The news business of 2019 is a far cry from the news business of 1919.
The news business of 2019 is a far cry from the news business of 1919.
There has been some unquestionable progress in the industry. For example, the days of the Hursts and the Pulitzers are behind us (although some may argue that there have never been better days for “yellow journalism”), and the newspaper and broadcast journalism as mediums have survived and even thrived in the face of the growth of the internet.
Yet, it would be foolish to say that these are happy times in the Fourth Estate. In recent years, the always-tense relationship between the presidency and the media has boiled over in the current administration into all-out rhetorical warfare between large swaths of the press and the president. This, coupled with other factors, has ushered in hard times for the news industry.
Trust in mass media, according to a recent Gallup poll, sits at around 40%. Meanwhile, newspaper circulation is at its lowest levels since 1940, the audience for local cable news is in decline, and traffic to online news websites appears to have hit a plateau, according to recent Pew Research.
A functioning and vibrant news industry is one of the key facets of American democracy, but as the years drag on we see our free press becoming more dysfunctional and losing all traces of vitality. To rebuild the American news landscape, perhaps the best place to start is close to home.
As this writer sees it, the three main factors leading to the decline in the fortunes of the national news media are intense political polarization and partisan grandstanding coupled with a wide-angle, world-spanning focus that leaves large swaths of the country alienated from the news and those who cover it and an increasing concentration of news corporations into the hands of fewer and fewer people.
Making an effort to source your news locally has the potential to alleviate all of these factors.
It might be reasonably asked how switching to local news helps avoid political polarization, but the facts are in. Just to cite one example, a study in the Oxford Journal of Communications found districts that don’t have a local newspaper are 2% less likely to have split tickets in senatorial and presidential elections.
That doesn’t sound like much, but it’s statistically significant and translates into thousands of individuals whose political views have been shaped by a “nationalized” news perspective. It could make the difference in whether a district swings one way or another, which could even swing a state and therefore a national election.
Experts studying politics in news seem to agree that local newspapers and local stations are, in general, less partisan in their presentation of the news. This makes them a good counterweight to national sources like The New York Times who, in a recent high-profile example of political pandering, changed a headline for a story about the El Paso shooting from “Trump urges unity vs. racism” to “Assailing hate but not guns.”
Another good reason to support local newspapers and stations is their capacity to effect real change and for their audiences to participate in that change. National news sources may dedicate ink and air time to cover important national events like Californian wildfires, but these events mean little to people in rural Louisiana or Portland. Over time, a constant focus on distant catastrophes gives consumers of national news a feeling of impotent anger or nervousness.
Major events, good or bad, are happening around the country, but they can do nothing either to avert them or contribute. This is not so with local events, which can give citizens opportunities to become involved in civic life or volunteer efforts, turning their anger, fear and anxiety into productive energy for the community.
Then there is the problem of increasing monopolization in media. As the news business has become less lucrative, mergers and consolidations have created a situation wherein only a few major companies own not only most of the news corporations, but most of broadcast television in general. This has had an effect not just on national television news, but also their local affiliates.
Take, for example, the growth in local television of the Sinclair Broadcast Group which is generally regarded to be conservative-leaning and has been accused of inserting conservative messaging into affiliate coverage by critical left-leaning sources like Vox and The Washington Post.
Similar acquisitions have also encroached on local print journalism. In the face of economic consolidation, and thus consolidation of information, citizens should support the remaining independent local sources, giving them the funds that they need to continue to operate as a business.
Here on campus, you can support independent journalism by reading The Pacer for free, but The Pacer is only a small resource for the relatively small community of UTM.
As you graduate college and go out into the world, I encourage you to look to your local news sources and remember that, in a free society, lasting and significant change is only possible from the bottom up.
There has been some unquestionable progress in the industry. For example, the days of the Hursts and the Pulitzers are behind us (although some may argue that there have never been better days for “yellow journalism”), and the newspaper and broadcast journalism as mediums have survived and even thrived in the face of the growth of the internet.
Yet, it would be foolish to say that these are happy times in the Fourth Estate. In recent years, the always-tense relationship between the presidency and the media has boiled over in the current administration into all-out rhetorical warfare between large swaths of the press and the president. This, coupled with other factors, has ushered in hard times for the news industry.
Trust in mass media, according to a recent Gallup poll, sits at around 40%. Meanwhile, newspaper circulation is at its lowest levels since 1940, the audience for local cable news is in decline, and traffic to online news websites appears to have hit a plateau, according to recent Pew Research.
A functioning and vibrant news industry is one of the key facets of American democracy, but as the years drag on we see our free press becoming more dysfunctional and losing all traces of vitality. To rebuild the American news landscape, perhaps the best place to start is close to home.
As this writer sees it, the three main factors leading to the decline in the fortunes of the national news media are intense political polarization and partisan grandstanding coupled with a wide-angle, world-spanning focus that leaves large swaths of the country alienated from the news and those who cover it and an increasing concentration of news corporations into the hands of fewer and fewer people.
Making an effort to source your news locally has the potential to alleviate all of these factors.
It might be reasonably asked how switching to local news helps avoid political polarization, but the facts are in. Just to cite one example, a study in the Oxford Journal of Communications found districts that don’t have a local newspaper are 2% less likely to have split tickets in senatorial and presidential elections.
That doesn’t sound like much, but it’s statistically significant and translates into thousands of individuals whose political views have been shaped by a “nationalized” news perspective. It could make the difference in whether a district swings one way or another, which could even swing a state and therefore a national election.
Experts studying politics in news seem to agree that local newspapers and local stations are, in general, less partisan in their presentation of the news. This makes them a good counterweight to national sources like the New York Times who, in a recent high-profile example of political pandering, changed a headline for a story about the El Paso shooting from “Trump urges unity vs. racism” to “Assailing hate but not guns.”
Another good reason to support local newspapers and stations is their capacity to effect real change and for their audiences to participate in that change. National news sources may dedicate ink and air time to cover important national events like Californian wildfires, but these events mean little to people in rural Louisiana or Portland. Over time, a constant focus on distant catastrophes gives consumers of national news a feeling of impotent anger or nervousness.
Major events, good or bad, are happening around the country, but they can do nothing either to avert them or contribute. This is not so with local events, which can give citizens opportunities to become involved in civic life or volunteer efforts, turning their anger, fear and anxiety into productive energy for the community.
Then there is the problem of increasing monopolization in media. As the news business has become less lucrative, mergers and consolidations have created a situation wherein only a few major companies own not only most of the news corporations, but most of broadcast television in general. This has had an effect not just on national television news, but also their local affiliates.
Take, for example, the growth in local television of the Sinclair Broadcast Group which is generally regarded to be conservative-leaning and has been accused of inserting conservative messaging into affiliate coverage by critical left-leaning sources like Vox and The Washington Post.
Similar acquisitions have also encroached on local print journalism. In the face of economic consolidation, and thus consolidation of information, citizens should support the remaining independent local sources, giving them the funds that they need to continue to operate as a business.
Here on campus, you can support independent journalism by reading The Pacer for free, but The Pacer is only a small resource for the relatively small community of UTM.
As you graduate college and go out into the world, I encourage you to look to your local news sources and remember that, in a free society, lasting and significant change is only possible from the bottom up.
Photo Credit / Pacer Photo
