With the Decline of Traditional Journalism in California There is a Challenge

But there is no denying that we are in troubling times, much like in the 1960's when the world was turned upside down. There is a real loss here, as we will continue to be reminded of as the days go by and we learn the identities of those who are no longer working for various newspapers in the state. As an avid reader of print journalism who very much appreciates the dedication to standards and the integrity of the vast majority of "reporters," I am saddened by the layoffs, the thinner newspapers I subscribe to, and the consolidation in that medium that means there are fewer voices, fewer analyses, and fewer points of view on issues I care about.

Reading the "papers" on line, I find more and more of the same articles with different headlines. On some days, there are less than 20 articles in the dozen or so major papers in the state that have a bearing on California issues and politics, even with a liberal (in the non political meaning of the word) screen that I use when posting links to them on this site for others to read. That is not sufficient for a state of 37 million people, the size of many countries, and for an informed citizenry.

We can't forget that much of the mainstream media have been filled with "pap" and infotainment, and this has predated the internet. I too mourn the loss of the lengthy analytical political pieces I remember reading as a youth in the Los Angeles Times, which then as a daily was about as large as many Sunday papers are today. I miss the monthly California Journal. I would caution those who either romanticize the greatness of the newspapers in California or uncritically bash them to recognize and acknowledge both the strengths and weaknesses of the ink and paper press.

I also would ask for the same thoughtful differentiation and analysis for the internet as a medium of news, information, and opinion, with both good, bad, and that in between, being published on a minute by minute basis. Marshall McLuhan said that "The medium is the message." I'm not sure about that either, but there is an intimacy--the ability to comment on, critique, and have a bit more of a dialectical process--in the medium of most websites.

But it's a mixed up world as "blogs" appear on newspapers on-line and journalistic articles appear on internet sites that would not make it into "print" because of the lack of space in the shrinking "news hole." Even before the papers became thinner, it was difficult getting a letter to the editor or an op-ed piece printed. The biggest advantage of the internet is the space it provides to publish longer pieces and a greater variety of material. This is also the biggest disadvantage, as anything can be and will be put up on the net and on many sites an "editor" performs much the same function as others at a newspaper would be engaged in.

There are other media that have threatened the captains of the printing press. Television and radio were seen as upstarts in their infancy, and there were disputes by the Capital Correspondents Association here in California over whether they should be credentialed as "reporters." While generally the broadcast media have given shorter glimpses into politics and public policy in this state and in the country, there are exceptions. CSPAN, the California Channel, public radio and television, and public access channels allow for longer and sometimes unfiltered content to be viewed or watched.

Is there a synergy between the mediums--old and new--that should be recognized? Are Google and other news aggregators helping to prop up the "old" medium of "print" journalism by prompting those surfing the net to go to the SFGate site of the Chronicle and other papers where advertisements and therefore revenue go to the publishers of the content? I think so every time I provide a link. What is the difference between this and the TV guide that appears in the papers? If a paper doesn't want to have aggregators introduce folks to their articles and inveigle them to go there, they can choose not to put their articles up on the web in electronic form.

A big problem here is economics. And it affects not only those with the millions and billions who own the printing presses and means of distributing paper; it directly impinges upon the ability of the "new" media to provide content as well. Earlier this year, part of the Sacramento Bee's political reporting went behind a "pay wall" and is available only by subscription. There is a trade-off here, though, between the mass distribution of content with many eyeballs for advertisers and the attraction of public interest and currency and the selectivity and income by the subscription requirement. The average reader loses out if there is not the incentive of internet advertising or some other financial arrangement to make well written and researched content available to them.

There is a challenge in what Neil Henry has written--to maintain and improve upon standards and ideals others have strived (sometimes) to follow. We live in interesting times and there is no going back. The genie won't fit in the bottle. The old idol has been broken. With freedom comes responsibility.

Your thoughts on this are appreciated as this is a continuing area all of us should be concerned about. If you are interested in submitting an article on this, please do so through the contact section of the site right under the masthead.

For articles on the media, especially the layoffs at the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times and controversies about the new media including this site, check out what we have written by clicking here.