The trouble with America’s press
American newspapers losing readership because they are stuck in the 1960s
Something bad is happening to America’s print journalism. The press’ miserable state is reflected in its financial statements (the New York Times group recently reported quarterly losses) and is attributed to advertising budgets being diverted from the press to the Internet.
Yet this is not the reason for the crisis; rather, it’s the result: America’s print journalism is losing readers and advertisings because business-wise, politically, and culturally it is stuck in the 1960s. It is overly serious, its stories are too long, its style is patronizing, and it avoids essential geographical reorganization.
For example, who needs the Boston Globe, a newspaper published by the Times group while sustaining heavy losses? The media distance between Boston and New York does not justify the newspaper’s existence. The same is true for Philadelphia or Baltimore newspapers. Instead, what is essential to the future of the American press is the existence of powerful national newspapers with local editions. That way, they will also be profitable.
The combination of a geographical split, subjugation to political correctness, and an elitist discourse has made the American press boring and unreliable, and has resulted in declining readership.
For example, let’s examine its failed handling of three contemporary affairs.
The Iraqi blindness: When President George W. Bush prepared public opinion in his country for war in Iraq, the American press followed him blindly. The most fundamental question: What will happen in Iraq after the victory - wasn’t even asked. The newspapers assumed that the war will be long and brutal, and that victory will not come quickly, and this is what newspapers dealt with. They did not doubt alleged revelations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and seemed to be more surprised about Saddam Hussein’s fall than Saddam himself.
Now, the picture has changed the other way. The American press is united in the view that the campaign in Iraq is a “defeat,” and therefore no fact that could undermine this total approach makes it to the pages of the newspapers. When the Iraqi army and government were finally able to overcome and disarm the “Sadr Army,” the Islamic Shiite gang, the achievement was presented as a defeat and an “inexplicable tactic.” Meanwhile, the American Guantanamo detention camp is described as if it was Auschwitz, if not worse, by the American press.
The financial confusion: The financial analysts of most American newspapers did not warn their readers about the real estate bubble and the unbearable lightness of risky mortgages. The economic struggles of the middle-lower class do not interest the press. And when the financial earth under their feet started shaking suddenly, they lost their journalistic balance.
A week of falls in Wall Street prompted headlines declaring a depression “like the one in 1929.” The American press got caught up in the storm, did not make an effort to present independent and balanced financial positions, and relied on outside analysts and experts with personal interests.
Obama’s glorification: Democratic candidate Barack Obama captivated America’s newspapers to the point that their love for him (through no fault of his own) has turned into a cult of personality.
The finest writers attribute to him the traits of the Sun of Nations, Messiah King, and Abraham Lincoln combined, while resorting to embarrassing expressions of adoration and flattery.
One such record was recently reached by Time Magazine in a story about Obama’s mother, an adventurous young American woman who left her son to be raised by his grandparents. Time refers to her as a “dreamer” and calls Obama “his mother’s son.” The article is replete with expressions that are reminiscent of the fantastic childhood tales of communist leaders as presented by the Soviet press.
The American press, which in the past prided itself on its ability to distinguish between facts and opinions, is now joyfully mixing them up. It has not yet come to terms with the fact that in the era of Internet and multi-channeled TV a newspaper has no advantage in bringing “reports from the ground” or “telling a story” – other media outlets are doing a much better job.
Print journalism should be helping its readers understand the drama of the highly complex life in the early 21st Century, without simplifying it too much, and without betrayed the press’ fundamental professional moral decree: Treat the subjects of investigative reports and news stories with skepticism – particularly those the press falls in love with.
