Who's Got the News?

Quote of the day:
“Many people feel guilty about things they shouldn’t feel guilty about, in order to shut out feelings of guilt about things they should feel guilty about.”
--Sydney J. Harris

Who will be the ultimate news source?

Newspapers have filled this role since the beginning of the news business. While TV networks, NPR and news websites foster an image as “sources,” ultimately they rely primarily on newspapers for their ideas.

Newspapers remain the primary news gatherers, and mostly they do the job well and responsibly. Now, this news gathering is threatened as newspapers continually shrink.

The editor of the Los Angeles Times just resigned over a disagreement about cuts in the newsroom.

Rupert Murdoch is in the process of remaking the Wall Street Journal into a more “zippy” newspaper, with fewer in-depth stories.

We’ve heard dozens of examples of these kinds of changes over the last ten years. There are two specific problems with this. And they are not just internal, industry problems. They are problems with far-reaching impact on our culture.

One problem is the reduction of longer-term investigative coverage, and any other reporting that takes time, care and extra resources. How are we going to put what is happening in our world into perspective without some extended attention to events and trends?

If newspapers reduce in-depth reporting, does anyone take up the slack? I haven’t noticed any other media stepping up, and I’m not sure they could. Responsible long-term reporting takes resources, experience and top-notch writing and editing as well as gathering. These things don’t just appear. They are cultivated over time.

The other problem is the virtual elimination of certain kinds of coverage. An example is the closing of news bureaus around the world. There are dozens of population centers around the world--especially in China, India and Africa--which have no English-language news presence.

And many of the major centers--Paris, London, Beijing among them--don’t have nearly the variety of coverage they had several years ago. In a time of growing interdependence, this all seems illogical.

Yes, newspapers are a business. I understand why they’re doing what they’re doing. I’m not really interested in blaming them.

What I am concerned about is who is going to step in and fill this need? Or have we decided that this isn’t a need at all--that all we want are endlessly-repeating sensational headlines from Washington, Hollywood, the real estate industry and the small town where the latest personal tragedy has happened?