Newspapers Matter Because Freedom Matters

When I was growing up, my grandmother carefully saved the newspapers that reported the significant events of the day.

She lived in Dallas, Texas, so, obviously, the local reports of the JFK assassination in 1963 had an importance that the major newspapers of the time — in Washington and New York — couldn't match, even if they had better and more experienced writers on their staffs.

But my grandmother also wanted to preserve those newspapers so her grandchildren — my brother and myself — could look at them in the future and better understand an event that occurred when we were too young to know what had happened.

I guess my mother picked up that habit from my grandmother, because she saved our copies of the newspapers in Arkansas that were published following historic events like the Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969 and the resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974.

Those newspapers were lovingly stored in plastic bags, and I still have them, stashed away in boxes in my closet.

Books about those events give people more details than those individual newspapers did — but newspaper accounts were at the heart of the research that made those books possible. There is no better way for someone to learn what people of previous generations thought or why they did the things they did than to look at copies of old newspapers.

I recall, as a graduate student, doing a research paper on the presidential campaign of 1932. I learned more from reading the newspapers of that time than I ever did from books.

And one of the things I learned — or re-learned, rather, since both my master's degree and my bachelor's degree were in journalism — is that there is a very good reason why freedom of the press was mentioned in the First Amendment.

A free press is crucial if one is to have a free society.

It's a truth that often gets lost in the age of the internet. The belief is that people need information, but the argument that the internet empowers people to do the job themselves is dubious at best, deceptive at worst. Some people, like Eduardo Porter in the New York Times, understand the vital contribution made by newspapers and why it is important that they be preserved.

"The argument that if newspapers go bust there will be nobody covering city hall is true," Porter writes. "It's also true that corruption will rise, legislation will more easily be captured by vested interests and voter turnout will fall."

I worked in the newspaper field for many years — as a reporter, as an editor, even as an instructor of journalism for a few years. It was an article of faith that newspapers filled a vital role as watchdogs over those who held political power and controlled the public purse strings. Over and over, it was demonstrated to me and those working with me that journalists were the only ones who could keep the public informed — and reveal corruption.

But that important role may well be a casualty of the bottom line.

This year, there have been many alarming reports about the impending demise of many daily newspapers. Some newspapers, large and small, have been trying to avoid that by cutting their staffs — for example, there are reports today that the Muskogee (Okla.) Phoenix is cutting 9% of its staff.

The dire state of the newspaper is even leading to rumors about the extent of operations, to which newspapers are forced to respond. One such rumor claimed that Newsday would eliminate its Saturday edition. A newspaper spokeswoman has denied the rumor.

Regular readers of this blog probably have read my posts in recent weeks praising Facebook. One of the things people can do on the Facebook site is join causes they care about and encourage others to do the same. I had not been a member of Facebook very long before I became aware of a cause called "Don't Let Newspapers Die."

I joined the cause and began encouraging my friends to join as well. Among those I encouraged were people who were my journalism students in the 1990s. Some of them are still in the business, some of them are not. Not all of them have responded to my invitation. Some have. And I've been especially gratified by the positive response from people I know who are not involved in the newspaper business but whose lives are enriched by its existence.

But I was disappointed to receive the following response from one of my ex-students: "After exiting the newspaper industry six months ago, I just haven't been able to convince myself to join."

I understand that she has a lot going on in her life. In the years that have passed since I last saw her, she has gotten married and she has become a mother. I don't know what sort of work she does now.

But I didn't ask her to contribute money or be an activist — or do anything special that would require her to devote time to the effort at the expense of her husband or child or whatever job she may have now. I merely asked her to join the cause — in the belief that there is strength in numbers. I looked at it as kind of like asking her to sign a petition.

Her refusal made me feel that perhaps, during my days in the classroom, I had failed to impress upon her — and others — the necessity of the existence of a free press.

But I know that isn't true. I often spoke to my students of the role Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein played in uncovering the labyrinth of crimes in the Nixon White House. I even encouraged my students to attend when Bernstein came to campus and delivered a lecture, which I attended myself. And I often spoke in class about other, lesser known but just as significant instances when newspapers played important roles in uncovering corruption.

If people who were my students more than a decade ago are apathetic today about the continued existence of newspapers, it is due to something else that happened in their lives, not to any negligence on my part.

But that isn't really the point. The point is that newspapers are at risk today. If they go under, the most important barrier between a free society and a corrupt government will be removed.

Both large and small newspapers are vulnerable in these times. A lone individual can do little to increase circulation or ad revenues and, consequently, prevent the disappearance of a local newspaper. But I still believe there is strength in numbers.

And I urge all who care about freedom to support their local newspapers in any way they can.

The internet cannot do what needs to be done, in spite of the willingness of many people to believe that the internet holds the answer.

As Porter puts it, "Reporting the news in far–flung countries, spending weeks on investigations of uncertain payoff, fighting for freedom of information in court — is expensive. Virtually the only entities still doing it on the necessary scale are newspapers. Letting them go on the expectation that the internet will enable a better–informed citizenry seems like a risky bet."

I'm not willing to gamble my freedom like that. Are you?