The Death of Journalism

This may hurt some of my colleagues, but I have a story to tell. First, as we know, newspapers are suffering badly. Not because they didn’t do a great job, but because the art and skill of relating news to the people was overcome by the desire to make loads of money.

Newspapers were bought out like hockey trading cards by giant barracudas who didn’t give a damn what they were buying, but just wanted a bigger empire than the massive empire tey already had.

And, of course, if you want a proper empire, you weed out the non-performers, i.e. the non–money- generators, and axe the writers and fire all the staff.

This has nothing to do with generating news. It has nothing to do with the service newspapers supply to the public. It’s all about return on investment.

BACK IN TIME
When I was at the Gazette as a cub reporter, the ad guys would join with publisher Joe Cembal and have cigars and scotch and lots of laughs in his office. Meanwhile, our editorial team was sweating it out until 3 a.m. (literally) putting the paper together, writing and checking facts, and making the best damn paper we could, three times a week. While they were toasting the five per cent increase in ad sales.

And so it is today. Ad sales are king. Editorial? That’s the stuff you throw around the ads. The concept of journalism is lost here.

This was not new to me. As a weekender at the Belleville Intell, while I was still a student, I was assigned to take a picture of a man waving a cowboy hat while riding a large roll of carpet. This is and was the kind of thing that makes you say, “Wha’!”

Well, the advert department was always on the editorial floor poking for editorial promos to boost their sales. I took the shot, and it was pretty funny, but not something I would win a Pulitzer over.

BACK FURTHER
I was trained as a journalist at Loyalist College. Their amazing multimedia program is gone now, but it changed my life. I enrolled for photography and graphic arts, but was drawn into writing through the encouragement of a teacher who saw in me what I did not see in myself.

I was trained in objective journalism. That is to say: The journalist observes and reports, but does not comment. Comments belong in Editorial and Op Eds. I understood this, but it was sometimes painful, when your brain was screaming that what you were covering was solid BS and doesn’t anybody else see this? But not my job. Stay objective.

BRINGING THIS HOME
When Rick Conroy took over the Times, he was not an objective journalist. He didn’t intend to be, I assume. From the start, he would report the facts and, in the same “news” story, state his opinion. I liked his style, because he could do what I always wanted to do as a reporter: Tell what’s happening and also scream out some serious questions about the topic to be considered!

To this day, Rick and I do not share the same positions, or the same styles, but we do what is needed more than anything else we need now: Create conversation.

PAPER BATTLES
A recent column in the Gazette attacked the Times for its attack on Council. This was not only bad form, but it was wrong. Not just because of the attack, but because the editorial missed the essence of what newspapers stand for. Proper discussion.

Attacking someone for their position is nothing but a cheap shot. Ill-considered. Funny thing is: The Gazette later tackled Council-related problems in their opinion pieces. Bit of hypocrisy there?

LET’S GO WAY BACK
Let’s take a look at what a newspaper does. When I was a kid there were two papers in the County: Bill McLean’s Picton Times and Lindley Calnan’s Picton Gazette. The Times was a Liberal paper, and the Gazette Conservative. People read whatever newspaper supported their point of view.

Everyone was happy with the paper they chose, because they got comfort there, and an extra boost knowing they were right, and the ‘opposing views’ in the other paper were wrong.

That battle went crazy, because their content was often blatantly politically-motivated. And we loved it, because it led us all to proper discussion, face to face, at any social gathering. The way God meant it to be.

TODAY
Social media—yes, Twitter, Facebook and the rest— were touted as harbingers of the death of print journalism. Information at your fingertips! No one noticed that internet vehicles do not supply “news”, they supply opinions. And only 100 per cent opinions. And only opinions that fit the comfort zone of the readers, just like the Times/Gazette battle of the 1950s.

To prove this point, go on Facebook and disagree with the original sender. You will be shut down as a demon from hell, because disagreement is not allowed. I know people who were disavowed from chat rooms—blocked out—for their differing opinion. Violation of their comfort zone.

This is why our newspapers are alive. First: They supply actual news. Not a small job. Second: Readers study before they write. They follow what is happening, and come to a reasoned conclusion before they pick up a pen. Not so in social media, where you can grab your thumb and fire off an angry reply on your cellphone in seconds.

Readers read about what is real, and absorb it. Social media people don’t know what is real, but have an opinion on it anyway. This is why journalism is not dead. In the outside world, newspapers are vanishing. Not because they didn’t do the job; not because the readers stopped reading; not because their papers were not important to them, even in the satellites of the GTA—but because their $ numbers weren’t big enough for the Big $ companies that bought them.

I worked for the Thomson chain, and once had “auditors” stand over my shoulder while I worked on a story. Pretty intimidating. They scribbled on their clipboards, and turns out they were calculating the number of keystrokes I made in an hour. That’s how the big boys work. Every keystroke—across the chain—cost them money.

There is no altruism here. No concept of providing people an essential news resource. Here in the County, our two papers do not have that axe over their heads. Different voices; different approaches. That suits me fine.

I started column writing not because I’m brilliant and wanted to preach the path of right to my people, but to create discussion—get us to talk, and argue, agree, and disagree. But at least talk.