Web Letters: The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers

While it easy to blame others for our failures, to say the Internet is to blame for the demise of the liberally socialist newspapers mentioned in this story is only partly accurate. The main reason for their failure is due to the fact most people don't want to read their liberally biased and slanted views and opinions. Even the St. Louis Post-Disgrace, which has no competition, is barely surviving. And this is in a town where a huge percentage of people are Democrats. What that says is they have nothing to offer and people are tired of the same old message.

They need to get a clue and offer something people want. A perfect example: these papers try to charge anywhere from $1,000 to $2,000 dollars for a four-sentence employment ad when internet sites charge $150. They also might want to consider conservative journalists, since they write what people want to read.

Steve Snelson

Dublin, OH

The impending doom and demise of newspaper journalism is indeed in the tea leaves. Problem is that it woke up to this far too late and is projecting the proverbial blame finger at the wrong people.

Let's recall how newspaper journalism began. It was born on hand-punched typesetters and had a very limited circulation. The quality of the writing and its source are historically questioned. However, newspapers were the talk shows of the day, loaded with what was eventually termed "yellow journalism." Newspapers with a slant were commonplace, but existed, as well, to stir up the common folk and provoke uprisings of one sort or another. Or, unfortunately, to cast evil onto local citizens who possessed different thinking than the majority.

Today is no different. The newspapers are just larger and perform the same task, be it from the right or the left.

Who's been left out, however, are those people who were the dung of society in every way--enslaved blacks, railroad-enslaved Chinese, Mexicans whose country was greatly diminished by this country's policy of taking all the land from coast to coast, and most certainly the indigenous people of this land, who were victims of genocide-bent politicians, military leaders and land-grabbing Europeans.

Fast forward to the 1960s in the United States of America. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) created a relatively unknown but highly controversial decision that was bent to give voice to the voiceless, after Detroit, Newark, DC and Watts burned to the ground--in black, inner-city neighborhoods that were close to Dresden-like architecture before the riots even ever began. And the "strange fruit" hung far too often from Southern oaks while local whites sat on the ground with their picnic lunch, dinner--hell, may even have been breakfast or afternoon tea--while viewing this display of great American pride. Lynching Negroes virtually became a pastime from Indiana over to Maryland and straight on down to the Gulf of Mexico.

As much as this country tried to keep shut the mouths and mute the voices of people of color in this nation, as well as communists, socialists along with trade unions (who were just as racist in many respects), it was determined by the administration of President Lyndon Johnson to take a crowbar and pry open those mouths through the regulation entitled the "Minority Preference Broadcasting Policy Act."

This act provided for the creation of minority-owned broadcasting stations, radio and television, so that, paraphrasing from Justice William Brennan's last decision before his retirement from the bench, those people who have had no opportunities in the past to own and operate broadcasting operations may provide a diversity of views and perspectives. It was indeed in the public's interest to do so.

Meanwhile, magazines like Jet and Ebony provided employment for African-American journalists who were customarily locked out of any other newspaper, magazine or broadcasting station's reporter pool. While the Johnson company was growing ever stronger in its circulation, local newspapers sprouted like beautiful spring flowers in inner cities, even in smaller cities like Madison, Wisconsin. But, even there the press focusing on issues and positive events in the African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian communities are struggling to hold on, just as are local community newspapers in many other cities.

This voice is, once again, being muzzled, but it truly never existed in the mainstream press. Sure there are great editorial writers and reporters of color, but few wander through the maze of desks in the reporter's pool. Frankly, fewer people of color were reading those papers anyway, if Madison's experience is similar to other cities, which I can't believe it isn't. Madison's weekly newspaper, Isthmus, and the daily, the Capital Times, which lingers in the ICU, technically publishes three times a week while relying on their website to keep pace with the technology change in the information and news world. In Madison, the African-American community gains its news primarily from a local community weekly, the Madison Times, and a monthly magazine, UMOJA. The Latino community has La Communidad while the Southeast Asian and Latino communities have a bi-monthly paper, the Capital Hues.

As an op-ed free lance writer for Isthmus, I can tell you that feedback from the white community is plentiful; however, whenever I ask anyone from the communities of color, no feedback is provided, because many people of color in Madison do not read Isthmus or use it mostly for the entertainment sections of the paper.

When President Bill Clinton deregulated the Minority Preference Policy Act from the FCC, and allowed for one company to own both broadcasting and newspaper companies in the same market, that was the beginning of the demise of newspapers as we know it.

Smaller broadcasting stations were eaten up along with smaller town newspapers by the mega-media at the smorgasbord laid willingly for them like gentle antelopes for the lions and vultures to pounce and feed on. It went from one town to the next, then to the next, then to the next unsuspecting newspaper and radio stations, which eventually became mouthpieces for the far right; hence the dominance of the far right since Ronald Reagan became president, with Rush Limbaugh at his side. Today, the GOP is revealing its hand in broad daylight as it toys with have Limbaugh as the voice of the GOP, on the radio, television, Internet and in the party itself.

Ruppert Murdock, Times-Warner, Disney and GE are ripping apart the newspaper industry until there is no more except lots of money to fill their greedy little pockets. Whatever news technology lingers in the future, you can bet the mega-media giants will be circling around it like vultures and go in for the kill when ready, like lions.

Now, for the voiceless in major broadcasting and multi-market newspapers, they are relegated once again to the local community weeklies. And, in some way, that's not a bad place to be, unless they go down too, as it's feared for Madison's UMOJA. That magazine and the weeklies are published by the sweat and blood of volunteers and owners who expect to take a loss every year. But it matters more to speak out loudly in those publications than to be silenced by the dailies, who are getting their just deserved.

The Black Journalist Association has screamed continuously in its own professional manner on how people of color are few and far between in mainstream media companies. Now, turn your face and look into another direction. Don't just talk the talk or write the talk, walk the talk and be the progressive journalists you portray to be. The Progressive will soon celebrate its 100th birthday by throwing a big party comprised of a Who's Who list of leftist journalists. When I saw the list, no one of color was on the promoted list. If there is someone, then it's just the one and they didn't even make it to the front page of the promotional material. Otherwise, The Progressive is talking to its own belly button. And, that's where the left-leaning press usually is.

Steve Braunginn

Madison, WI

If the print media in America were truly independent, I'd agree with the authors that they might be considered for government assistance. But they aren't and haven't been since at least when that smarmy hypocrite Woodrow Wilson cast his evil pall across the pages of American history by forming an antiunion, prowar cabal with press barons and greedy tycoons nearly a hundred years ago.

Since, the norm is that the dictates of big business and the government it owns are to accepted and publicized without question. Sure, there are a few minor exceptions, but not enough to excuse the print industry. Let the presses stop and the papers go into the ashcan of history. They deserve no better, and at least we'll be free of at least one source of irritating propaganda.

Sam Thornton

Burwell, Netherlands Antilles

We've heard the Chicken Littles, running in circles, warning that the sky is falling. The demise of the Great American Newspaper is, with rare exception, blamed on everything except newspapers themselves.

Newspapers began their decline into irrelevance in the 1980s. The mantra at the time was that people were tired of all the negative news, and wanted to hear only the good news, the "talk up America" news. It's morning in America, and we want to dwell on how great we are!

President Reagan, a mediocre president as best, was "sold" as the new Superman. It was all so simple then... Poverty became a mere "lifestyle choice," our militarism was actually a campaign to bring freedom to the world, etc. In other words, newspapers began to teach us what to think, and let us know that if we thought differently, there was something wrong with us.

Newspapers rapidly deteriorated into becoming mere corporate/government spokemen. The most vital issues, from foreign to domestic policy, if addressed at all, were addressed within strict pro-business guidelines. We learned that selfishness is good, compassion is "namby-pamby," that low wages enrich everyone and workers' rights harm everyone, that the rich are over-burdened and that America's poor aren't poor at all.

In short, they lost touch with reality, with the everyday world in which we live.

Then came the cost-cutting bottom line. Investigative reporting was replaced with fluff and editorial opinion. News was replaced with pages of ads, recipes, fashion. By 1995, you could determine what was in any day's newspaper--and the perspective from which the issue was covered--before you opened up the first page.

Newspapers became irrelevant. As they saw their sales fall, they tried to blame everyone and everything except themselves, from the Internet to American ignorance.

If one approach fails, logic would tell you to try a different approach. If they want to get subscribers, they've got to learn just who the people are, and what they are concerned about. Rather than trying to influence mass opinion, they have to learn to listen and reflect what is actually relevant to ordinary people.

They must actually make the effort to regain relevance.

Diane H. Fabian

Fort Atkinson, WI

If "newspapers can't die fast enough," where will we get our news? Where will the right wing get its daily dose of outrage? Apparently, "liberal" straight news reporting doesn't tell the reader what to think and how angry they should get, so it is irrelevant. The founding fathers would be appalled. But instead of complaining or mourning the death of the fourth estate, why not solve the problem?

With the loss of so many local newspapers across America, I came up with an idea to save all of them, using the newest technology available. Download them to E-readers, like the Kindle 2. Think about it. You wake up in the morning, grab a cup of coffee and page through your e-readers news, downloaded automatically that morning via WI FI.

Here my big idea: Online papers are now a part of the electronic media, delivered via my cable line. Cable TV utilizes a digital box or a DVR to deliver in the information. Like those devices, the Kindle 2 and other book readers would allow subscribers to get their newspapers downloaded wirelessly every day. A partnership with reader manufacturers would allow subscribers to rent the reader from the news outlet for a small fee per month along with a small service fee for the news service. It would offer the local newspaper along with "packaged" national papers and magazines as well. This would benefit not only online papers but the daily "paper" versions as well, moving them into the future.

As bad luck would have it, my dreams of being a multi-billionaire have been dashed. See "Detroit Papers Testing E-Readers," on Editorandpublisher.com: "The Detroit Media Partnership...is testing the waters of digitally distributing two Detroit dailies with an electronic reader..."

Or "Hearst plans electronic reader for magazines," on Physorg.com.

There are other readers, like one coming from Fujitsu, with a price of $1,000, and the Plastic Logic eReader, due in 2010.

John Peterson

Middleton, WI

Everybody is aware of the gloom and doom surrounding the print press. As a compulsive seven-day newspaper reader, I worry too. On the other hand, I can't help noting some of the strategic failures of the print press nationwide, including such stalwarts as the New York Times and the Washington Post. Forget the build-up to the Iraq War for the moment. Speaking of the biggest failure, I wonder what would happen if the Post or Times--or The Nation--challenged three or four editors and perhaps a dozen reporters to take a hint from the muckrakers of 100 years ago. Take on the government drive to radically and pitilessly increase economic inequality since 1980, and especially since 1992.

What I'm talking about are the political policies of all three branches of government, mostly at the hands of radical Republicans, but also by the plutocratic-leaning Clinton Democrats. These policies deliberately and successfully aimed to exponentially increase economic and wealth inequality under cover of promoting "freedom" and "personal responsibility" and letting people "handle their own money." Under cover of these slogans and the "free market" and "free" trade, these policies actually gave much more money to the financially nimble and already very rich by tax cuts inimical to the general social welfare, while removing almost all financial and business regulation from those turbocharged with a virulent form of selfish rather than socially productive individualism. At the same time, equally deliberately, these policies aimed to increase the poverty and insecurity of the unemployed poor (by shredding welfare), the working poor (by freezing the minimum wage and increasing regressive forms of taxation) and formerly unionized blue-collar workers (by giving business the green light to destroy unions). The cover here was that these policies actively promoting inequality were good for these groups by protecting their "moral fiber," saving them from a "culture of dependency" and keeping away that arch-bogeyman, "socialism," ignoring the reality that with government-run veterans benefits, Medicare and, to a degree, Social Security, we already are and have been for decades a significantly socialist country.

Think of a seesaw in which one side is deliberately lifted up, while the other side is relentlessly pushed down. An appalling number of people--indeed most of the country, including almost the entire print press--swallowed this crafty and clever tale hook, line and sinker. Now from time to time over the years excellent columns on this radical restructuring of our society, and some very good books about it, have been written and reviewed in the print press, mostly to be read and clucked-clucked over by a few thousand people, and then respectfully retired to the shelf--I have a number of them myself. But what if a major paper broke from the docile nationwide flock of sheep and took on this core issue of unfair or loaded-dice inequality with its ferocious, shameless, arrogantly unapologetic winner-take-all entitlement mentality, and wrote about it four or five days a week for a month or so. A major sub-theme might be the stunning irony that we attacked the entitlement mentality of the poor while doing everything possible to embed that mentality in the consciousness of the lucky, the privileged and the talented. Could this be the ultimate reason for the plight most of us are either now in, or realistically fear? Think of this suggestion as the awakened good-guy counterpart to the decades-long bullying of the right-wing radio and TV "howling wolves" who successfully intimidated or brainwashed much of the public and almost all of the conventional press for so long. Which they are still doing, despite the global crash brought on by their propaganda and ideological warfare.

It's hard to believe such an effort to explore the inequality consciously and deliberately created over the last thirty years wouldn't capture the country's attention. And perhaps even put a burr under Obama's saddle, just when this promising young president appears to be making the colossal blunder of propping up and reinstating the plutocratic structure that made this crash inevitable, rather than crafting a genuine New Deal for the twenty-first century in the world's most important country. What do you think would happen to the circulation of a mjor paper or magazine if such a bold effort were made (as opposed to the cover story of Time that peddled the idea that "we" are all--presumably equally--responsible)? And what might happen to the circulation of the print press around the country if, reacting to this unprecedented initiative, copycat and catch-up efforts followed? Do you think we might have a robust, focused populist anger, rather than the opaque and inarticulate anger that the elite press seems to be so worried about? I say you'd have a print press worth saving, rather than the lazy, bloated, plutocracy-defending institution that's been asleep for over fifteen years on an issue even bigger and more fundamental than the pre-war story it botched in 2002-03. Worth a try?

Ron Thompson

Fairfax, VA

It is the duty of government to keep its citizens informed so they can make good decisions. The government must have a Department of Information. Corporations, lobbyists and even the government (the Pentagon, as mentioned in the article) spend huge amounts of money to spin their facts to the public. The public needs an institution that can equal this mass onslaught of misinformation. This can only be the government. The Freedom of Information Act is only the tip of the iceberg of what the government should be doing. Any request to the government for information about anything should be met with in-depth research and investigation. All institutions of learning and library systems should be coordinated by this department. The information should be accessible on the Internet and free high speed Internet access should be available to all for disseminating information and for retrieving it intelligently. It is the job of the Fourth Estate to prioritize and put value judgments on this information. The government should also have a "truth squad" where misinformation and outright lies are highlighted and controlled. If you are afraid of control by the government, you do not envision a government controlled by yourself--the people. This is one step in that direction. You cannot control what you don't know.

russ gustafson

Redwood City, CA

A day without newspapers sounds like the end of democracy. I'm sorry to be both simple and a doomsayer to boot. However, an "informed citizenry" is essential, as one of our forefathers put it some years ago, to a "functioning democracy." I'm betting even Sean Hannity wouldn't disagree with that statement.

This is excellent article because, unlike recent editorials and stories on the same subject, it begins with the premise that this is a matter of imminent concern--one which should be discussed not just by newspapers and those who read them but also by our government.

Yes, the reasons for the demise of newspapers and the printed word in general can be traced to many causes, some more obvious than others. The Internet's role is certainly one which persons more expert than myself will want to debate in the coming years. But the net is simply a format. It has more to do with technical and physical changes in our communications than in the communications themselves.

I can still read an article or even a book digitally if I want. In fact, some would argue, I have more and more reading at the click of my fingertips, thanks to my computer. Well... yes, this is like cable TV, in that "more" usually equals less in quality. But that's another story.

That said, commercial advertising and the cost of printing are surely contributing to the disadvantage of print media. On the other hand, the blogosphere and the culture's adaptation to it may one day seem a kind of hiccup or an interruption with regard to news and the reporting of news and information.

There will be complications both prolific and practical, local and general, in the transition from print to Internet such as who reads what by whom for what reason and, especially, who pays for it? Can news exist outside a format reliant on advertising? (Who can begin to answer these questions-- my age and limited understanding of the virtual/digital world vs. that which I grew up with gives me a distinct disadvantage.)

My son navigates the net like it's the wall become ceiling and he's Gene Kelly in soft shoes. For years we read books out loud almost every night until, at 12 years old, he asked me to stop. So he's literate enough. But books are not a medium he interacts with anymore. Books are simply different to him. He gets his "scoop" elsewhere. The medium and the message for him are not what they are or were to me.

Still, it seems true that citizens in a democracy demand information in order to remain free. Someone (who was it?) once said that "all politics is local." All newspapers were once local, too, until Rupert Murdoch, et.al., got hold of them.

If, the next generation of readers is more equipped to receive their information via a new format -- the internet -- and that format, unlike its print predecessor, is less dependent on commercial advertisement to thrive, then that is where we find ourselves. Once we were agrarian rather than industrial. Once we drove horses rather than cars. How did our Constitution survive those changes? It seems to have, and to have done so well -- perhaps because it was both visionary and down to earth, in addition to quite clear and literate in its communication, beginning with "We the people..."

I haven't got answers to my own questions here. However, the word literacy keeps popping back up. While it may seem politically incorrect to assert that our survival as a democratic republic requires a certain amount of literacy -- a comprehension of our government, our part in it, and our history, then I stand politically incorrect. I realize that it's easy for me to say. I received a college and post-college education, much of it owing to the Carter Administration and a time when subsidies for education were available.

Whereas, if I look to the left or right of me, in the neighborhood I now live in, it is clear that I got lucky, timing-wise. Education beyond high school in our country is not affordable or equal to this day--much like health care.

This is not even to mention that the likes of talk radio that caters to that exact segment of our population which considers education to be suspect, if not integral to the demise of capitalism. Limbaugh and the likes, Fox News, etc., blame higher education, either directly, in the case of Limbaugh, or indirectly (Fox News)for everything from abortion to the collapse of world markets! If it weren't for Harvard intellectuals, the thesis seems to be, our country would win all wars -- at home and abroad -- terror and bankruptcy and, well, you name it.

This is to say, thank you for this piece which gets to the heart of the matter. Education, like health care, is imperative to democracy. News and newspapers should be considered foremost in any discussion of a healthy democracy.

Barbara Molloy

Kirkland, WA

This article makes an attempt to distinguish between newspapers and journalism but ultimately fails at that. Many of the solutions offered are designed to prop up paper distribution. None of them will matter. Newspapers will die. It's inevitable. Oh sure, perhaps a few will survive here and there as boutique operations, but they won't be relevant.

Beyond that, the main problem with the prescription offered here is that it is a misguided attempt to maintain industrial age journalism in this new post-industrial age we're entering. As has been observed elsewhere, the pre-industrial style of many small players engaging in many-to-many conversations and transactions, as with the pamphleteers of old and with business in general, was largely displaced by industrial-sized operations in the 20th century. You could characterize these as one size fits all, one-to-many relationships, and we all became consumers of corporate products. As with automobiles and soft drinks, so it was with newspapers and broadcast journalism. It was in this environment that the concept of "objective journalism" became necessary, sometimes derided as the view from nowhere.

In many ways, the advent of the internet and the information revolution in general is making the world look like our pre-industrial past as much as it is remaking society into something new. This will be true for journalism too. News will be generated and distributed by interested parties, just like it used to be. Look to the political parties, associated political groups, and issue advocacy groups to begin investing in journalism to get their views out. As with FoxNews/MSNBC, citizens will choose the sources they trust, even knowing that the sources have a point of view. Judging by middle-of-the-road CNN's third place ratings, we actually prefer it this way. The monopoly newspaper is artificial, stilted, and really a dull read.

It is industrialized journalism that is at the heart of the many real problems with journalism that the article describes. While the transition to post-industrial journalism will be chaotic, that is no reason to keep 20th century journalism going. It's over.

Brian O'Connell

Columbus, OH

This is the most comprehensive report I have read on this subject. It is impressive, especially the part that describes the problem. In the proposed solutions though, they try to revitalize the media model that worked in the twentieth century for the twenty first, by using lofty socialism ideas straight from the nineteenth century.

Even if fully implemented, it will not work.

The damage is much greater than this report states. Not only is the quality of journalism in the United States today dreadful but also, after a few decades of feeding the public with diluted information and fluff, we have audience that is satisfied with trivia and Glenn Beck as a news reporter. Americans do not feel a need for better journalism than they have. John Nichols, Robert W. McChesney, me, and a handful of others are a tiny minority.

One needs to seek a solution in business models that acknowledge people’s gravitation to the internet as a primary source of information. The right solution needs to address as well that, when it comes to understanding the basics of dynamics of social and economic phenomena, most of Americans are -- kindly speaking -- undereducated. Lastly, the right solution should allow some people on Wall Street to make money.

I do not need to mention that I have one idea on hand.

I wrote on the subject, about the Chicago Tribune, and in response to the text by Walter Isaacson.

Henryk A. Kowalczyk

Bolingbrook, IL

Why should newspapers be allowed to die? The biggest argument is simply no one wants to read them.

Why is that? My observation was in the way the newspapers, the ones you want to save, handled Bush's policies and their acquiescence to his war and terrorism agenda. The Judith Miller incident did more damage to readership than anything else I can think of.

Most news papers, especially the New York Times and the Washington Post have been pretty much been controlled by the government, especially the military and intelligence agencies. When Bush was busy engaging in war crimes, where were these papers? Where was the outrage? Where was critical reporting? The papers acted more like the USSR's Pravda than real and free newspapers. Many of us haven't forgotten and believe that newspapers should be able to experience the "karma" of their actions.

To allow a "bailout" of such newspapers puts the news media more in the hands of the government. What if the newspaper that is critical of the government should experience a withholding of bailout money if it is too critical?

Putting the news media under this form of dependency actually threatens free speech and the independence of journalism. In other words, if journalism becomes dependent on the government for its operation, we will have a more Pravda-like media in America.

Journalism isn't dying--one of the biggest lies told. Journalism is actually flourishing and doing quite well. Journalism has been taken away from the "professionals" and from the hands of corporations that will bend over easily to the government to the hands of so-called "amateur" journalists and independent media that the government cannot control.

I'm sorry, I do not wish to read or buy corporate newspapers and do not wish to be forced to pay, with my tax money, for the government support of compromised and dumbed down papers.

Let them die and the sooner, the better for all of us. Journalism will thrive and there will always be plenty of journalists covering the real news. It may not be a "newspaper," but with an Internet connection, you can get news that is uncensored and absent from corporate control.

Josiah Phillips

Oakland, CA

It may be tragic that major newspapers in the United States are folding but there's still great reporting made available daily through blogs and websites. Many of us only read print at the airport when free wireless is not available.

Personally, I tune into FightingBob.com for a gritty analysis of local and world news. Also, I have found that AlJezera-English, which is available on YouTube, has reporters covering interesting stories abroad and locally. Good journalism is abundant and easy to find, you just need to discern what is spin. And that was always the case.

Karen Rybold Chin
On the Earth Productions, LLC

Oconomowoc, WI

After last week's exhibition of populist outrage and attempts to set executive compensation by mob rule, the authors' suggestion to rescue journalism with government subsidies has a particularly hollow ring. If the hallmark of good journalism is independence, that is not the route you would take.

I was particularly astounded to see the suggestion of municipal ownership as one of a number of potential saviors for newspapers. If you think that is a benign concept, you have no comprehension of local politics. I cannot imagine a small town mayor who would sit idly by if he saw his power being threatened by negative coverage. Likewise, I can imagine the newspaper's funding being forever threatened by opposition town council members who perceive the paper to be in the mayor's pocket.

Finally, I have to say the authors' prescriptions seem less about a progressive evolution of journalism than about trying to dial back to some imaginary, golden age of newspapers. I have a much more optimistic view of the plight of journalism. Like so many other institutions over the years, it is now in a period of upheaval. The weak will fail, but the strong will survive, and no doubt upstarts yet to come will one day be another generation's "Gray Ladies."

John Christofferson

West Dundee, IL

A U.S. taxpayer bailout of the same Big Media Monopoly conglomerates and their bourgeois press reporters/editors/gatekeepers/censors that acted as cheerleaders for the U.S. attack on Iraq and the Wall Street Bank bailout is an anti-democratic idea.

A financial bailout of the mainstream media conglomerates and their predominately white middle-class non-leftist reporters/stenographers would not benefit U.S. working-class people during the current economic depression anymore than has the Big Media Monopoly-supported financial bailout of the Big Banks and firms like AIG.

Under an imperialist, plutocratic political and economic system like we have now in the United States, a corporate welfare state-subsidized press in each U.S. city would just mean a print version of the kind of U.S. power elite propaganda that we're fed today by PBS, NPR and the BBC. People in the United States also do not now need a U.S. government-subsidized domestic print version of the Voice of America.

Instead, all the $60,000 per year U.S. journalists who are being laid off by the Big Media Monopoly conglomerates that are shutting down their unprofitable newspapers might consider just pooling their resources and forming new newspapers which are run as professional journalist-owned cooperatives, etc. and are free of either elite foundation or U.S. federal government financial and political control.

At the same time, U.S. newspaper production plants and newsrooms which are shut down by the Big Media Monopoly conglomerates should be immediately placed under local U.S. working-class community and newspaper employee ownership and run by democratically-elected community control boards. And perhaps some of these shut down newspapers could then start publishing again on a non-profit, corporate advertisement-free, uncensored basis and be freely distributed to local residents.

Bail out the People, not the Big Media Monopoly's pro-capitalist press!

Bob Feldman

Boston, MA

Messrs Nichols and McChesney long for something that, like innocence, when lost cannot be regained. The times, people and newspapers have changed. The newspapers are going away. The original 3 (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks will soon be out of the news business, at least officially. They actually quit the news business years ago. I am not certain that the narrower cable networks "news" departments will long be viable. I mean to say that it is not just newspapers and print journalism that are in trouble, but most of the organized reporting media.

The reasons for this are manifold. It will be a lot easier in fifty years to look back and see some smoking guns, but here are a few:

* Post literate culture. No mistake that 1977 is a birth year given as a marker for readers/non-readers. These people never needed to look up a box score, or read a recipe, or read about a new album. Declining literacy among this age cohort means that many cannot read the paper even if they wanted to. Video is how these people get their information.

* Easy life/easy money/physical ease. Now virtually everyone who wants it has air conditioning, cable, too much to eat, too much to drink, and all the free entertainment one could possibly use. Picking up a newspaper, reading it, flipping back and forth, folding it, all these things are just too much work for a lot of people. I still love the physical part of newspaper reading, but know (from asking all kinds of people about it) that I am in the minority. Reading the same publication on line is a completely different experience.

* Blown credibility. The press (and most but by no means all) of the journalists cast their lot with the soft left, and it shows. Coverage has been incomplete and obviously so on most issues -- right and left. This has engendered a general feeling of distrust of purportedly objective journalistic organizations. Expecting people to pay for the privilege of reading something they are pretty sure is incomplete, if not dishonest, strikes me as hopeful at best. The loss of confidence in journalists is something that will, in the very near future, contribute to a convulsion in this nation we have not seen in 150 years.

* Apathy. Most people just do not care. When an over-choiced, over-stimulated, semi-literate, vaguely distrustful, greedy bunch of people hear about failing newspapers and the end of journalism as we know it, they just do not really give it much thought. Would you miss channel 327 if your local system dropped it? Probably not. Do you watch the local access broadcast of the city council? Probably not. Would you miss them? Not likely.

These are such interesting times. The 1977 crowd (and many others, to be sure) depends on Stewart for real news, and Bono for their spiritual guidance, and Myspace to keep in touch with their "friends". Newspapers, the first draft of history, are going to miss out on some of the biggest stories in the past (or next) two or three hundred years. What a shame.

Brian Reilly

Tipton, MI

I scan and/or read about thirty publications from around the world daily and from all sides of the political and cultural spectrum. In the late sixties, I edited the student newspaper at Emory University in Atlanta and for a while, was a college stringer for the New York Times and, for a summer, edited weekend news on the largest radio station in the South. In high school, I covered local council meetings for a suburban weekly, and after college and after becoming "radicalized" and deeply involved in anti-war, civil rights, and labor issues, wrote articles for "The Great Speckled Bird". Subsequently I worked for over 20 years organizing public employees in over 20 states. That is my perspective.

I regret to say that overall journalism in newspapers and television stinks. Many are ill-informed. You can count on two hands the number of reporters who know anything about labor unions. They simply adopt the positions of management. As for the media's record on Vietnam and other wars of aggression through Iraq--give me a break. They are worthless. And the bloviating idiots on TV and cable have no accountability. Practically all journalism and opinion media is now directed toward a "niche", so let each "niche" finance them. Not one dollar from taxpayers. However, time to get more income from the right-wing bigots who control the airwaves.

Rodney Derrick

Durham, NC

I was born in 1947 in the segregated, dry (i.e., no alcohol sales permitted) state of Mississippi and later moved to Tallahassee, FL, Black Mountain, IL and Riverside, IL. As I grew up, I observed the impact of good amd great journalism. Much of it came from small, rurally located newspapers. As a result, I developed a positive bias toward news journalism.

As an adult, I always subscribed to a local daily as I moved around--Atlanta, Houston, Greensboro and, finally, Asheville, NC. In the 27 years I have been in Black Mountain, I have watched Asheville's two dailies merge and be sold twice, ultimately, to Gannett. And I've watched the quality (which was never high) steadily sink lower and lower. This was exacerbated by Gannett's purchase of my small town's weekly to eliminate competition. As a result, I dropped my subscription to the daily and then to my hometown weekly because of the poor local reporting. Furthermore, the new free, weekly independents have done a pretty good job.

Despite literally hundreds of letters and phone calls giving story leads and ideas to the steady stream of editors and reporters who have come through the mainline newspapers, I have rarely experienced much success. Why? It appears to me that it is mostly incompetent news journalism. I emphasize news journalism.

Neither the reporters nor their editors appear to have much grasp of topics upon which they report. They don't appear to do much research into the subjects about which they write except by asking "experts" for their opinions. And, they don't understand that most "spinning" is really dissembling--the hiding of the truth under a false appearance.

In short, they are wordsmiths who don't understand the meanings and power of the words they smith!

Finally, like the politicians about whom they report, almost none are open to any critical review of their work and, God forbid, capable of acknowledging even clear errors.

Let me end with an independently verifiable example.

Last summer, the FDA put out a warning about about potential salmonella contamination of tomatoes. The releases were one of the worst examples of obfuscation I have ever read. They were structured exactly the opposite of how they would have been if they were meant to be understood. Though only involving red tomatoes--slicers and two other types--the poor wording confused almost everyone who read them. It was reported primarily by slightly editing these poorly worded FDA releases. And, in a few cases including one day's updates by NPR, they were shortened inaccurately.

Unfortunately, this occurred just as our local, very important tomato crop came in. Though never even under review by the FDA, our local tomato sales--both wholesale and retail--were devastated. And our farmers who were in the second year of terrible drought were left with nutritious, great tasting tomatoes they couldn't sell even at $5 for a 25 pound box. The box cost itself cost $1.50!

NPR reported an FDA release that narrowed the search as broadening it. I immediately attempted to call NPR news and was told that it didn't accept phone calls until after 9 AM. It was then 7:35 AM. I called two local affiliates and they couldn't get through either. When I finally got through and pointed out NPR's error (including web links that clearly showed it) I asked that NPR issue a correction. As best I can tell, the NPR news twice hourly news summary was probably broadcast three more times reporting exactly the opposite of the truth. That same news summary was, apparently, posted on its website for, at least, three hours. Not only did NPR not issue a correction, it never acknowledged its error.

Later, mainline news journalism accepted as the source of the outbreak the supposed finding of one contaminated jalapeno pepper in a small produce distributorship after the number of reported cases had dropped off precipitously.

This poor journalism was led by the AP and tagged onto by almost every news outlet despite my efforts and those of dozens of others including state departments of agriculture, trade publications and an excellent web journalist, the Perishable Pundit.

In short, I have no question that large newspapers are in decline primarily because of crummy journalism.

Harry Hamil

Black Mountain, NC

How strange. I just wrote something similar at my blog (http://NABNYC.blogspot.com) about the need for a formal vehicle to fund progressive media. We need a progressive media alliance and trust.

Why do progressives tell working people that they must have a union, they must organize and act together as a group because when they're on their own, they have no power? Yet the progressive media is largely separated and acting as individuals, and seem confused as to why they have no power on their own. The answer is the same thing: we need to get organized.

For example, we need progressive radio, yet it has been relatively unsuccessful, apparently following the traditional model of relying mostly on advertising. But we need people like Peter Werbe, Mike Malloy (who's trying to go it on his own for now), Randi Rhodes, and I'm sure many others. As for blogs and investigative research, there are Common Dreams, Truthout, Danny Schechter's group, Truthdig, The Nation and Z Magazine. I would say the members should be people or groups who do not have traditional sources of funding, or don't have enough to keep going.

There should be a progressive media trust fund. A board which consists of progressives from the community level as well as maybe a couple of well-known names. Members of the progressive media alliance would be established at the beginning with a certain number of magazines, radio, blogs, movie makers, documentary filmmakers and maybe book writers. Each member would be required to devote time to public fundraising activities (like Habitat) and would be entitled to receive a share from the trust fund. For example, they could go speak at a local group, but the funds raised would go into the trust. New members would be considered as additional funding became available.

See the full article at http://NABNYC.blogspot.com

Nancy A. Butterfield

Camarillo, CA

We believe the meltdown of America could not have occurred without an assist from media.

Media should have been a bastion of truth. Instead it seems they sold their integrity somewhere along the way, pursuing a politically correct agenda, ignoring serious matters and feeding us Hollywood fluff pieces. In a seeming betrayal of the public trust, media shielded what was going on in the streets of America by their refusal to listen to the people.

From our viewpoint, media is as responsible for the financial collapse of America as politicians and corporate entities.

We tried continuously to expose what we saw happening in the streets. Media refused to hear us until in disgust we stopped buying newspapers and initiated blogs to communicate.

One simple example exhibits my point. At a community meeting, a roomful of citizens listened to a politician explain a development proposal, telling us the developer volunteered to pay $250,000, half the cost of the community plan rewrite, which was needed before the project could be considered. The community didn't want the project. We didn't need a community plan rewrite and didn't need to spend $500,000.

Public comment at the meeting unanimously protested it was conflict of interest for the developer to pay for the plan rewrite. The politician assured us it would be a lengthy process before anything was decided and approval was reached.

Contrary to what those who were present heard the politician said, the newspaper report of the community meeting said we approved the proposal. We did not. The newspaper report further changed the amount the developer was to pay from $250,000 to $75,000.

Citizens who didn't attend the meeting, of course, believed what they read. And those of us who attended wondered why what we heard the politician say was different from what was printed in the paper. And so it started.

We, who attended the meeting, protested the inaccuracy of the article to the newspaper. It was acknowledged the reporter didn't attend the meeting. We asked the reporter to issue a correction as to what really occurred at the meeting. The reporter refused, saying they printed what they were told.

Alerted, over the last six years we watched a blatant bias and consistent manipulation of news reporting, to the point that we no longer believe what we read.

We stopped buying newspapers. I don't know why the media find the simple answer so elusive. We feel betrayed. Every story that could have been told of the disaster we saw shaping up on Main Street, America, that was shrugged off as unimportant and irrelevant has contributed to the current situation.

We've submitted stories to every major newspapers. No one wanted to report a gun being put in a woman's face over a real estate transaction. They didn't want to report a senior's land being taken by cons. They didn't want to report developers' discrepancies or politician's conflict of interest.

Newspapers started catering to advertisers in favor of truth in journalism. Media sold out and contributed to the financial demise of America. I wouldn't spend a dime on a newspaper even if the Internet went down.

Ellie Simon

California City [?], CA

When thinking about newspapers and the Fourth Estate, the first thing to do is remember. The article provides fleeting remembrance of "our democracy." Remember our democracy before it began to take root. It began to take root not because of a bunch of journalists and newspapers but because the father of our country, the journalist par excellence Thomas Paine, wouldn't shut up. Remember when the anarchists were pushing for the eight-hour day, and the journalists and newspapers beat the drums till anarchists were hanged. Remember when Truman had a good relationship with Iran. And soon our democracy was allied with Saddam, and we supplied him with weapons of mass destruction. Remember when in 1980 the United States Cogress in effect declared Greed is Good. And "newspapers" are still trumpeting, "Greed is Good."

Retired United Auto Workers Local 774,

Louis Ricker

Italy, TX

I think the writers' perspective may be wrong. If you move the failing newspaper business from the center of the universe out to the periphery, as just one symptom of a larger disease, a much different picture comes to mind.

Last week David Brooks at the Times rather appropriately argued that the USA was the world's first "commercial republic." It was a simple lens to place in front of myriad disconnects we have come to accept without rigorous questioning. Are we really the democracy we pretend to be? Or, isn't it far more likely we are just an experiment in commercial development?

For more than fifty years a sensible majority of the public has wanted some form of universal healthcare. We still don't have it. Think of all the variety of administrations we've had since Truman. Don't you think there is something fundamentally challenging about beliefs in this republic? Too often we seek intellectual solace and comfort in romantic Founding Fathers historical dialogue. This merely serves to blind us ever more to the reality that evolved--Brooks's commercial republic.

In the commercial republic, then, CableNews, OctoMom, weather obsession and CNBC-style hype is precisely what you would predict from the model. In the commercial republic, Judith Miller and the NYT hyping the Iraq war is exactly what you'd expect to see. And closing down newspapers as unprofitable businesses would be no different to anyone than stopping production of the horseless carriage once the automobile was established.

Be very careful about advocating government involvement and subsidy of newspapers. They will be all too happy to accommodate. Think of the raw insanity of subsidizing the growing foodstuffs in Iowa to be used as automobile fuel in a world of starving people, and you will see how cleverly government-backed newspapers will fit the model.

Your documentation of the fall of journalism and newspapers is perfectly correct. It is your context that is dead wrong, and your cure. Let's make an attempt to look at this as an opportunity for correction, and see what might develop. First, this and the financial collapse, and the globalization collapse, might be signs that the commercial republic is a failed idea, an experiment gone horribly wrong. Maybe this leads to an entire re-boot of democracy. Messy, contorted, filled with missteps, but still a redefining moment?

How much more advertising can a person absorb in a day? Will expanding Cable to 10,000 channels really improve anything? How much more junk can people store in their home-warehouses before finding the total emptiness of this life? How much more job insecurity and outsourcing are people willing to accept? What if this whole thing just folds back on itself and collapses because "it" simply becomes a mirror which everyone sees into?

This moment might be the perfect moment to help the system crash and take part in a reset. The perfect time to stop romanticizing about Founding Fathers' long lost dreams and get with what really "is" and deal with it accordingly.

Mark Deneen

Eureka, CA

While this article has a few good ideas, the historical perspective is faulty, and maddeningly misleading. The article did not say, but strongly implied, that Thomas Jefferson might have used "Fourth Estate" to describe the newspaper industry. The term was coined by Macaulay after Jefferson died. Jefferson would not have used it anyway, since he was a republican, and the Estates-General were the bulwark of the ancien régime. Further, newspapers in Jefferson's day were nothing like what we have now, or what we had in the 1960s. They were usually organs of one party, or faction, or interest. The principles of journalism described in this article have historically been the exception, not the rule.

Peter Byrne

Rochester, NY

Here is another view on the same topic that is well worth consideration.

The government-support model doesn't seem to work too well in the present incarnation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; they know very well what side their bread is buttered on, and are careful not to offend their government and corporate masters. Matters seem much the same in the UK and Japan.

Alan D. Barbour

Fort Bragg, CA

I have been interested in journalism since I was a teen, and while I very much appreciate your analysis and suggested solution to the present media dilemma, I'm afraid you failed to take into account several other factors.

First, there's the problem of people (the public) not being all that interested in knowing what's actually going on. For the most part they're either not very interested in news in general or else they're quite willing to accept without question whatever version of news is dished out to them. Combine this with their desire to be entertained, rather than informed, and it's no wonder that TV news has become just another form of entertainment.

Second, given that capitalism reigns supreme, far outweighing values such as democracy and people's well-being, I don't think it reasonable to think that a journalism based upon such values would be any match for the forces of capitalism. That is to say, economic viability, including the need to provide substantial profits for publishers, out-trumps any and all virtuous motives.

Third, the people in power are highly motivated to limit the newsstream to information that serves their purposes. With so much deceit, corruption and collusion with the wealthy class, government leaders are likely to do whatever they can to make sure the public doesn't get an accurate picture of what's going on.

Add to this the fact that most people tend to rely upon whatever media source most aligns with their personal outlook, and it becomes highly questionable whether even a system that guarantees that all POVs will be readily disseminated would change our society into one where the populace becomes well-informed and political decisions are made more rationally than emotionally.

Glen Swift

Drain, OR

I agree completely with this article. Well, almost completely.

As the publisher of a tiny, struggling local newspaper--but a monthly--that provides in-depth news coverage not found in our corporate competitors' newspapers, I wonder why you think that a plan to limit subsidies to dailies is fair and unbiased?

We operate on a shoestring budget, literally almost, and usually provide more real news in our twelve to sixteen pages than our competitors (owned by the Tribune Company and Freedom Newspapers) do in their much larger community versions. (We're also online at www.ocvoice.wordpress.com.)

We barely have enough money to print and we are currently looking for new sources of financing so we can survive. Why should only those who are wealthy enough to get a five-times-a-week daily published get government support? You don't think that approach suppresses the views of poor working class in favor of the upper class?

John F. Earl
Orange Coast Voice

Huntington Beach, CA

I've been an on-and-off-again reader of The Nation for a very long time. While I rarely agree with your politics, as a newspaper reporter for almost two decades since graduate school, mostly in smaller newspaper markets far from major cities, I find it very helpful to read your magazine, The New Republic and the New York Times. And yes, that's often articles that get e-mailed to me, which means I guess I'm one of those nastya Internet freebooters, because I want to understand what America's "progressive" or politically liberal leaders are thinking.

And I don't think it's any surprise or insult to say that people on the liberal side of the political spectrum often do a much better job of writing a detailed analysis of the problems than comparable publications on the conservative side of the political spectrum.

For that reason, I was not surprised to see you writing a detailed historical analysis of government encouragement of the news media in America through required publication of public notices, and suggesting that something could be done to indirectly subsidize newspapers via a $200 tax credit.

In theory, I can't see how conservatives who push for educational vouchers for private schools would have a problem with your proposed tax credit, and it might just work.

But I urge you to think very, very hard before promoting that step.

You mention legal notices as an example of government subsidies. In today's media environment where newspapers usually are local monopolies, we may have forgotten about the 1800s, when Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall could use public notices to reward friendly newspapers and punish those they didn't like. Even now, the Derby Reporter in Derby, Kansas, lost its publication contract to the much more expensive Wichita newspaper because the county commission didn't like its coverage. GateHouse Media (the company for which I used to work at the Waynesville Daily Guide outside Fort Leonard Wood) pulled the plug from the Derby newspaper, which is now the third newspaper they've shuttered in the state of Kansas.

Your proposed requirement of publishing five days per week with twenty-four pages and a 50 percent newshole would be a godsend to lots of small newspapers that could only dream today of returning to that amount of content. But newspapers need to be very careful of what's essentially a taxpayer voucher for newspaper subscriptions, for the same reason that some Christian schools are concerned about vouchers: because they believe with government subsidy comes government influence and eventually government control. And while requiring a 50 percent newshole would be good for journalism, the next requirement to keep the subsidy might be very different.

Darrell Todd Maurina

St. Robert, MO

Well, after two pages of predictable excuses for the state of newspapers and an all-too-pathetic plug for real "journalism" of the left in both old and new "news," I finally came to the bailout part, the "well if the banks and AIG" part that really could have been summed up much sooner. Its just amazing how the left weaves conflicts of interest into even the most modest of gestures when its anybody else but can so earnestly rationalize government financial backing for themselves and journalism (or a Chávez-paid flight for Sean Penn) when the demands of real world resources are knocking at their door. It's as if Mr. Nichols wants to ignore the problem, ignore the resources needed and have someone else do that stuff because he's busy with the duty of Democracy. And that someone else is, well, those making over $250k.

Mr. Nichols would be better off trying to save newspapers by figuring out what they need to do to gain back readers, consolidate and get costs down via technology and efficient sourcing. Stop assuming that readers are disappointed with today's newspapers because they're not the hard-hitters of yesterday. That's nonsense, things have changed because people have so many options compared to taking a lunch break and reading the newspaper these days. Web, blackberries, cell phones, ipods, Discovery, NGC, SciFi, Bravo etc. All are taking up valuable time and that's on top of two-income households, playdates (we used to play in the streets) and seeing after grandma because those darn statins are keeping her alive into her 90s. Do you think the paper catalog business is off because people don't like them anymore? No, its been replaced. Additionally, there are some secular changes. Young people are not reading the NY Times because it costs money. They like their news flashy, self-gratifying and free, just like their downloads. The playdate generation wont pay for content because they just got a new Mac and darn it if that didn't cost money and on top of that Internet access costs money (although they are trying to end that too).

Hugh Maguire

New York, NY

I cannot believe someone would even suggest--never mind vigorously advocate--government support of newspapers. Never mind the constitutional separation issues, forget the whole concept of the government "sexing up" intelligence for media consumption, how about the fact that most of the mainstream media is blindly supporting the president already? Don't these daily conference calls between Stephanopoulos and friends bother anyone? Is this subsidy supposed to correct some imagined bias, or merely formalize the current arrangement?

It's also interesting to note how whenever liberals get in charge, they immediately set out to destroy and censor their opposition. I remember how the liberals got so upset when they learned that the Pentagon was actually providing "press packets" to reporters. That was just for convenience, but somehow paying journalist's salaries is less a conflict of interest? Amazing, the hypocrisy.

john robinson

Washington, DC

With the exception of a few egregiously corrupt media corporations, like Gannett, the problem is not the evils of the marketplace. The problem is that people no longer believe what they read in the print press. The first time television showed a Congressional hearing and viewers were able to compare what they saw with their own eyes with what their local (or national) newspaper said happened, newspapers were doomed. Add to that the obvious: newspapers and magazines no longer print the news; they print their version of the news, and at least since Watergate the motivating factor in most news coverage is not informing the public but straight old-fashioned power. If a newspaper can cook up a scandal, force a resignation, or a change in policy it has exerted power which makes it as important as the subjects it covers. People in a democracy tend not to like an institution which invents its own power, and can only function well by keeping the public in a constant state of fear or anxiety. If the New York Times said the sky was blue, I would reach for my umbrella. Newspapers cannot die fast enough for me. Rather than subsidize them, Congress should raise their taxes to 90 percent.

Robert Holladay

Nashville, TN

Shouldn't journalists be skeptical of any form of subsidy from the government? Regardless of how small these are, couldn't these subsidies become bludgeoning tools by the government to keep media in check? Wouldn't there always be questions about bias and credibility?

I think it is better for the Fourth Estate to eschew any form of subsidy altogether. Which is worse: editing a story to keep your investors happy, or editing a story to keep your Congressmen happy? At least some newspaper investors have allowed their newspapers editorial and content freedom.

Given that the most important job of the press is to monitor our government, I think it is better for America if modern journalism finds a way to cope with a new era in which their old way of doing things no longer works. Every other American citizen has had to adapt their skills to a rapidly changing commerical environment. Why should journalists be any different? The lure of government help to maintain an old way risks the press becoming what many quacks on both the left and right have called it for years... a shill for the government.

Brent Lundberg

Dallas, TX

I do not want to take issue with the thrust of your article: I fully endorse the view that in the absence of journalism we stare into a dangerous new abyss. But I would argue that the reason a certain type of content has become redundant over time is that is has simply not been practiced very extensively for some time.

We mourn the loss of "journalism" and yet the Western media have managed over the past ten years, to preside over seven years of a manufactured war and actively fuel a financial tsunami, while offering barely a murmur of dissent. How much worse could they have performed, I wonder? In short, we have little more than very well produced, wonderfully packaged junk for news for the longest time. They may still be called "newspapers," but I am not sure how many still deserve that description.

So now that people have become accustomed to a media diet without"roughage" and they can self-select their content, is it any wonder that they continue to opt for the shiny stuff?

The Fourth Estate was supposed to be our watchdog. But in the past decade it has done little more than sit on its well-paid arse while it watched us getting bitten. As sorry as I am that I will soon have no protection whatsoever, I just wish I could have traded in that dog for the real thing some time ago.

Luca Menato

Cheltenham, England, UK

I am not a gifted writer, but I have a thoughts regarding the comments to the article.

I found the information pertaining to the corporate laws in India, the fact that there are no big grocery or other kinds of corporate chains in general, and the resulting enhancement of freedom, to be very enlightening.

What I believe to be even more elightening is that in the USA we enhance freedom by giving the big and small newspaper entities the right to run themselves according to their own values.

Of course, this freedom to choose how to run one's business according to ones own values entails diversity of values, and the risk that those values may or may not lead to success or failure.

With a bailout, when a business is run according to the certain set of values and is successful, the profits accrue to the owner; however, when the same business fails the losses accrue to the taxpayers and their children.

I personally care more about my tax burden and my children than I do about some mismanaged newspapers whose values led to their demise.

Dirk MacMillan

Jacksonville, FL

Pretty good analysis of what is obviously an important problem. In my mind, I would add a great deal more emphasis on the idea that people no longer see most journalism as being on their side. How so? Well, the propaganda and right-wing talking points specifically designed to mislead people about the cause and nature of problems when these don't support the conservative moral and economic framework have demonstrated that these rags are not worth their time in many cases. Certainly some of this is caused by the career pressure most journalists feel from a heavy corporation-controlled political atmosphere. It seems to me that one of the solutions to this might be reform of incorporation laws, etc. In India, they don't allow big grocery or other kinds of corporate chains in general. This not only limits the size but it also enhances freedom, giving the smaller entities the right to run themselves according to their own values. When this country was formed, corporations were often granted twenty-year licenses and had to undergo regular review that they were acting in the public interest. Frankly, I think it would be much harder to force corporate conformity and propaganda on a population when more journalists are free to write what they actually think.

Erik Strand

Seattle, WA

From about 1950 through 1977, when I lived in Los Angeles, I read the LA Times. I would never have described it as a liberal paper, but as a family-owned local business, it kept going when numerous other local papers failed over the years. As with any business, it is helpful if you know your market, and Los Angeles is not like Chicago. One must always be open to change, but institutional memory prevents the reinvention of the wheel or repeating past mistakes. Corporate musical chairs may add to or detract from the bottom line for Wall Street, but a MBA does not automatically qualify you to run a business or earn a bonus. No institutional memory or brain are required! Just go with the latest fad.

I would also suggest that a journalism degree qualifies you as a writer, but it does not give you the knowledge base to write the story. While I am somewhat prejudiced, I would suggest an undergraduate degree in history. History is the major source for institutional memory.

While it is difficult to predict the future, it looks like the Internet is the future of the written word. While it may not provide you with an income, it does give you the opportunity to write without corporate supervision.

Pervis James Casey

Riverside, CA