Even as industry roils, press keeps watch on democracy
Thomas Jefferson’s 266th birthday came and went on April 13 without much notice by Americans.
At Monticello, Mr. Jefferson’s historic home near Charlottesville, Va., the U.S. Army’s Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps provided music, and wreaths were presented to honor the anniversary of Jefferson’s birth. The relatively modest pomp and ceremony were duly noted in the press.
Jefferson famously once remarked that given a choice between government without newspapers and newspapers without government, he “would not hesitate to prefer the latter.”
But in recent years, it has become more likely that the former might just come about for reasons other than preference. A worsening economy and the financial and social inroads of all kinds of new media—from “24-7” cable television to the omnipresent Internet to Twitter and its ilk—have battered the balance sheets, decimated some newsrooms and drawn away readers.
Defenders of journalism as we have known it quite rightly point out that print and also broadcast television still command large audiences and those outlets remain the major sources of news and information for most Americans, despite a growing charge to the Web led by younger readers and viewers.
Many also fear the switch from paper to computer screen will deprive us of the benefit of having the free press serve its fundamental role as a “watchdog” on government.
But not all feel that way.
Critics and pundits are challenging the idea of newspapers as democracy’s defender, saying voters can get information elsewhere and that citizens can track legislative acts and evaluate government policies via other sources. A columnist for Editor & Publisher, the industry’s own trade magazine, recently (and correctly) slammed the press-as-watchdogs who—as the headline over his column put it—“failed to bark on economy.” He and others also have noted the news media’s collective failure to expose bogus government claims regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
But we also need to acknowledge a number of examples in recent months where newspaper journalists were watching over and looking out for the public good. The latest Associated Press Managing Editors newsletter reports:
--In Fort Wayne, Ind., The Journal Gazette detailed the ease by which mortgage fraud and false filings with a county clerk can be committed even in today’s more-regulated marketplace.
–-The Dominion Post, in Morgantown, W.Va., continued to investigate and question the operations of a board that governs the city’s publicly funded senior center.
–-The Commercial Appeal of Memphis, Tenn., reported on contributions to the mayor’s annual Christmas party that wound up in the mayor’s pocket.
–-In Los Angeles, the Daily News reported on sizeable tax bills being sent to home-based businesses as a result of a faulty assumption.
–-The Spokesman-Review, in Washington state, found in a public-records search that prosecutors declined to charge a former sheriff’s deputy, in spite of having evidence of a crime, simply because the man was a veteran officer.
The APME list goes on, with newspapers from Dallas to Denver to Miami to Washington, D.C., exposing waste in government and dangerous trends in crime and health care. And then there are the hundreds, if not thousands, of government meetings, decrees, bills, plans and pronouncements held up to scrutiny each week in the nation’s dailies and weeklies, and on local and network TV news programs.
Missing the “Big Story” on WMDs or on the economic collapse were huge mistakes that deserve examination and criticism. And certainly the newspapers of Jefferson’s era were partisan, political journals that didn’t do much in terms of holding government accountable in a modern sense.
But Jefferson preferred “the latter” out of a belief that a free press was needed to provide a balance and a forum for citizens to get information and debate issues.
That even in very challenging times, the newspapers of our era have continued—and expanded—on such a Jeffersonian role is worth celebrating on his birthday.
Gene Policinski is vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Web: www.firstamendmentcenter.org. E-mail: gpolicinski@fac.org.

Apr 18, 2009 at 11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Formal journalism must not die! Newspapers must continue to exist. Radio and television newscasts must revert to solid journalistic standards and eschew the “flash and dash” that has become the style brought on at the urgings of consultants. And we, the public, must continue to support these long-standing forms of professional journalism, to make sure the truth has a voice.
Why bother in this age of Twitter and Tweet, blogs, and all sorts of instant internet communication? Because too often those postings are done without benefit of rounded research. The writers may not have access to various sides of a news story. They may take someone else’s opinion as factual, when actually it’s laced with personal interpretation.
When I broke into journalism more than a half-century ago, I continuously ran afoul of my college professors when my class exercises didn’t look at all angles of the subject matter. The same occurred when I was a cub writer/reporter for a major Milwaukee Radio-TV station news department. There I was mentored by some of the best broadcast journalists in the area, and frequently brought to task. The combination gave me a healthy respect for the work done by reporters trying to present the best all-round report of any subject matter.
Professional journalists strive to report all angles to a news item. The reason is to give their consumers as fully rounded a report as possible so a reader/viewer/listener can draw his/her own conclusion about where the truth lies. A well-trained journalist has an instinct about when he may be lied to about a subject. If lies are suspected, the journalist has sources which may help him work around that problem. The same situation exists when a source with information on a subject refuses to talk. The answer may not come immediately, but it will come and it will be reported in subsequent stories on the subject.
What about possible corporate “leanings” of a newspaper or broadcast news operation? In a well run department, those will not appear in the news stories. They will show up in the editorials. As for the personal leanings of writers, they will appear as individual columns, properly headed with the name of the writer, so you can blame him/her personally for the viewpoint.
This all comes down to “Support your local newspaper or broadcast news operation.” It’s the last bulwark of fully-rounded reporting. Without our support, even the best may fail, leaving us without even a chance of learning what’s really going on.
Frank Wicker
Beloit WI
WTMJ-TV News (retired)
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.