Will You Be Living in a 'No-Newspaper' City in Less Than Two Years?

posted by Zach Patton

We've all been hearing an awful lot lately about newspapers facing bankruptcy and cutting the size of their staffs.

(As Jon Stewart put it recently, "What's black and white and completely over?")

But here's an even more sobering thought. In the very near future -- like the next 18 months -- newspapers and media groups across the country could likely default on their debt and close up shop, leaving "several cities" without a daily newspaper, according to a recent report from Fitch Ratings.

"Fitch believes more newspapers and newspaper groups will default, be shut down and be liquidated in 2009 and several cities could go without a daily print newspaper by 2010," the Chicago-based credit ratings firm said in a report on the outlook for U.S. media and entertainment.

Of course this is bad news for good governance: A decline in daily newspapers means fewer eyes will be watching city hall.

Some of the void will be filled by blogs and hyper-local news websites. Rob Gurwitt actually wrote about that shift in the December 2006 issue of Governing  (although the landscape has undoubtedly changed drastically in the two years since Rob's story). But although blogs have started gaining some of the cache and respect that had been associated with local newspapers, they still largely lack the resources to follow stories in the same way.

"Stop the presses" never sounded so ominous.

Comments

[Deborah Johnson]

I find the assumption that "eyes watching city hall" result in good governance to be insulting. Oh, I know what you mean...for would-be bad actors, it's one less accountability tool; and there's certainly a value in newspapers promoting public involvement in important issues. But at a personal level, I don't need to be "watched" in order to carry out my job ethically and in the public interest. Not to mention, good or poor governance does not result from newspaper coverage. Poor decisionmaking and leadership can just as easily exist with newspaper coverage. In a community where a number of people are utilizing sunshine laws to actively harrass public employees and frustrate the system, our "watchers" see this as a means of self-aggrandizement and not public interest.

To me, the biggest loss that will be seen with the demise of local newspapers is out in the community itself. Where are people going to see the bake sale at the local church, the arts and crafts fair at the senior center, the new locally owned businesses? Where will they see the events at local schools, high school sports scores, and children's activities? How will they know when their former neighbor or their parents' friend has died? And, without local columnists and editorials, what will challenge them to consider different views about various issues? In my mind, these are some of the fundamental elements of community and "sense of place" that run a very real risk of being lost along with newspapers.

Too, this runs the risk of completely alienating seniors, the poor...anyone without good computer access - not to mention heightening computer demand on public libraries. (Think about this: are books next? What happens when it comes down to the book budget or the computer budget?) Everyone seems to forget that computers have not been around forever, and there are still those without good access or perhaps the knowledge to use them. When this becomes the sole medium of communication, the very real result is that communication is lost with certain groups and, as a result, they become socially disenfranchised. This begins to verge on systemic socio-economic and age discrimination - not by intent, but by result.

On one hand, when I see what is occurring today, I'm glad I never had the opportunity to pursue Linfield's journalism degree as I'd so hoped to do following high school! (Hey, I'm just as eager as the next person to remain employed.) But at the broader level, I see a much bigger loss for our culture and particularly at the roots of our communities.