The Demise of Newspapers

Neil Macdonald, a CBC Senior Correspondent is a writer who I have long admired. His articles are always thoughtful, well written and more often than not, their tone or conclusions surprise me. His piece this morning however, on the demise of newspapers (CBC's web page) was pretty much what you would expect from a writer who got his start in the news business by being a print journalist.  Macdonald, like many other main stream journalist, bemoaned the reduction of staffing or the outright closure of some of Canada's newspapers. He is deeply concerned about the fact that mainstream media today is far more concerned about their bottom line; more concerned about pleasing their corporate masters than at any other time. Macdonald argued that writers and their editors are become more and more fearful of displeasing their masters and their public. In doing so, they are afraid to take on some of the larger issues of the day in case the newspaper's position proves unpopular and therefore their customer base is reduced further.

Macdonald is no doubt right that the media is under constant pressure to perform better with fewer resources. I am sure that the mega corporations who own the large chains of newspapers are primarily concerned, as Macdonald suggests, about how much profit they can take out of the newspaper rather than bringing to the light the multitude of injustices that permeate our world. Without question, the media in general caters to the lowest common denominator, Consequently we are fed an endless progression of mindless pap where self-declared celebrities are allowed to pretend that what they do is important. For those of us who want news, more and more of us are looking to other sources. If newspapers cannot provide comprehensive news or commentary that is both well written and demonstrates some critical thought, there is no point reading it. If one is obliged to wade through pages of non-news for the occasional nugget of real reporting then it is not worth the effort.

There is of course a consequence to those of us who enjoy good writing, critical news reporting and thoughtful analysis leaving the fold. It means that by the very act of leaving, we are weakening the position of the paper. That is,  as fewer and fewer people read the morning edition, the pressure is to titillate the remaining masses even more, which in turn drives away more discerning readers.

There is however an additional problem. For those who use the internet for their news, it is very easy to accuse mainstream media as only being shills for corporate America/Canada.  Amongst many groups whether they be  anti-GMO, anti vaccine, anarchist, anti-capitalist, pro Republican or armchair bound eco warriors, the assumed position is that the media is biased and therefore cannot be believed. The media in turn, because they are under increased pressure not to confront the very multi-nationals that either feed them (through advertising) or own them outright are at increased risks of sounding like the very shills they are accused of being. And so it goes around and around in ever diminishing circles where cause and effect lose all meaning.

I suspect that there is not a solution. Within a generation, perhaps sooner, large newspapers will not exist. And that is a pity if no other reason that those who praise the increased access to news via the internet have forgotten that all news reporting is biased. As every good sociologist or anthropologist who has ever done field research acknowledges, the very act of choosing the subject indicates a bias.

When we live in a world where news can be slanted to every possible bias, that does not mean that we have better access to the news -  in fact it could mean the exact opposite.