library to stay informed. If we let the newspapers fail millions of poor Americans will no longer know how to think. It could be dangerous. Getting rid of newspapers would be callous and mean spirited. Many homeless people depend on newspapers to act as sheets and blankets when they bed down at night in the alleys.

Let us not discard the financial hardship on printers and people who deliver the papers. How will they ever recover. Please, please, please do not allow the printed paper to fail.

[Nick]

But if they alone can't support their paper, then it should be allowed to fail. Diversify. They can't rely on subscribers or people paying the 50 cents alone. Just like a newspaper can't rely on a website alone.

[DanielC]

Richard,

Newspapers in the Library? Aren't there also free state-owned and operated computers in the library?

*sly smirk*

dsc

[Denney Clements]

Believe me, Nick, they are being allowed to fail -- and are, in fact, failing, in a wave of "creative destruction" that is giving rise to great new news artforms on the web -- including blogs such as this one. No one I'm aware of is seriously considering bailing them out. The Christian Science Monitor is only the latest newspaper to go all-online, and more will follow.

The only reason The Sun News remains viable on the paper is our communities surfeit of 55 and older residents, many of who demand newspapers and resist our valiant attempts to steer them to our web sites. With the passage of time, this will change, and newspaper offices will come to resemble the offices of ther businesses -- employees sitting at desks in cubicles with massive server farms at the back of the building. No more 19th century Big Iron -- presses thundering through huge rolls of newsprint as they apply hundreds of barrels of ink to paper. Gone also will be all the costs of operating such facilities. Sad to contemplate for an old ink-stained wretch like me, but inevitable. I'm so glad I got to spend most of my career working for newspapers that were viable.

dc

[Moofy]

!!! Denny, You Gotta Hear This !!!

The Sun News circulation department has this policy with their "contracted" carriers to have the paper delivered no later than 6:30 am. After that the carrier can be charged for a missed delivery. Charged still even after they deliver the paper after the initial phone call by the customer.

The charge is 50 cents during the week and $1.50 on Sundays and with exceptions such as the recent Thanksgiving Day paper.

The paper has to be delivered by that time whether the bundles of papers are dropped off at it's assigned location to the carrier by 2:00 am or at 3:30 am.

The carrier eats the late charge even after re-delivering the paper. (Meaning their DM just pocketed some extra spending change.)

The paper also allows for automated calls that take place before the 6:30 am deadline. Meaning a paper can be called in as a missed delivery even tho' the customer receives a paper before the deadline.

In case one does not believe this, they can call the circulation department themself.