Banks, airlines, auto makers–everyone wants a bail out these days.
Now one Connecticut lawmaker wants to add newspapers to the list.
Frank Nicastro, who represents the state’s 79th Assembly district, wants to bail out two newspapers in his constituency: the Bristol Press (circulation: 10,704) and Herald Press, which boasts 26,299 readers.
While it might seem heart-warming to save a small-town paper, the story about the story shows why real journalism is a dying art these days.
Here’s Nicastro’s justification, as supplied by Reuters:
Nicastro and fellow legislators want the papers to survive, and petitioned the state government to do something about it. “The media is a vitally important part of America,” he said, particularly local papers that cover news ignored by big papers and television and radio stations.
Meanwhile, big and basic questions remain unanswered.
Why can’t the parent company refinance its debts? After all, billions of bail-out money is sloshing through the banks for exactly this kind of liquidity-enhancing event.Does this suggest that the federal bailout is failing to trickle down? Now there is a story…
Why are we not told two key details about Nicastro: that he is a Democrat and that the papers he wants to save cover him favorably? Does he want the taxpayers to support papers who essentially do unpaid p.r. for him? Why is this not called the selfish stunt that it is? Is there no one who will go on the record and say the obvious? Or did the reporter even try?
Next, we are not told about the role of unions in the paper’s looming demise. Are the papers unionized? Would non-union workers represent a cheaper alternative that would keep the papers open? Why are the unions not negotiating give-backs to save the papers or is Assembly Nicastro’s effort actually a ploy to finance unions’ reckless demands with taxpayer dollars? Unions not only raise wage rates–which is good for workers, but not good for shareholders and job seekers who may get priced out–but labor organizations also dampen productivity through restrictive work rules. Are there any work rules that make printing or delivery of these papers uneconomic? Again, basic questions left unanswered.
The papers’ web site seems well stocked with ads and its ad rates seem competitive, not grasping. Why does the reporter not tell us if advertising is rising or falling? Local papers, like the Bristol Press, are usually sturdy enough to survive recessions. Their advertisers are local businesses, not multinationals that slash display ad spending when consumer spending slackens. Small dailies and weeklies usually see a small upside in good times and a small downside in bad times. There are exceptions of course. Isn’t the Internet robbing ads from these local papers? No, the web is stealing ads from big-city dailies. If you own the neighborhood bakery, the local paper is often a more targeted, more cost-effective alternative than the web. Again, why does the reporter not bring in local-newspaper expert to explain this? Or ask one of the newspaper executives?
Instead, the reporter leaves us with the idea that these newspapers are failing due to forces beyond human control and that the government should swoop in like Superman. (His only worry is the independence of the press.)
This brings us to big reasons that papers are dying all over this country: poor management and liberal bias. The reporter seems ideologically committed to being un-skeptical of the Democratic state lawmaker’s motives and uninterested in exploring the possible role of unions in the papers’ decline. Ideology can both blind and clarify, but it blinds most surely when the victim refuses to see.
Of course, liberal bias may not be the answer. Laziness would also explain this story and many others like it. I will leave it you, dear reader, to decide whether liberalism or laziness is a better explanation of the decline in American journalism.
As for any bailout: Isn’t part of the freedom of the press include the freedom to fail?
PJM Home
Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror
Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror
Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror
The Myth of Market Share: Why Market Share Is the Fool’s Gold of Business
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
9 Comments
1. Steve Collins:Instead of idling wondering about all sorts of easily answered questions, why didn’t YOU do a little research on this? The answers are all contained in the scores of stories and blog posts at bristoltoday.com, where Rep. Nicastro comes in for both praise and criticism. One thing you should know is that there is no bailout in the works. Never has been. Never will be.
Jan 2, 2009 - 7:27 am 2. David Thomson:You’re wrong about small dailies, though. They’re struggling at least as much as any other paper. The economic forces at work here are slamming everyone, though The Bristol Press has been clobbered especially hard because of its absolutely terrible corporate ownership.
“…the local paper is often a more targeted, more cost-effective alternative than the web.”
I strongly disagree. The Internet can also be “localized.” There is little to stop someone from putting up a website limiting advertisements to local businesses. Those people living in the are merely have to be initially encouraged to visit such a website. In the not very distant future, I do not see the need for a paper product.
Jan 2, 2009 - 11:30 am 3. Richard Miniter:Mr. Thomson:
My statement was about the present. In most markets, local papers–small dailies and weeklies–are the most cost-effective ways to reach local readers. Yes, someone can put up a web site. Some have tried. But the sites usually fail, and they fail for you allude to you in your next sentence: “those people living in the area have to be initially encouraged to visit such a web site.” Good luck, there is an over-supply for web sites competing for public attention. More importantly, the target readers for local papers are as active users of the Web as their children are. The cut-off seems to be around age 40.
Eventually, the paper product may vanish. But that time is still decades away, despite all of the Internet euphoria. Papers linger on coffee tables, get carried around and shared, and sometimes stories get pinned to bulletin boards. If you own the local car wash, those are advantages. It is not superior technology that wins the day, but the collective judgments of millions. Those millions are very reluctant to learn new things, like use a web site to find out if the car wash will be open on Christmas Eve. They will just look in the paper. Finally, the local paper already has their trust–and the new web site does not. Again, I am talking about small-circulation dailies and weeklies that cover a neighborhood or a slice of rural county–not a big metropolitan paper.
Jan 2, 2009 - 12:03 pm 4. David Thomson:“But that time is still decades away”
Nope, I suspect it may be only a year away. I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but I personally witness numerous people starting to go on the Internet to order pizza or other food. They are admittedly under the age of forty. Nonetheless, I can easily imagine a “paradigm shift” that could occur at any moment. Computers and Internet access are continuing to become less expensive—and ubiquitous. I can normally find a Internet ready computer easier than a newspaper. And finding information concerning a local car wash should take mere seconds. Searching a newspaper will most assuredly demand a few minutes of my time. Isn’t using the Internet far more sensible? Your premise also seems to be based on the notion that only “elites” are truly computer savvy. I know a young lady, however, who just recently turned 29. She is so shallow that she was utterly unaware of the Japanese attack on Pearly Harbor. And yet, she orders products off the Internet on a consistent basis. I don’t think she has looked at a newspaper anytime in the recent past.
Jan 2, 2009 - 12:51 pm 5. Joe:There has been a lot of confusion surrounding this “bailout” of the Bristol Press and the New Britain Herald. . .just to clarify, state lawmakers and the CT Dept. of Economic Development are searching for buyers of these papers, and were reportedly in talks with several companies/individuals in recent days. The papers are NOT seeking financial bailouts from the state. Legislators and other economic development officials are simply serving as a conduit to keep these papers alive.
Jan 2, 2009 - 1:04 pm 6. David Thomson:I have been doing some more thinking on this topic. Newspapers are indeed doomed. Technological advances will increasingly render them of little value to advertisers. Somewhere along the line there is a breaking point. The older generation continues to die off while younger people are continuing to gravitate toward the Internet. Things will get considerably worse as computers drop in price along with cheaper Internet connectivity. How soon will office building managers brag that they can offer “free” Wi-Fi Internet access to all of their tenants and their visitors? When will high speed access be available to homeowners for $10 a month? When will a virtually unbreakable hand-held computer cost only $150.00? Will this occur within the next 6 months, or the next 3 years? It will unlikely be more than 5.
Jan 2, 2009 - 11:50 pm 7. Richard Miniter:Mr. Thomson,
I share your view that technology is getting better and cheaper–and that the Web can be a more powerful way to find and process information. But you are missing two basic data points: it is unusual for small dailies to die, partly because they have loyal advertisers and readers that form a protective community. Technology may be a better alternative, but those devoted readers and advertisers will around for quite a while. Humans do not automatically and immediately jump to the most efficient option as soon as it presents itself. You ignore demonstrated human behavior and miss a key element in your analysis. It is habit and community that keeps them reading printed papers, especially in suburbs and small towns. The Web has been a facet of the average consumer’s experience since 1995. How come these local papers still exist 12 years later?
Secondly, your analysis treats all papers as equally suffering from the emergence of the web. I think the web socks big-city dailies (not national papers like the Wall Street Journal or USA Today) and not local papers. Your analysis doesn’t address the differences in the structure of the media marketpalce.
Jan 3, 2009 - 12:23 am 8. David Thomson:“It is habit and community that keeps them reading printed papers, especially in suburbs and small towns.”
Advertisers really don’t care if people per se read newspapers. They are simply seeking the least costly and most effective way of selling their products and services. Also, how does one define “habit and community?” Is that another way of describing elderly people? You know something: they have a disturbing habit of dying off! How many more subscribers can these papers afford to lose? Is the number 30%, 20%, or just 10%? When is the tipping point reached when dead tree newspapers no longer make any financial sense? And when did I ever say that newspapers will totally disappear? Those that survive will move to the Internet.
Are there any statistics showing the ages of new dead wood newspaper subscribers? I bet few of them are under the age of 50—and perhaps less than 5% are 30 years old or younger.
Jan 3, 2009 - 9:54 am 9. joeblough:This one actually has pretty good comic value.
Fact is, the newspapers are just plain unpopular.
The “news” folks don’t like the American people, and the American people don’t like them. It’s pretty much that simple.
Next we’ll have bailouts for lousy cooks and boring comics.
Jan 4, 2009 - 1:33 pm