It's Scandalous

Once upon a time, they called it Tabloid Journalism ...

Of course that was before economics forced many newspapers to down-size their formats to such an extent that an unfolded broadsheet (standard format) newspaper was little larger than the smaller versions that their big brothers denigrated.

While the Tabloid format was easier to read, such newspapers were often known for over-large headlines, racy photography, and stories that were often a rather curious blend of fact and all-but-speculative fiction.  From the sleazy grocery store tabloids (most of which are now magazines) to major city commuter alternatives in New York and Chicago, there was always a certain taint to such publications.  

Over time, many of these lesser publications established themselves as real players in an ever shrinking market with hard-hitting investigative reporting, award-winning photography, and a willingness to take on issues that their more traditional and staid brethren refused to.  Over much of the same period, many weekly newspapers moved from their original broadsheet format to the Tabloid one in order to take advantage of the readability factor and ever-changing postal regulations. 

This is not to say that Tabloid journalism didn't eventually make its way from the printed page to the small screen.  "Inside Edition" (where Bill O'Reilly spent 5 years) and "A Current Affair" were two early examples of faux news programs that covered red carpet events, new movies, and of celebrity scandals as if they were hard-hitting news.  Racy pictures and less content in fact seemed to fit this Tabloid evolution to a "T".

Then of course came the 24-hour news networks with CNN and C-Span on one side and ESPN on the other, taking the place of two traditional newspaper sections.  It wasn't long however before we had an alphabet soup of news networks, some attempting to break new ground and others content as mere spin-offs.  As each tried to establish its own place in the market, they likewise needed to define themselves by how much "Tabloid Journalism" they would include in their offerings.  As each evolved from 'news only' to 'news and commentary', the lines seemed to become even more blurred.

Television after all, is a medium that's defined by its ratings as much as its content.  Unable to rely on the support of prime-time scripted television to support those efforts as the Big 3 always did, these new News Networks had to be self sustaining.  While certainly the journalism component would establish their credentials, it would be their prime time offerings that would pay the bills.

All this is a roundabout way of say that it should be of little surprise to anyone that many of these news networks have allowed themselves to be seduced by the Dark Side of tabloid journalism.  Having taken the worst from their network counterparts and the seamy side of newspapers and magazines, some of these efforts are increasingly becoming the worst of all worlds.

Now their prime time lineups are filled with hosts who titillate with only the most scandalous headlines from around the world.  Which politician has a addiction problem (Toronto / Florida)? Which politicians or political party is suffering the biggest drops in popularity?  Which government's leaders have been caught literally or figuratively exposing themselves to ridicule?  Which of the latest proposals from one party or the other can be twisted into the biggest scandals?

From presidential popularity to the latest Obamacare website scandal, which recent controversy can be turned to a ratings advantage?  Which political dishonor by one party or the other can be turned into a dishonest roundtable dialogue of true deliberation?  Which guests can be counted on to create a 'Jerry Springer Circus' of interruption, contention, and high volume confrontation to glue the audience to their seats?

This is not to say that all such efforts are completely without merit or that this is the only thing that these networks do; but like so many things in life, this medium lives on a slippery slope.  Each of them, having once chosen 'the sizzle rather than the steak', now finds themselves slipping ever farther down the dark path in order to keep up.  The never ending battle to compete in the ratings wars has them constantly seeking new ways to ratchet up the repartee to a constant frenzy.

The losers in all of this of course, are we the viewers.  Like a movie that keeps you constantly on the edge of your seat, their attempts cause our attention spans to burn out.  Regardless of what these efforts seek, no one can maintain such a level of hysteria without finally succumbing to exhaustion.

Little surprise then, that so many viewers turn instead to reality shows, period dramas, and movie escapism.  Many of us add insult to injury (including yours truly) by decrying a lack of interest by this audience wearied of world affairs around them, and views this apparent abandonment as a lack of passionate patriotism.  The world is a difficult enough place to deal with however, without the manufactured madness and 24 hour-a-day mania that these 'news' programs now cheerfully espouse for no better reason than ratings and corporate profits.

Call this capitalism's practical media's dishonest dissimulation if you will.  You can even call it the mass insightment of indifferent insanity (if you want to get fancy).  I however, will simply settle for calling this mainstream media masquerade of purporting to be news little more than the latest version of Tabloid reporting, and Scandalous.
 
  

It Could Happen

During one of the coldest springs that I can remember (certainly in the last few decades), I have been reading a story about how the decline in snow cover "could push some creatures to extinction".  I hate stories like that!

Don't get me wrong here.  I'm a news junkie and I like reading news stories about as many different things as I can get my grubby little hands on.  Stories like these however, annoy me beyond my capacity to absorb new information.  My particular distaste for them is not that the stories are wrong (or right for that matter); and it has nothing to do with whether I believe that the premise is correct or incorrect (well, maybe a little bit).  My problem with any story like this is that it is in fact not the reporting of fact as news, nor is it taking a position in editorializing about facts in evidence.  It is instead pure speculation posing as something news-like that never says enough about a subject to even face the potential of being wrong.  They are so riddled with the terms 'could' and 'might' that they become almost meaningless and all but useless.

Do not be deceived by these cowardly scribbles.  While such stories often do a fair enough job of picking out particular observations of phenomena or data (often local or temporary), their use of such information leads them to do little more than attempt to weakly speculate about conclusions.  In a complete abandonment of scientific principles and simple symbolic logic, they don't bother to fix a relationship between the observations they make and any kind of conclusion.  These attempts to gain notoriety, panic the general public, or simply simply bloviate on the printed page do little more than hide behind their lack of conviction in either their observations or conclusions, and in the end make them worth less that the space that they take up. 

So for example, the cold spring that the Midwest has experienced this year 'could' lead to a cooler than expected summer, in spite of the dire predictions of Global Warming.  On the other hand, the same data on the lateness and coolness of spring 'might' lead to even warmer summers than those that the Midwest has experienced in recent years.  The waffling nature of both claims make both conjectures equally possible, and predictively useless.  You may as well claim during the Bible's 'Great Flood' story that rain falling for 40 days and nights 'might' mean that it will rain forever.  On the other hand, such unprecedented and consecutive rainfall 'could' mean that such rain will end as soon as tomorrow.  

There is no courage in either alternative, nor is there any danger in making them.  Regardless of the outcome, the person making either of these potentially dire predictions is allowed the weasel defense of the using could or might to excuse their cowardly inaccuracy, while still allowing them to claim success if their 'coin flip' of speculation proves in any way to be the case.

Far too much of what we see these days as news pass as 'could' and 'might' stories; and their collective uselessness has become a testament to how the mighty have fallen where gathering news is concerned.  And let's face it, it's not that our mainstream media outlets are afraid of being wrong.  Hell, they're wrong all the time.  Of course many of them have the luxury of burying admission of their errors (and their retractions) in sections of the newspaper or segments of their broadcast in such a way that they can go all but unnoticed.  Even with this media backstroking available however, it seldom prevents these bastions of fact and truth from running off in meaningless and idle speculation about facts not in evidence.

Looking at the far too many mealy-mouthed stories like this posing as news, one cannot help believe that this 'might' have something to do with the reduced stature of the current mainstream media outlets.  Of course it 'could' also have something to with the rather biased methods that this same media uses in its often-failed attempts to bring their version of the facts and the truth to light.  Perhaps if these news outlets returned to reporting news instead of attempting to influence events, such efforts 'might' even have a positive effect on their current lack of profitability and 'could' even lead them to a far brighter and more long-lasting future.  Then again, it 'might' be too late for a public far too sick of idle and pointless speculation to dig themselves out of the hole that they've dug themselves into.

On the other hand, many of them 'might' be reading this blog right now and manage to slow if not stop their fall before it's too late.  It 'could' happen....


 

It Was Beauty Killed The Beast

I was watching a cable news network show today attempting to explain the inability of the mainstream media to discover the facts of the timeline on the Benghazi terrorist attack that saw Ambassador Chris Stevens killed along with three others.  (I found this particularly interesting, since it occurred on the same cable news network that had just aired an hour-long in depth report on the subject the night before.)  What was interesting about the statement however, is that this failure of discovery was in part blamed on the cutting of newspaper and wire service bureaus around the world.  

You see, for many years, television news for the most part was little more than a reporting of what had been previously reported in newspapers.  Many of televisions 'reports' are still mostly rehashing previously printed newspaper stories.  Even today's so-called 'online news' still largely consists if items that are re-sourced by Google, Yahoo, et al from newspaper web sites ... information that would be unavailable to them without newspapers.  In other words, the electronic entities which have supposedly replaced newspapers are themselves merely parasites capable of surviving off of its slowly dying flesh.  While it's often said that the Internet has killed the newspaper (a statement not entirely accurate); the truth of the matter is that newspapers have long been killing themselves through an ongoing process of Innocence and Arrogance.

I was there you see, when high percentage revenues from advertising began to move from being printed on the page to supplements which need to be put into the paper.  (Paid subscriptions and street sales actually cover very little of the cost of producing a newspaper.) Newspaper printing presses at the time were incapable of printing much in the way of color (especially the full or '4 color' ) advertisements, and advertisers were only able to get what they wanted by using commercial printers and printing presses with greater color capability.  Showing a complete innocence of where their market was going and an arrogance of their own importance, newspapers told themselves (and anyone else who would listen) that those advertisers would be back soon enough from this second class form of advertising, begging to go back to being printed in the paper.   

Of course it didn't happen, and in fact these supplements (now called free standing inserts or SFI's) grew at an astonishing annual rate.  Newspapers eventually (and only grudgingly) accepted these products as a necessary evil source of revenue instead of a tremendous opportunity. Even as the numbers of these inserts grew far beyond their capacity of newspapers to deal with, their arrogance had them sometimes refusing these inserts and all but refusing to take advantage of the technology that could assist them in increasing their revenue.  Their continued innocence had them often doing such work by hand at a ruinous cost, as they waited for the trend to reverse.  

By the time senior management reluctantly recognized (again, innocence) that their 'good old days' were gone forever, they were already falling behind the technology curve in a way they would never be able to recover from.  Restrictions on the days of the week that such material would be delivered, an 'all or nothing' attitude where distribution of such product was concerned, and a rejection of the concept of delivering such advertising to non-subscribers (an arrogance that was in each case, later recanted), led most down a path that was far from optimal.  Their business plan was in fact so poor where advertisers were concerned that even the US Post Office was able to compete with them; profiting thereby, and staving off their own demise.

This was not the only area where Innocence and Arrogance found their way into the mix however.  Other areas of advertising where newspapers once reigned supreme were likewise attacked.  Aggressive entrepreneurs sensing blood in the water began to compete with classified advertising on all sides.  Independently printed Real Estate guides garnered an increasing share of the newspaper's 'Home' section.  'Auto Trader Magazines' took a big bite out of the Automobile sections, supplying photography as well as descriptions for anyone selling a car, dealer or not.  Jobs publications soon followed, along with newsprint publications advertising garage and estate sales.  Newspapers however, refused to even attempt to compete with any of these new and profitable methods, their arrogance of position forbidding them to demean themselves by being 'commercial'.  And just like that, more of their revenue departed, never to return.

When the Internet finally did come along in a significant way, all of these new businesses were flexible enough to pick up stakes and take advantage of it, moving their print in large part to the new media.  Added to them were everything from car to real estate websites that could be updated daily.  Before you knew it, anyone could sell anything on Ebay, and anyone could find a job on Monster or Craig's List.  Without these classified revenues, newspapers became even more dependent on the Insert advertising that was still growing.  With such dependency grows desperation, and newspapers were becoming truly desperate, for a third scourge had been added to their future.

Somewhere in the Education process, a generation of students had been allowed to grow up without reading a newspaper.  No longer were grade school students required to cut articles out of the newspaper or magazine that would be discussed in current events class (if such classes were even held).  Instead when required, classes watch VCR tapes of news stories supplied by TV stations to serve the same function.  Unconcerned and Arrogant enough to believe that their audience would return, and innocent of the growing influence of an expanding Internet, they fell even further behind the curve and in even greater financial danger.  Through their own non-participation, newspapers soon found themselves with a generation or potential customers that no longer counted on reading a daily newspaper for their basic knowledge of current events.  Eventually they responded across the country with 'Newspapers in Education' programs, but the programs were limited; and besides, by then one generation was lost and the next could hardly be taught by those who had already abandoned newspapers.

Their market penetration now greatly diminished, they were further attacked by the rise of talk radio and 24-hour news networks on the information side.  Both had an immediacy that newspapers could never hope to compete with unless they substantially changed their business model, something that they were still far to arrogant to consider.  Struggling to retain the inserts that they had once disparaged, having finally admitted that they were the major source of revenue keeping the doors open, many were brought to further humiliation in the realization that it was largely for those once hated supplements that their products were now being purchased.  Enough of that arrogance remained however, that rather than living contentedly off their existing revenue stream, some began to instead cast aside their basic creeds of journalism in a twisted attempt to appeal to a wider audience. Sadly, many dailies turned to the very 'tabloid journalism' that they long decried in a forlorn hope to cling to their diminishing influence and circulation.

Like so many businesses doomed by faulty strategies, some newspapers also attempted to make a last stand by building monuments to their own past glory.  Massive investments in printing press technology that any sane business model had proved was no longer required now stand in mostly silent monument to a strategy designed for winning a war that was long since over.  Web sites that should have been their future and which had been created as a complimentary supplement to their printed page, are proving increasingly difficult to covert to revenue sources however by those innocent enough to have never understood that any audience will always resent any attempt to take away a free handout.

There's still a chance that some of these organizations will survive; and for the nation's sake, we better hope that they do.  Certainly none of the Internet giants have offered a fully functional alternative to them; and seem content to live their parasitic lives.  Weekly newspapers, long skilled at living within a budget of advertising revenue, seemed to have been able to take advantage of the changing market.  Once the poor relations of their daily cousins, most are far more likely to be profitable than their more arrogant relations.  It may well be that we must look to them for the future survival of the industry as a whole.  Based on what I saw and have brought out over a 30 plus year period however, I think that it's clear to see that it wasn't the Internet that has all but killed the daily newspaper, but their own innocence and arrogance of a changing market.  

This entire tale in fact, reminded of the last line of the 1933 classic "King Kong":

"Oh, no, it wasn't the airplanes. It was Beauty that killed the beast!"

Decide Dammit!

OK quick!  What's the most frustrating thing in the world?  Now for those fence-sitters out there running through the extensive list in your tiny little minds, let me help you out just a bit.  It's You!  And don't try and kid yourself that we haven't noticed who you are while we're standing behind you in the line at McDonalds (not that you'll find me hanging out at 'The Golden Arches' these days), waiting for you to decipher the intricacies of a menu that hasn't seen significant alteration in this millennium.

Don't get me wrong here, I know that there are sometimes tough choices that need to be made out there.  Yoga pants or pajama jeans, the shortest route or the quickest one on your GPS system, and chunky or smooth peanut butter are but a few of the earth shattering determinations that apparently can only be made after lengthy deliberation by someone with your Solomon-like judgment skills.  Of course there are those looking on from the sidelines who would like to see such resolution proceed at a less glacial pace, but certainly we can wait until you've completed proper contemplation on how much foam they should put on your latte (though the restraint required to keep our hands from your throat is almost crippling).

The problem now however, is that 2012 is a presidential election year; and that brings up even more indecision.  The mainstream media cannot decide how far in the tank it's willing to go for Democrats.  Fox News hasn't decided how far it's willing to go to counter the impact of its competitors on Republicans.  Largely irrelevant daily newspapers can't decide, based on their own past bias and increasing loss of credibility, if endorsing a particular candidate will do them more harm than good. 

Around the world, our traditional allies can't decide if more of what they've gotten for the last 3-1/2 years would be worse than what they might get from four years of the new guy.  Inimical governments and terrorist organizations can't decide if taking advantage of the apparent foreign policy weaknesses of the current White House occupant (especially this close to an election) can be used to their own political advantage, or will simply facilitate the election of someone who might be another game-changer for them, like Reagan was after Carter.

Of course all of this indecision inside the media and outside the nation, is because we are once more being told that this year's electoral process will be decided by ... you guessed it .... 'the Undecideds'.  This apparent group of vacuous voters will, according to pundits and other so-called experts, be swayed in the coming weeks by any public (or private) misstep of the candidates, by who makes a better showing in the three presidential debates (or how badly 'Jokin' Joe Biden performs in his one), and by who can raise the most money and run the most TV ads running up to the election.  (And people complained about how the BCS Championship decided the winner of College Football.)

Ostensibly the fate of the electoral process weighs on a group of people who, after over two years of campaigning, cannot now decide on their national leader.  After a campaign whose length seemingly rivaled that of the 100 Years War, they are still unable to commit to a candidate.  Apparently the fate of the nation will ultimately be decided by those who stand in the check out line at the grocery store, incapable of producing a decisive answer to,  "Paper or plastic?"  

Which of course leads me to my own 2012 dilemmas.  I can't decide if I simply pity those who, with all the information out there cannot apparently complete the deliberative process; or if I just hate their guts.  I'm undecided over whether perhaps if a few more people took more interest in learning about the people they vote for than about the lives and back stories of performers on 'American Idol' or on 'Dancing With The Stars', we wouldn't have Congressional gridlock (another form of indecision) and a $16 trillion national deficit.  I am unable to reach a conclusion over whether perhaps there wasn't a two-party stranglehold on the national election process, there wouldn't be so much indecision in the first place.  I am completely flummoxed over whether, if the education process in this nation spent a little more time teaching critical thinking and little less on fostering self-esteem, we'd have less people incapable of decisions on anything more important than whether they'll super-size their fries.

What I do know however is that there is a real pandemic of 'cranial / rectal inversion' occurring in this country; and it's far past time that people started pulling their aggregated heads out of their collective asses and Decide Dammit!

Daily Newspapers - Last Call

Less than a week ago the Chicago Sun-Times announced that it would close the Ashland Avenue production facility that it built just twelve years ago, having reached an agreement with its bitter rival the Chicago Tribune to begin printing both it and the Chicago suburban newspapers that it owns. To put this announcement in perspective (and as someone who grew up in the middle of this competition and worked with both papers in Chicago), let me say that this would be comparable to Democrats announcing that Republicans would now be issuing all public policy statements on behalf of their party. They might as well have announced that they had cancer, that it was untreatable, and that it was terminal. We of us who have been around the daily newspaper business (though I am no longer) have known for some time that the business model that most have used was no longer a valid one. 


Unfortunately, like so many other businesses (and people) they spent more time wishing for a return of the "Good Old Days" than seeking a path forward. When advertising chose to leave ROP and went to stand alone inserts instead (for those who haven't heard this term before, it stands for 'Ripped on Page' and means advertising actually printed in the newspaper), newspapers resisted such change and placed obstacles in the path of those who were trying to find a way to give them revenue. When the Internet began to encroach on their turf, they wrote it off as a fad. When blogs and news pages became an alternative for younger readers (and older ones as well), they denigrated them as unprofessional and unworthy. 


When they finally woke up and began to embrace this new technology, they couldn't find a way to produce a user-friendly product or generate revenue from it. When they finally realized their past mistakes and began to put 'paywalls' up on their websites to rectify past errors, they found that like their television counterparts they had become largely irrelevant and little more than a supporting cast member. 


Oh some are still surviving like USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, but the far greater number are suffering under staggering revenue losses, staffing cuts, and a loss of credibility. For this last (and perhaps most telling) situation they once again have no one to blame but themselves. Daily newspapers have so far confused objective reporting with editorializing that they can no longer tell the difference themselves. Seldom, if you read carefully, can you find a story in one that does not inject the reporter's point of view into what is ostensibly a straight news story. And while it's bad enough that reporters are so busy trying to become columnists that they are already playing the part, the fact that their editors are no longer 'editing' these stories to correct the errors in perspective is an even more egregious offense. 


Now perhaps this has always been the case, and it's only now in the explosion of news sources available to the public that the bias is being revealed. Perhaps those of us who are still 'news junkies' have become more sensitized to the situation, and more critical. Perhaps 'The Fourth Estate' is returning to its 'Yellow Journalism' roots. Certainly newspapers here in colonial days were often little more than mouthpieces for political ideology. Newspapers in Europe in the same period was certainly no stranger to telling stories from the point of view of the ruling government. 


This time however, the chickens have finally coming home to roost. Daily newspapers may no longer be looking at a the beginning of the end, but at the middle of it. Some of these organizations may survive in some form, in the same way that land-line telephones are disappearing while cell phone use is growing, but their days of preeminence are now past. 


In truth, the best hope for such products are the weekly newspapers, since they focus on the local stories, the personal perspectives, and the contributions of local talent. Though their model will too change eventually, they are neither burdened by an inflated sense of their own worth, nor do these 'free' newspapers fail to understand that they survive only by the grace of advertising dollars and only as long as they serve their audience and advertisers. With what's now going on in Chicago, we may at last be seeing the "Last Call" for the daily newspaper as we know it today. The lights have been turned on and the patrons are moving to the door. As those of us who have unfortunately experienced this time in the wee hours of the morning have heard the barman say,

"You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here any more".

Media Intervention

Now that the dust has settled, perhaps we can all look back more objectively at the furor over Brian Wilson's comments on WSPD about education in this country. 

We all watched Tom Troy and The Blade's painfully obvious efforts to paint the man and the radio station into a corner in order to get either his resignation or firing. We watched as well as the subsequent vindication unfolded based on the work done by the Toledo Free Press to reveal the facts of the case and the failed machinations of the daily paper. We even watched as Mr Troy wrote a response to the TFP coverage, published on January 19th, which did little to vindicate him or settle his part of the controversy.

Now anyone who has listened to Brian Wilson over time or read the Blade know that there is no love lost between the two (nor between Mr Wilson and Mr Troy). As someone who was involved intimately with the daily newspaper business for over thirty years, who is acquainted on a personal level with Brian Wilson and WSPD, and who listened to the entire show in question; I found the entire situation both fascinating and sad.

How could a newspaper that condemned out-of-context soundbites and a rush to judgment in the case of Shirley Sherrod find itself at the heart (if not behind) this case? How much further will management (and ownership) permit the continued blurring of the lines between objective reporting and editorializing? How many more setbacks can daily newspapers in Toledo and elsewhere across the country suffer to their credibility and survive as a reputable source for news?

For there is a relationship between talk radio and newspapers. Personalities like Brian Wilson are dependent to some extent upon daily newspapers for a part of the basic basic research required for them to do their job. Show preparation to fill three hours a day is an arduous task, and commenting on the events of the day usually requires that someone first report on them. Whether the source is a column by a well-known writer, an internet news website link, or something from a newspaper website itself; the ultimate source material for much of the news today remains the research and reporting of daily newspapers.

Now it's obvious to anyone paying even occasional attention to the goings on in the newspaper industry today, that such organizations continue to suffer from declining circulation and revenue, reduced reporting staffs, and desperate and often inconsistent business plans to cope with their current downward business trends. This decline should be no cause for celebration for their detractors however, as a co-dependency between newspapers and other forms of media exist whether they like it or not.

When was the last time that you watched a TV news broadcast that did not reference at least one newspaper story? When was the last time that you listened to a radio show (nationally syndicated or local) that did not do the same? When was the last time that you watched cable news pundits get through an hour without talking about something a newspaper said? Without newspapers as source material, these now more timely an relevant media sources would be hard pressed to fill their programs.

OK, that establishes a dependent relationship, but not co-dependency.

One need only look at the recent elimination and consolidation of newspaper titles and production sites, the switch in some cases to online-only products, and the downsizing of product and reporting staffs at these former print properties to understand that they are facing doom as a means of communicating the news. 

The constant reference by other media forms of material in daily newspapers may be the best advertising that they could receive, and may allow them to retain the relevance in the marketplace of ideas that they still deserve. Without being used and referenced for the source material that they provide however, I fear that their decline would be even more dramatic and precipitous.

Daily newspapers may not like it, but will eventually have to understand that much like the free standing insert advertisements that they once looked down upon, these other media are now an integral part of the effort required to promote their continued existence. Other forms of media like radio and TV likewise need to understand that without the labor on source material done by daily newspapers to repeat and comment on, their jobs would be much more difficult than they already are.

While anything but a believer in the philosophy of "can't we all just get along", I cannot help but think that perhaps some form of Media Intervention is in order to tell both that while they aren't required to like each other (and in fact it's a lot more interesting when they don't), they do in fact have to recognize that they need each other; if for no other reason than to know who to demonize.

TFP Column: Leaving It To Professionals

It is the last day of April and my last column of the month for the Toledo Free Press. It may even be my last effort ever for this fine publication. Having met with Michael Miller (editor-in-chief of the TFP) on the subject a bit earlier in the month, Michael rightly points out (and I agree) that to be relevant to Toledo market and growing readership of the TFP, one really should be a part of that city and immersed its culture. This is something that will prove difficult for me in the days ahead when I will have left Toledo for Kansas City. He has graciously left the door open a tiny bit however, and the challenge will be for me to produce something worthwhile for the TFP readership from my new home. I don't know if such a thing is possible (then again, I don't know if I have done so in previous efforts), but I've always enjoyed a challenge and it will be interesting to see if it will be possible to pull it off. The idea of relevance is something that I took to heart in this weekend before the May primary, as a significant part of the discussion in the mainstream media has recently turned to who deserves to be heard in the marketplace of ideas. It reminded me of many of the same discussions about who is qualified to serve in elective office. I therefore hope that you find "Leaving It To Professionals" as a worthy effort and perhaps a fitting end to my contributions to the TFP. My work for the Toledo Free Press has been one of the great joys of my time in Toledo and of my life, and I will always be grateful to Michael and to publisher Tom Pounds for the opportunity they have given me to submit material and for the help and support that they have given me throughout these efforts (and I'm going to stop now before I get sloppy about it). This being the week before the primary, there is going to be lots of stuff (important stuff) for readers in Toledo to catch up on. Perhaps the wealth of information contained in this week's edition will even be enough to inspire more than the normal handful of dedicated individuals to GET OUT AND VOTE! As usual for spring in Toledo, the weekend promises little but rain (though the temperatures will be pretty good). My recommendation would be to enjoy the warmth, ignore the rain, and try and find out everything that's going on in Toledo and NW Ohio in the Toledo Free Press.

The Blade - Dinosaur or Weasel

There has been talk for a number of years that the daily newspaper was dinosaur, on its last leg as a viable news source ... and as a business. The internet had grown stronger in recent years as a alternative to it; and with the growth of high speed internet, download speeds had increased to a point where pictures and pages of data could be viewed in real time. With the recent introduction of the Ipad (and soon the competing unit from Google) even the issue of portability and convenience will no longer be an issue. The were only a couple of real questions left to daily newspaper organizations as their printing presses wind gradually down to a stop:

• Will some part of these corporations survive, utilizing their ability to gather news while finding a way to use the web in some way as both revenue source and distribution mode?
• More importantly, as these final days wind themselves down, with what dignity will these ancient and venerable businesses be able to end their days?

The local example in Toledo, the Blade, has made this question even more confusing in recent days with the behavior of its reporter Tom Troy, its editors, and the publication of a story based on some notes belonging to Jeff Simpson (one of two men claiming to head the Lucas County Republican Party). I won't go into the details of the story, since the entire affair seems too tawdry and distasteful to spend much time on. Anyone who is not aware of the story however, can read it here (from the Blade itself) and get additional information from a postings on from Glass City Jungle and Thurber's Thoughts. The issues that I would like to deal with here however are more fundamental:

• Since the Blade has long been a newspaper supporting Democratic candidates, why didn't they make greater efforts to show at least a perception of neutrality in news coverage of an internal Republican issue?
• Once discovering that they possessed Mr Simpson's property, and having been asked for its return by him in a face-to-face meeting, why did they not do so? (Even if they chose to make a copy of such property for their own record and for the purposes of the story.)
• For the record, we might also want to ask why Mr. Simpson (a lawyer) didn't make a greater effort to gain the return of his property once he discovered it was in the possession of the newspaper.
• Knowing of the personal relationship between the publisher (John Robinson Block) of the Blade and the other person claiming to be head of the LCRP (Jon Stainbrook), why didn't they take greater pains to try and show strict journalistic integrity in its treatment of the parties involved?
• If this story were of such great import and these notes so important, why was it that the story was published on a Saturday, traditionally the least read newspaper of the week?
• Maybe most importantly ... Would there have been a story here at all if this were about the publisher's friend (a person long known for Machiavellian plots and regular use of the legal system) and not Mr Simpson?

This is not to say that the Blade does not have the right to write stories about any subject that it chooses. It is however to say that in these delicate times for newspapers, that they might have attempted to be even more careful in maintaining the highest form of journalistic integrity in covering this story. Similarly, with the reputation that the Blade continues to gather for confusing the journalistic and editorial aspects of its efforts; perhaps they might have done a better job with this story for themselves and for their diminishing readership. 


This effort by the Blade does nothing to enhance its own reputation, that of the daily newspaper, or that of Toledo. It does however, beg a question of daily newspapers in general, and the Blade in particular. Will they choose to go out gracefully as yet one more example of the dinosaurs that most daily newspapers in this country have become, or like the thief and rodent that they appear to have become in this instance ... a weasel?

Sleeping Late On Sunday

I used to love getting up early on a Sunday morning. I could make a pot of coffee, spend some quiet time with the Sunday newspaper, and wait for the news and punditry on the networks. One day a week at least, there would be a morning news show that was more concerned about Supreme Court judges than it was about the judges on American Idol. Better still, for the last half hour of these shows there would be well considered and polite discussion by those whose long experience in the machinations of politics could help those of us who were not so blessed understand what was going on in the separate reality known as Washington DC. Then cable news networks happened. 


CNN was first able to show us everything important going on in the world as it was happening. They were likewise able to interpret it for we who were not immersed in the cultural events of the Middle East or Eastern Europe. Media corporations, never the most most innovative or imaginative of people, eventually caught on and soon there were more (and spin-offs of the existing). 


Unfortunately, while there were now more networks giving us the news 24 hours a day, there was not more news to give. This left these networks endlessly repeating the same 15-30 minute news show more often than the average "Seinfeld" or "Friends" episode in syndication; and soon leaving the audience just as numb. And as the ratings began to fall (and the advertising revenues with them), some brilliant executive realized that while there couldn't be more news, there could be more interpretation; and a whole new genre of cable pundit shows were born. 


These new shows were a boon to newspaper journalists that were having a tougher time finding work, and likewise to retiring broadcast journalists were looking for a lighter work load. What's more, these programs actually did a pretty good job of filling the void with a combination of interviews and punditry. Occasionally there was something new or exciting that came out of this new venue and those who wanted to delve deeper into what is often the cesspool of politics had somewhere to do so. 


As the number of shows grew however, the constant practice allowed the interviewees grow in their ability to stay on talking points rather than answer questions, and these show became less interesting. Again borrowing from other sources however, producers of these shows began to follow Jerry Springer guideline instead of the Jerry Seinfeld. If the news couldn't be more interesting, perhaps the sources and pundits could. If the story couldn't generate the excitement, perhaps a good on-screen battle of political pundits could add some spice. 


This media philosophy eventually led us to where we are today. While there are still a few voices of calm and reason out there (like George Will, Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer, and even Juan Williams occasionally) most of the punditry out there is blatant partisanship. This would be OK if the partisan discussion were about political philosophy, but instead it has become yet another example of bolstering the talking points of the two major political parties in this country and abandoning any other attempt at reasoned thought. 


Abandoned as well is the concept of discussion or debate where there is a give and take of ideas. Instead what we have is one side or the other attempting to monopolize the limited time available, rudely interrupting or denigrating their fellow pundits while they are trying to make a point, or ignoring the question and attempting to steer the conversation to a subject that allows them to return to their party talking points. 


These not only fail as reasoned debates, they aren't even debates. They cast no glowing light on the contestants, but instead a shadow of shame on the process. I would go so far as to say that these ungracious and pugnacious pundits can accept a great deal of the responsibility for the sometimes deplorable level of political discussion going on in this country today. How can they expect better behavior from we who are simple "hard-working Americans" (sorry, I couldn't resist that one) than we get from they who are the "best and brightest of a well-educated society"? 


And so I find myself sleeping later and later on Sunday mornings these days, for there is little reason to do otherwise. The Sunday paper gets smaller each week and contains less news in the pages that remain. The Sunday news shows rarely step beyond journalists interviewing professional politicians reading off of their talking point cue cards. The Sunday punditry has become little more than unreasoning disdain for the right by the left and vice versa. On the other hand, getting up so much later does relieve me of the desire to make a pot of coffee, which they tell me is not good for me anyway.

The State of Newspaper Reporting

Normally when I complain about reporting in a newspaper these days, it's something from the editorial section of the local daily here in Toledo. Some of those complaints also have to do with the bleeding of editorial into news in the product that it produces. 


Today's beef however, has to do with the print product that this company would like us all to keep purchasing vs. the online edition that we get for free, and with the information delivered by wire services (in this case, the Associated Press). Now you would expect that as a consequence of being a paying customer, that reading the print edition would provide more and better information. You would be wrong.  


In a critical story (at least to those of us who used to play hockey), information was provided on the semi-finals of Olympic men's hockey. In the game between Finland and the US, the red white and blue handily defeated the Fins, and the story in the online edition of the sports section was accurately titled "US routs Finland 6-1, will play for hockey gold". The headline was a fortunate one, as nowhere in an Associated Press story of over 20 paragraphs on the game was the final score actually mentioned. 


Unfortunately for me, I read the print edition first this morning where the headline "Americans rout Finland, now face Canada" was the headline instead. This lead to half a page of reading without being given the final score of the game. I was only successful in discovering it by adding up goals on a paragraph by paragraph basis, and verifying my rather poor math by searching through the sports box scores. 


There is something sad about the fact that newspaper headlines these days don't give you a full snapshot of the story. There is something truly tragic in the fact that the Associated Press, once a highly respected and competent wire service can write an entire story about a sporting event without realizing the importance of reporting the score of it.

Hello Ipad, Goodbye Gutenberg

Almost everyone still knows these days that Johannes Gutenberg is the person credited with first using movable type, thus creating the first technological revolution in printing (and putting some Irish monks out of the business of copying). And while movable type is no longer used in the printing process today, mechanical printing presses are still the primary means of obtaining written material (books and newspapers) in the world today. 


Those days may finally be numbered however, with the introduction of Ipad. For those of you who have been living in a cave in the wilderness for the last couple of weeks, Ipad is the latest in a string of technology innovations from Cupertino, CA based Apple. Ipad is certainly not the first electronic reading device. We already have a Sony version, the Barnes and Noble 'nook', and of course the Amazon 'Kindle' to name just a few. In addition, we have the ability today to download written material to computers and cell phones. Apple however, looks to take this to the next level. 


Steve Jobs and the folks at Apple have taken this unit beyond being a simple reading device and turned it into a communication device. They bring to the table a size, ease of operation and wireless ability that may finally put the printed page into the realm of the dodo bird. In addition, the device is certainly capable of taking the place of the Ipod for music downloads, and with high resolution and wireless capabilities could easily someday fulfill the functions of the current generation of web-surfing phones as well. Purchasing books for this unit will continue to be easy enough (and much less expensive), and the Ipad should also be able to easily download a daily newspaper. 


Its 8-1/2 x 11" size should make it even easier to read for commuters than the traditional tabloid and broadsheet products, and it will likewise be easier than the Berliner format (a much smaller broadsheet size) that the newspaper industry has been investing in for the last couple of years. 


For those of us whose careers have been tied to the printed page, it appears that the predictions of our imminent demise are finally beginning to come true. As time goes on and costs go down (something that always happens in technology), it appears likely that paper and ink have finally met their match. And while the printing press will certainly not disappear overnight, the increasing pace of the march of technology is certainly beginning to tell us that we must finally say "hello to Ipad, and goodbye to Mr Gutenberg".

Repinion

I believe that every form of innovation in this country should receive recognition. Music, literature, and even movies and television have all had their true artists; and far too often these worthies do not receive their just due. So it is with true humility that I recognize the Toledo Blade for expanding the use of, and attempting to perfect the concept of Repinion. 


"What in the world", you are probably now asking yourself, "is Repinion?" Quite simply it is a term that I have created to honor the blending of reporting and opinion that the Blade uses in such a way so as to confuse the point where one form of writing ends and the other begins. This practice, in the fast-changing world of the newspaper allows the Blade to extend the editorial process from the first page to the last (I sometimes even wonder about the Obituaries), and advance an agenda on a wide variety of subjects. 


"Now wait," you are probably saying, "the Blade certainly did not invent such practices. They have been going on in the newspaper industry for years." This is true indeed. Newspapers in this country have it seems, often been used as a way to advance an agenda. The Founding Fathers were more than once guilty of penning or having published articles in newspapers that were selective in fact and detrimental to their opponents. 


The Aaron Burr / Alexander Hamilton duel was a prime example of how, directly or indirectly, such things could lead to political defeat, and ultimately to Hamilton's death. The Spanish American War is yet another classic example of how the editorializing of journalism can seek to move public opinion enough to affect even foreign policy. The competing newspaper publishers William Randolf Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer used just such questionable methods in a purely selfish way to increase their circulation (and profits), and to what many historians agree, succeed in driving this country into war; creating the term "yellow journalism" in the process. (It was named for a character in the comic strip Hogan's Alley at the time.) 


The Blade now takes its place in newspaper history by refining the hallowed journalistic practice into a modern art form. It appears these days that the Blade is no longer capable of even recognizing the practice being carried on (or is being disingenuous about its use). Whether they are writing about the United Way constructing a building, the YMCA closing one down, or the Lucas County Republican Party attempting to hold a meeting in one; the Blade now finds itself consistently blending opinionated terminology with inefficient fact checking in order to choose sides in almost every news story that it writes. 


Now the writing of editorials is a long-standing and sacred practice in newspapers (in spite of the fact that one of them as debased itself by letting yours truly occasionally write one). No one should have any argument with the right of the owners and editors of the Blade or any other newspaper to exercise the time honored tradition of expressing an opinion, even if they disagree with it. It would be nice however, and more in keeping with current journalistic practice, if they could manage not let them bleed over into what is supposed to be the fact-based reporting sections of the newspaper. (While I'm at it, it would be nice if they could manage to sign such editorials rather than post them like anonymous comments on a blog). 


A short time ago, Dave Kushma took over at the Blade as their new editor. He appears to be a professional of good standing in his chosen field, if we can judge him by those he has previously worked for and with. It will be interesting in the light of this new blood, to see if the Blade continues to refine and perfect the art of Repinion, perhaps hoping that a prize named after one of its greatest disciples (the Pulitzer) will once more come its way, or learns once again to separate fact from opinion (if not fiction) in the dwindling circulation of their product.

Daily Paper Goes To Dogs

This should have been the banner headline on page one today instead of 'Pit bull' law sticks despite tries for change 


One of my greatest joys on a Sunday is reading the Sunday Paper! Having been a newspaper junkie for a number of years, I especially look forward to getting a leisurely weekly fix on every Sunday. Imagine my disappointment in the fact that with everything that is going on in the country (and the world) right now, that 2-1/2 pages of the A-Section of the newspaper is devoted to articles on dogs, as is the lead editorial (yet again) and about 25% of the Letter to the Editor space. 


Nothing about the recently released CRU emails and what impact this bastardization of the scientific process should or will have on the upcoming Copenhagen climate change meeting except a column in the 3rd section (though the protesters made the front page). Nothing about the fact that GM is "paying back" the government with money from the government. Little about health care legislation that threatens to bankrupt this country. 


No, we get page after page on dogs ... (While I'm being a nitpicker: How does a newspaper have two "A" sections with the 3rd section listed as the B section, as today's Blade did? Calling the second section more of the first does not make it so, no more than calling the second page the first make the laws of counting change.) 


As I have stated in the past, I have nothing against dogs and grew up with them as a kid. I am nonetheless aggravated when so much of the primary news section of a newspaper is devoted to such a second level story. I continue to resist the claims of the death of the daily newspaper in this country, but have to have serious doubts about the Toledo Blade if this is the product that they believe to be one.

Fractured Fairy Tale: The Watchdog

Yes boys and girls, I know that it's been a while, but fear not, for it's time for another Fractured Fairy Tale. Time once again for one of those cautionary tales of life and politics in this crazy, mixed up world around us. Much like the first fairy tale that I wrote for this blog, this one is an original, if cautionary tale of "what if" that may very well soon become a "what now". I hope you enjoy it. 


Once upon a time there lived a man named John Q. Public. There was nothing at all remarkable about Mr. Public. John (and I'm sure he'd let us call him that) did have one thing that set him apart however, it was his watchdog. 


 Now this dog was not really owned by John in the strictest sense of the word, as he had never actually purchased it. The truth of the matter was that he had simply started feeding this dog upon discovering it, eventually naming the animal Newspaper. 


Newspaper, liking the attention that he got from John (and more especially the feeding), adopted John Q Public as its master, and was soon performing the duties of watchdog where John was concerned. Now Newspaper was never the most attractive of dogs, though occasionally he cleaned up rather well. Neither was he particularly well-behaved, sometimes serving his own or the needs of others as well as those of his master. 


Newspaper was in fact an often ill-tempered mutt, treating John with measured disdain (much like a cat, come to think of it). In fact if anything, Newspaper behaved more like a junk yard dog than anything else; good enough at being a watchdog, but just as likely to bite the hand that fed it as it was to snap at that of strangers and villains. 


Time passed, and Newspaper had been around for some time. Some had begun to say that he was getting a bit long in the tooth (if you know what I mean), and no longer able to hold up his end of the bargain. John of course, was no youngster either, though he often acted like one. Quite frankly, he was reaching that age where one begins to think about turning things over to the next generation, and if the truth were known they didn't much care for his watchdog. 


Much like the wayward child that he had become, John had begun to pay less attention to the care and feeding of his long-time adopted pet. This treatment did nothing good for the health and well being of his watchdog, and as a consequence it began to look even thinner and shabbier than usual. 


As time passed, an almost starving Newspaper began to become a bit resentful of this treatment. It howled at its sorry lot in life and tended to snap at anyone who came near it. While never completely leaving off at its watchdog post, even Newspaper had to admit that it wasn't doing the job that it once did. 


Now one day, one of the worst of the miscreants that this watchdog had kept at bay crept forward once again to work his mischief. This ill-mannered neighborhood bully had been hanging around for years, often trying to do ill to Mr Public; but with Newspaper on the job, he was never really able to succeed. 


This nefarious individual (let's call him Government) was well known as one of the worst of criminals. A strong-armed thief who was often known to take money at the point of a gun, a loan shark who lent money that always had strings attached, and a bully who loved to throw his weight around in the neighborhood; Government was most well known for his operation of a massive protection racket and for running the biggest Ponzi scheme that had ever been seen. In other words, Government was a pretty nasty guy.


With the lack of attention from his adopted owner and a hunger that was soon bordering on starvation, Newspaper finally started sniffing around at the treats that had been dangled for years in the outstretched hand of Government. Knowing that continued refusal of these morsels might portend the end of its days (while perhaps scarcely realizing that accepting them could do likewise), this watchdog began to whimper over the potential of such offered nourishment. 


Long at the service of its adoptive master John Q Public, Newspaper didn't know what else to do if he was to survive to continue in his duties. While still somewhat loyal to his master's needs, Newspaper was equally interested in his own survival. And so there we see them, much like the scene of Kevin Costner extending a bit of jerky to the wolf 'Two Socks' in "Dancing With Wolves". Government now carefully extends the hand of potential survival to Newspaper, and this once faithful watchdog creeps ever closer to accepting it.

THE END

I know, I know, this is one hell of a way to end a Fairy Tale. The truth of the matter is we don't know the end of this story yet. Quite frankly, the fate of Newspaper, Government, and John Q Public are hanging in the balance right now. If this self-appointed watchdog of our freedoms begins to accept anything from government, there is little doubt that it will be unable to properly perform this long-held function in the future. If it doesn't however, there is real doubt that this watchdog may be around much longer. For good or ill, the end of this tale has yet to be written. For newspapers, for government, but especially for the Public; these are perilous times indeed!

The Town Criers

Getting the news to the public has always been a rather perilous profession. Called heralds or town criers, these couriers used to travel from village to village providing information on military victories. 

All of course, know of the Battle of Marathon, where a Greek runner crossed some 26 miles to bring back the news of victory over the Persians to the populace ... and died from the effort of doing so. The subsequent Olympic Games, where the races commemorating this achievement were held, were in fact opened by a contest of those heralds or town criers. 

The tradition of heralds continued throughout history, evolving into using town criers in each city to announce laws, warn of impending danger, and pass on such news as was worthy. Since writing was something mostly restricted to the clergy and most of the populace was illiterate anyway, such a method seemed to be the most expedient way of circulating information to growing urban populations. The profession still had its dangers however, as the expression which grew up at the time, "don't shoot the messenger" implies. 

With the evolution in technology of the printing press and the extension of literacy to greater numbers of citizens, this function over time began to fall more and more to a newsletter or "newspaper". The herald no longer ran from city to city and the town crier no longer stood at the center of town, providing all of the news that was fit to speak. 

For the many years since, it was the responsibility of the daily newspaper to serve as that herald, and they have had success in doing so. But while they often made claims to some loftier perch than deserved as a consequence of their responsibilities, failures were often as spectacular as successes. While serving as the voice of the people, they were just as often the tool of unscrupulous politicians. While attempting to serve the needs of the common man, they were equally guilty of the vices of well-to-do ownership. While often the lone voice crying out against injustice, they were likewise the mouthpiece of more nefarious purposes. 

What has become of this noble purpose today? Well certainly some of those original names survive. The Herald, The Reporter, and The Courier among others still survive as the names of many daily newspapers around the country. Information on battles, on laws, and on local news and opinion are still a regular part of what they print every day. But like what once came before them, daily newspapers now face potential extinction in the evolution of information disbursement technology. 

Newspapers appear unwilling face such demise quietly however, and some now cry out to have the government subsidize what may be in fact an outmoded system. Undoubtedly like the heralds at the time of their replacement, they beg to be kept on to serve a need that may no longer exist. No longer able to reap the vast profits that for so many years made them such a lucrative business, they now claim to be a necessity of freedom as reason for continued existence and therefore financial support . 

I mourn this potential passing of my beloved daily printed printed page (a passing that could have serious implications for me personally), but find this no reason to provide them with taxpayer support. I am concerned about how this time of change will affect protection from the infringement of government, but find this insufficient reason to subsidize them. 

I feel sure that just as the first newspapers were sold on the street, their predecessors railed out at the injustice of it all and warned the populace of the impending danger if they were to be no more. Bellowing in stentorian tones (a term which comes from a Greek herald from Trojan War days who was said to have a voice as loud as 50 men), I have little doubt that they cast a pall of doom on their positional demise. Using the voices which had served their profession so well over the years, they now no doubt whined and cajoled for solace and support. 

And so with the clamor of the daily newspaper today for such support, we see a return to its true roots. As they join the line of businesses tightly grasping their "Oliver Twist" begging bowls in the hope of something more, they truly become what once they were ... a Town Crier. 

TFP Column: Pulitzer or Profit

This week's effort for the Toledo Free Press came as a result of the announcement of the Pulitzer Prizes for this year.  Daily newspapers have long been confused as to whether they were "award winning businesses that occasionally made a profit, or profitable businesses that occasionally won awards".  I fear that the day is coming soon when it may be too late for them to choose, the choice will have been made for them ... to their decline.

And so I take up the subject of "Pulitzer or Profit", and what it holds for the industry that I'm a part of.
 
No need to worry about weekly newspapers like the Toledo Free Press yet however.  They are much more in tune with their markets, and much more in touch with the concept of running a profitable business.  Which is why, if you want to know what's going on in Toledo and Northwest Ohio, you will find out from the Toledo Free Press.

A Strange Irish Wake

I have been attending a strange Irish wake this week. Strange because it was certainly not intended by those who threw it to be a wake. Strange also because we are having it in Las Vegas, a town known more for weddings than for funerals. Strangest of all because the wake is being held for a trade show and not a person.  
You see, this week I am attending the newspapers industry's Media Xchange Conference at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center. This is the first year of this conference under the current name, though I have been attending this gathering of the newspapers for over 25 years under the previous names of NEXPO and ANPATEC.The name of the conference is not the only thing that has gone through changes over the years however, as its parent organization has likewise gone through some changes. 

First known as the American Newspaper Publishers Association (hence the ANPATEC name), and more recently by its current nom de plume of the Newspaper Association of America (NAA), they have been the organizing and guiding force for both the industry and this conference, making them in this case I suppose the family of the deceased. You see the conference, much like the industry it serves, has been suffering for some time from a wasting disease. Once drawing up to 20,000 people to its programs and exhibits, it now commands a dismal attendance levels of what look to be less than 1,000. With tough economic times in the industry (as everywhere else), little money is allocated for travel budgets to attend such meetings. 

Continued diminishing customer attendance and what I believe to me little better than mismanagement by NAA has fed a weakening presence by vendors as well, reaching a peak this year when many of the major organizations serving the industry pulled out at the last minute, even when realizing that the money for the booth space that they had purchased would be forfeit.  

There is work here to be done however, and those of us who have come out this week are trying to accomplish at least some of our required goals; but the lack of attendees makes it all but impossible to do the work that we should be or want to be doing. There is widespread recognition that as a consequence, that this will probably be the last year that any of us participate in this gathering. 

After many years, many adventures, and many stories from years gone by (all of which I am sworn to secrecy on), this conference has finally died a rather sad and ignominious death. It is left to those of us in attendance this week to its rotting corpse to do what we can to give it a proper send off. And so at some point this week we will quietly gather, raise a glass, and offer a sentiment for the passing of an old friend and the end of an era.

Slainte'

 

Fairness, It's An AM Problem

As would be expected of the Toledo Blade, long a mouthpiece of liberal ideology, an editorial was published in today's paper on the Fairness Doctrine. They did this, in typical Blade fashion, after publishing a couple of news stories on the subject published in previous editions. 

While the drumbeat continues on the concept that liberal (or progressive if you choose to use a different spin on them) ideas do not seem to get a proper 'airing' on AM talk radio, the focus of the attack in this attempted revival of the doctrine now almost cleverly places the blame on the ownership of radio stations. It's not that Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity nationally, or Fred Lefebvre, Brian Wilson, and Maggie Thurber locally are successfully competing in the market of ideas with their conservative viewpoints. It is that the evil ownership of their local outlet, Clear Channel Radio, is able to stifle competition through its massive ownership of the radio airwaves. 

On the surface, such arguments might hold water, as Clear Channel (according to the 2006 numbers cited in the editorial) owns 1190 radio stations. However, when compared to other forms of media, the argument begins to leak like a sieve. Clear Channel does own an AM radio station in Toledo, but not the only one. Compare this to the Toledo Blade, the only daily newspaper in the city. Extend the comparison further in the newspaper market and we find that the overwhelming number of daily newspapers in the US Market remain in very few hands. 

In fact some 37% of the daily newspapers in US are in the hands of a very few corporate owners in 2005 (and the number continues to grow). More importantly however, 67% of the circulation of daily newspapers resides in the hands of those same corporate owners.* In the intervening years, these numbers have likely increased, as newspapers continued consolidation seeks to reduce its overall production costs. With rare exceptions, all of the corporate voices of these newspaper owners take a more liberal spin on the events of the day. *These numbers come from the reports of the media group Journalism.org. 

As for television, There are still only 4 networks on the airwaves with a voice. ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC are the only outlets for television news and opinions for those without cable or satellite channels. Even if we expand this to include cable and satellite channels however, the outlook changes little. MSNBC and the Fox News Channel, whose ownership is already represented on the airwaves, does little to expand the horizon; and even adding in CNN and CNN Headline News adds only one new voice. Here too, only Fox News leans to the right when voicing opinions on television, and while this is hardly a balanced output, little complaint is made (except of course about Fox). 

Now we know that the local talk radio station WSPD, is almost constantly at odds with the opinions expressed in the Blade, even often resorting to the use of derogatory terms when citing it. Yet the Blade, as illustrated by the above numbers, sits on the side of the majority voice in media in the US today. Their echoing of the liberal point of view expressed in other newspapers and on both network and cable television is inarguable. 

So once again, it begs the question: Why is AM radio the only form of media whose ownership and content are coming under scrutiny? As happens far too many times in Toledo, I must conclude that it is because any opinions, other than that of the owner and publisher of the Toledo Blade, must be thwarted. 

For another take on the subject of the Blade's editorial, I suggest a posting on the same subject in Thurber's Thoughts.