Newspaper Layoffs Reach 7,000 in 2009, but Government Bailouts Are Not the Answer

We're not done with the first quarter yet and more than 7,000 people have been laid off from positions at newspapers in the United States this year, as detailed in the right-hand column of this web site.

That's about half the number of people laid off from newspapers last year, according to Paper Cuts, the web site run by Erica Smith, who has been tracking newspaper layoffs since 2007. In 2007, a little more than 2,000 people were laid off from newspapers during the whole year.

[UPDATE, 9:14 a.m. Eastern, March 28, 2009]: Smith commented on the 2007 total on her web site: "But the 2007 numbers I have aren't for the whole year -- I didn't start keeping track until June, and I'm sure there were more than that."

While large metropolitan newspapers such as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Rocky Mountain News have ceased print operations, the most devastating effect will be felt in the small towns across America where weeklies and small dailies have been forced to shut their doors or greatly deduce their staffs.

These communities relied on their local paper for news about school boards, local zoning boards, city councils and area organizations. As regrettable it is that great newspapers in Denver and Seattle are gone, residents in those cities have alternative media sources to get information. People in places such as Mount Vernon, Wash.; Stamford, Conn.; Germantown, Pa.; and Newton, Mass., have seen deep cuts in their local papers or seen them disappear completely. That leaves a void in those communities and others that will be hard to be replace. There is nothing more important to residents than news about what local boards and councils are doing. Democracy itself takes a step backwards without that single watchdog reporter religiously attending meetings or pouring over records. In communities everywhere, government agencies are finding themselves free of the burden of accountability and transparency as newspapers disappear from the landscape.

John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney recently wrote a tremendous article in The Nation that explores this notion ("The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers," March 18).

So this is where we stand: much of local and state government, whole federal departments and agencies, American activities around the world, the world itself--vast areas of great public concern--are either neglected or on the verge of neglect. Politicians and administrators will work increasingly without independent scrutiny and without public accountability. We are entering historically uncharted territory in America, a country that from its founding has valued the press not merely as a watchdog but as the essential nurturer of an informed citizenry. The collapse of journalism and the democratic infrastructure it sustains is not a development that anyone, except perhaps corrupt politicians and the interests they serve, looks forward to. Such a crisis demands solutions equal to the task. So what are they?

Plans of newspapers joining the ranks of nonprofits and/or receiving Obama-bucks in a congressional bailout put the newspaper industry on uneasy footing. Nonprofits (501(c)3) are prohibited by IRS tax code to participate in politics. This could make voicing editorial opinions on politics (or even covering politics for that matter) questionable. It's also not hard to imagine that a news organization that receives federal or state financial assistance would not be as aggressive as a watchdog.

So, what is the answer? That's a $64 million question. The free market still has to play out. Journalism is not dying per se, just changing. As it did in the '50s and '60s when radio gave way to television, and in the '80s and '90s when over-the-air television gave way to cable, newspapers are now giving way to the Internet. Government handouts and tax status changes are not the answer. Entrepreneurs will have to find a way for local communities to get the news they need and deserve.

Obama Press Conferences: More Show, Less Transparency

President Barack Obama has had two press conferences so far, and both of them were more of an exercise in public relations than they were a demonstration of a free and aggressive press seeking answers to tough questions from the leader of the free world.

As a campaigner, then-Sen. Barack Obama was a master at conveying his message, one of hope for Democrats and change for everybody during the next four years. One of the cornerstones of his campaign was that he pledged to open up the White House and be a more transparent president than his predecessor. But the reality of the first two months of his administration has not borne that out.

His own web site is a head scratcher. The page that listed his transparency promises now has the message "The page you requested is not available right now." His press office has stonewalled journalists from offering up basic information such as the president's daily schedule and the spelling of a press officer's name. During the first week on the job he did a walk-through of the White House press room and was stunned that reporters fired questions at him. A reporter had to audacity to ask about the deputy defense secretary whom Obama has appointed. The appointee had lobbied for Raytheon, but Obama' had just issued new rules against lobbyists coming to work for him. Obama responded: "I came down here to visit. I didn't come down here -- this is what happens. I can't end up visiting you guys and shaking hands if I am going to grilled every time I come down here."

Well, that accelerated his learning curb. Stay away from reporters who are trained to ask tough questions, and limit appearances to "web town-hall meetings" or news outlets that are either friendly or not accustomed to dealing with the president and willing to accept any condition to get an interview. This policy has been so fruitful for Obama that he is constantly avoiding White House Press Corps reporters. He originally cancelled the traditional head-of-state photo-op-and-question session when British Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited, only to arrange a short Oval Office opportunity when Brown requested it. Recently he was given a "Newsmaker of the Year Award" by a newspaper association during a White House ceremony that was, ironically, closed off to working journalists.

It all plays into his communication strategy that was developed during the campaign: Bypass the media when you can and go straight to the public via the Internet or other methods. It worked like a charmed as he ran for president because he was not challenged on it. Candidates can do that, it's their choice. It was brilliant, and he pulled it off flawlessly.

But presidents need to be accountable. If the last eight years taught us anything it should be that.

So the communication strategy now continues at press conferences. Reporters are preselected. Traditionally, reporters at a press conference, especially at the White House, aggressively raise their hands to be called upon. Generally they are allowed a follow-up question. These follow-ups are often tougher questions than the first because they zero in on a point that the president may have slipped up on while answering the first question.

But now as reporters are preselected, aggressive questioning is minimized. There is no need to be forceful when asking a question if you know your time will come. The questions then tend to be softer, easier for the president to handle. (Reporters with tougher questions tend to be more aggressive in getting answers, this method of lining up the questions eliminates that). Heck, if you're not on the preselect list, your actually playing into his hands. The image of a full room of reporters is a plus, even if 90 percent of them have not business being there except to sit in a chair and stay quiet.

He also has the advantage of picking questions from reporters he knows are not going to upset his message too much. By picking B-list agencies such as cable outlets and magazines, he further increases the chances he can stay on message. In his first press conference he got a question about A-Rod for goodness's sake. Robert Gibbs couldn't have been more pleased.

The president promised transparency. The American public deserves transparency in a time when trillions of their money are being spent on questionable bailouts. Manipulating the press and dragging your feet on the basic release of information is not the way to go about it. It's time Obama kept his promise and provided an open and robust opportunity to face sound, tough questions from journalists who know how to ask them.

Federal Aid for Newspapers Would Ban Political Endorsements

Here's some help that should be filed under the "Thanks, but no thanks" category.

Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) has proposed legislation that would give financial aid to failing newspapers, but there is a catch. Newspapers taking the cash would be banned from publishing political endorsements.

"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," Cardin told Reuters.

The Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies. Like all other 501(c)3 organizations, newspapers would be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Many news organizations are considering nonprofit status as a way of surviving these tough times. But nonprofits do operate under a different set of rules. Instead of saving newspapers, a move such as this could turn them all into shoppers. Not that shoppers are bad, they serve a legitimate purpose. But they are not journalist endeavors.

Obama Avoids Leading Newspapers at Press Conference

In keeping with his overall news management strategy, President Barack Obama avoided taking questions last night from the traditional major newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times at his second news conference of his term. It's clearly an effort to control the message, not answer the questions.

Not that the 13 journalists who did have an opportunity to ask a question come from unknown organizations. But there is a clear pattern to skip over "the elite" media in favor of others in order to try to control the message. He did hit the Associated Press, the three major networks, CNN and FOX.

And no, there was no question from Helen Thomas this time around.

In order, here is the list of people he called on:

Jennifer Loven of The Associated Press, Chuck Todd of NBC, Jake Tapper of ABC, Chip Reid of CBS, Lourdes Meluza of Univision, Kevin Baron of Stars and Stripes, Ed Henry of CNN, Major Garrett of FOX News, Mike Allen of POLITICO, Kevin Chappell of Ebony, Ann Compton of ABC Radio), Jon Ward of the Washington Times and Stephen Collinson of Agence France-Presse.

Obama told reporters that he expects the American public to strongly support his efforts for unprecedented regulatory authority over financial institutions that are not banks. He also said Americans "cannot afford to demonize every investor who seeks to make a profit." The natural follow-up question would have been: Is there any other kind of investor other than one who seeks a profit?

He is currently asking for broad new powers to regulate nonbank entities such as troubled insurer American International Group. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified Tuesday about the plan.

Obama said his reasoning is that the absence of such authority contributed to AIG's current difficulties. He compared such oversight to the federal government's regulation of the banks.

He also suggested he could agree to a short-term compromise concerning a middle-class tax cut and a carbon-emissions cap.

Here is part one of the text of the press conference, here is part two, and here is part three.

Pew Center: 1 in 5 Journalists in 2001 Is Now Out of the Business

Pew Research Center released its 2009 State of the Media Report last week. It's pretty ugly:

Newspaper ad revenues have fallen 23% in the last two years. Some papers are in bankruptcy, and others have lost three-quarters of their value. By our calculations, nearly one out of every five journalists working for newspapers in 2001 is now gone, and 2009 may be the worst year yet. [A personal note, I'm one of the five. --- Jeff P.]

In local television, news staffs, already too small to adequately cover their communities, are being cut at unprecedented rates; revenues fell by 7% in an election year -- something unheard of -- and ratings are now falling or flat across the schedule. In network news, even the rare programs increasing their ratings are seeing revenues fall.

The ethnic press is also troubled and in many ways is the most vulnerable because so many operations are small.

Only cable news really flourished in 2008, thanks to an Ahab-like focus on the 2008 election, although some of the ratings gains were erased after the election.

Perhaps least noticed yet most important, the audience migration to the internet is now accelerating. The number of Americans who regularly go online for news, jumped 19% in the last two years, according to one survey; in 2008 alone traffic to the top 50 news sites rose 27%.

CBS' Kroft Asks Obama "Are You Punch-Drunk?"

Steve Croft took an aggressive approach in his "60 Minutes" interview with President Barack Obama tonight.

“You're sitting here. And you're ... you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, ‘I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money.’ How do you deal with ... I mean: explain ...” Kroft asks.

“Are you punch-drunk?” Kroft says.

“No, no. There's gotta be a little gallows humor to get you through the day,” Obama says, with a laugh.

No matter what you think of the policies, it's seems to be a bit of a low blow to ask the president of the United States if he's "punch-drunk."