Banks, airlines, auto makers–everyone wants a bail out these days.

Now one Connecticut lawmaker ^[1] 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 ^[2] 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?