No bailout for journalism
By Jennifer J. Foster
Published: December 17, 2008
If you’ve been reading this blog and my columns over the past two months, you know that I’ve talked a lot about the various bailouts and all the money that’s being poured into different segments of the economy.
I’m not a pure disbeliever in government intervention in the market. I just come down on the capitalist side of the fence. I believe in reasonable regulation, but I also believe in personal responsibility and assumption of risk.
When word started trickling out that the Big Three domestic automakers were after Congress for a $25 billion bailout, you may remember my examination of their argument vis-à-vis the dim financial realities constraining some other major industries:
I’m curious: Do the Big Three and the UAW chief also support a bailout for the newspaper industry? Journalism is the only constitutionally protected profession in this country. How about the construction industry? The contractors, their subs and suppliers comprise many more jobs than the Big Three. What about real estate professionals? They are completely at the mercy of the market.
These are national industries. The Big Three is mostly a regional industry.
But there is no bailout talk for journalism, construction or real estate.
I’m not hearing any discussion about a big bailout program for construction or real estate.
Well, I take that back. I guess you could make an argument that Barack Obama’s stimulus-package-in-progress is a construction industry bailout. After all, it sounds like it’s going to focus a lot of federal money on retrofitting government buildings with environmentally efficient technology, getting shovels turning on hundreds of infrastructure projects throughout the states and building new schools, among other things. And I guess you could make an argument that the Fed can’t do much more to bail out the real estate industry than cutting its lending rate to between zero and a quarter-point, as it did today.
But although newspaper companies are hemorrhaging cash, their staffs are shriveling up and their deliveries are going part-time, there is no talk about a journalism industry bailout.
There won’t be—and there shouldn’t be.
I have often used my platform to opine about journalism’s privileged place among all over pursuits in America. It is our country’s lone constitutionally protected profession, shielded from government intervention by the First Amendment because of the power and the importance of what journalists do.
Journalists must ask questions. They have to read between the lines in the answers they get. They have to pore through reams of government documents to see whether things match up. And if they don’t get any answers, they have to keep asking. And keep asking ... and keep asking.
You may, at times, find their existence annoying or even downright regrettable. Most likely, if you don’t work in the industry or in a related one, you’ve had the luxury of not even consciously considering the work they do. But regardless of your feelings about them, journalists are your eyes and ears on your government. They are trained and taught to see what you probably can’t; they commit themselves to the laborious and, too often, thankless job of being your watchdog.
They don’t do it for the money. Lord knows, they don’t do it for the money. Teachers? Police officers? Firefighters? Journalists are public servants, too, and their paychecks prove it.
So why do they struggle through in an industry that is in transition? Why do they tail elected officials who would rather perform “Castaway”-type dentistry on themselves than defend their records to a reporter? Why do they doggedly file their beat reports, cultivate their sources, pursue every lead and never, never stop asking questions?
For the same reason teachers take home hours of paperwork every night. For the same reason police officers chase dangerous, gun-wielding criminals. For the same reason firefighters run in to burning buildings.
Because they are public servants.
Reporters can do their jobs and newspapers can print their stories because they are an independent check on the state, in all its many forms. Sure, you can argue personal leanings in individual reporters all day long; there’s always an example or two that stands out because of the volume with which it screams, “BIAS.“ Reporters are human beings; their life experiences don’t get checked at the door, and you wouldn’t want that, anyway. It would make for a pitiful reporter.
As I’ve said before, the difference between a biased reporter and an effective one lies not in whether each one has opinions. They both do. The difference lies in the commitment and determination each one has to professionalism and excellence in his craft. And, in this venue, too, capitalism works: Reporters who can’t meet the lofty standard of fairness quickly lose their credibility with their reading or viewing public.
But as in so many other things in life, perception is reality. If the government was to hand over a few billion bucks to the newspaper industry bigwigs—even as one of those much-ballyhooed “bridge loans”—newspapers’ credibility on reporting on the bailout, and all the other bailouts, would be destroyed.
Sure, it’s a long way, geographically speaking, from the corporate boardroom to an individual reporter’s desk.
But the public knows that we all have phones.
Other industries have sought and still seek government bailouts amid a furious, desperate clamor that if they don’t get the money, they may not survive.
But for the American journalism industry, it is the procurement, not the denial, of government funds that would seal its demise.
See also:
The column by Frank Harris III in the Hartford Courant that sparked this post.
Twitter updates from Jennifer at 
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Papawill ) on December 17, 2008 at 9:20 pm
I understand that the union owns a golf club..surely this is not true! If this is in fact true…I love golf; but would think this would bring a nice price tag. It might even pay for a few hundred salaries.
Again, I can only speculate…and only asking out of ignorance…could you find out if organized crime has ever been linked to various labor unions? I respect the men and women that work hard for their money in assembly lines or whatever trade that involves hard work. My guess is that just as in large corporations there are few who run these unions and benefit financially and politically….you would have to be young or very naive to think or believe otherwise.
I truly would love to see large corporations upper management held accountable by their investors….their employees should go work elsewhere if they are not happy with conditions…these are new times. We have opportunities around every corner if you are willing to work hard. What would happen if enough people refused to work for a corporation that is abusive or unfair to its employees…think for yourselves…use your own brains and common sense…you do not have to be a Rhodes Scholar to choose not to be abused. You also do not have to be in a union…think for yourself!
When government or unions begin dictating or directing in lieu of us using our own noggins….we lose a little more of our freedoms. I am old fashioned…I would much prefer making my own mistakes. I don’t need someone else telling me what I like or do not like.
If you really in this day can support a union, you must be an actual member and follow dues…follow the money as they say. I will not condemn any specific union because as sure as I do, we will see the union that is run as was intended by great leaders. ALSO, if in this day you are against unions, you should have experienced first hand being in or working within a union…........I can say that I have had that experience and though I only have one opinion (and you know what they say about opinions:) my experiences were all negative. I wish this were not the case.
Ironically, I voted as a Democrat many years ago…my conversion to the Republican Party came as the Democratic Party completely separated itself from any conservative values. I am a Christian and as stated previously or in another statement…and it is my opinion (see previous comment regarding this) The separation of Church and State is truly where good intentioned Democrats have missed the boat. Many well intentioned and good friends of mine are Democrats and I would trust my life to them…but they think of God as someone equated with Church and have supported taking God out of our schools and government. This saddens me as I don’t think my age group will feel near the negative repercussions of taking God out step by step…Our fouunding Fathers intended God to remain our focus…the one to look toward for guidance. Our leaders prayed together…we prospered!!!
The Hannitys and Limbaghs of the right turn good intentioned (now Democrats) away from values that I have embraced most of my life. The Colmes(sp)and Nancy Pelosi’s(sp)of this world do the same to conservative people…I pray and pray to God that one day soon we wake up and what I call the silent majority…wakes up and decides to speak up and do something before my grandchildren have Sodom and Gomorah (again spelling is suspect) to live in. Liberal ideals might be ok for some, but I have shed tears thinking of how pathetic much of our society acts today because we have been asleep at the wheel…...Civil rights as everything else…again we go overboard and let nuts pass legislation that says everything goes.
Our young parents will change their tune as they get older and see how dangerous our own cities are becoming because we are so worried about law suits and civil rights (I mean the extremes) yes, I sound like an old fart…but if you are a young parent, and you are not afraid for your children with the direction our local cities are headed…your head is firmly tucked in the sand!
Sorry for getting off topic again…I am just frustrated with our younger generation and their naivity.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Jennifer J. Foster ) on December 17, 2008 at 9:19 pm
I no more have an axe to grind against unions than you are an apologist for them.
I am neither pro-union nor anti-union. I am for a fair arrangement that adequately balances the needs of workers and their employers. When unions help achieve that balance, I am pro-union. (For example, I support the actions of the union with respect to Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/us/13factory.html?hp) But when unions are an obstacle toward achieving or maintaining that balance, I am anti-union.
My words do speak for themselves. I can’t explain my position any clearer than this.
One more note: Let’s say that you are right and the sole reason that the domestic auto industry is failing is because they are being beaten in ingenuity. (I do not concede that point, but for the sake of argument, I am overlooking it.) Do you really support giving $25 billion in taxpayer money to companies that you admit are shortsighted and shorthanded in ideas?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( PapaWill ) on December 17, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Based upon opinions from you the author and “anonymous” on the other article or blog, I am probably not on the same level of either as a debater. I have responded to this issue more than once over the years. My Father was a union worker for 35 years. I have worked at union sites in my business life on many ocassions.
I’ll put it in my own simple terms:
Unions at their onset were very necessary to offer representation to those less educated because management was taking advantage of less informed workers. As is the case with so many things…we have abused yet another good thing and turned most unions into circus acts! This by no means is a cut to union members because quite frankly, they have absolutely no choice in the matter if they are to work for certain companies!
This alone bothers me…I watched as my own Father was bullied and forced to comply on many ocassions with things he did not agree with…......He was threatened physically on more than one ocassion. I worked in a union warehouses for my first real company and got to see first hand how rediculous rules of the union made things so much more difficult to get done efficiently.
I was a young man but this made a big impression on me…....as I matured and experienced another union in Chicago, no less…I saw union workers tear down several days worth of work that was done in an exhibit hall because the company chose to use its own laborers who they paid to drive their displays up to a large show. These union workers chose not to say anything while they were doing all of the work….......they proudly flexed their muscles and destroyed this display after it was fully erected! Such brave honorable people…
Again, there are great people out there now working in union jobs and fully supporting their unions and that’s great for them…....I just wish that they all actually had a choice. Of course, they could go get a job down the road I guess…......but again jobs can be hard to find so I am not being critical.
As for the buyout…..absolutely 100% no. If they cannot qualify for a loan or cannot raise capital…100% not a good thing. This particular union has in fact abused its members…short term increases in compensation due to threatened work stoppages, better health benefits than any company I have worked for….
If you are a young man or woman and see the opportunity to step into an assembly line job for the kind of pay the auto workers make now….why go to college? Is it right that my son-in-law who has worked his butt off to get a good education, sacrificed so much to get his law degree at night and done eveything the right way….and he cannot step right into this kind of money without going north and joining a union?
I know that life is not fair, but he did it right and he gets to pay 30% more for a new car because a union has manipulated the system to a degree that American made cars would have to be overpriced for the companys to make a fair profit.
Again, my Dad worked as a US Steel worker…we always bought American; but not anymore for me…not until we get new management with the American car manufacturers as well as new management and change with our unions…..
Our new President talks of change…here is a great place to start!
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Anonymous ) on December 17, 2008 at 5:14 pm
First of all, I never questioned the importance of the journalism industry. My point was that its affect on the national economy is minimal when compared to that of the auto industry. The last time I checked the purpose of the bailout was to preserve the national economy. So that should answer the question as to why there is no “bailout for the newspaper industry”.
Second, I think it’s quite obvious from your reply that you are anti-union. You can deny it, but your comments speak for themselves. As far as the failings of the auto industry, there is a reason the Honda Accord and the Toyota Camry outsell Ford and GM and it has nothing to do with unions. It has everything to do with ingenuity.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Jennifer J. Foster ) on December 17, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Wow. First of all, an industry’s importance to the country it serves is measured in more than numbers. Second, if you don’t already know that journalism—the practice of journalism and its role in democracy—is more critical to this country than the domestic auto industry, there is no point in my trying to explain it to you. Just remember which industry was here first—and even before this country was established.
As far as the union thing goes, I don’t think you can lump them all together. I have family members who are teachers and police officers (both union positions). None of them are making $80 an hour, and none of them have a job bank available where they can go and watch paint dry for 80, 90 percent of their salaries. The Big Three’s “legacy costs” speak for themselves. Think what you want about why this latest bailout failed, but at least be honest with yourself about what sank it.
AIG’s and Citigroup’s rank-and-file employees aren’t unionized, nor do they have similar legacy costs. So your comparison, while clever, is off base.
You must have missed the posts where I criticized the financial bailout. I wasn’t a fan of government takeovers even then. But the reality is that the cause of the financial industry’s collapse is quite different than the things that are foundering the Big Three. Loaning money to people who have no prayer of paying it back isn’t just bad business sense; it’s stupid. But once Congress began pushing lenders to do just that, the financial industry was on a collision course with disaster. (I don’t remember lawmakers passing some bill that required auto dealers to sell their cars to people with little to no credit and no money down, for instance.) The deregulation of the financial industry that allowed large financial companies to consolidate and become megacorporations only exacerbated an already-growing problem.
As someone said recently, unions aren’t really looking out for their workers if their demands cause those jobs to disappear. Sure, an $80 an hour job is better than a $40 an hour job. But a $40 an hour job is better than standing in the unemployment line.
An axe to grind against unions? Not necessarily—just the ones that trample their workers while claiming to protect them. Here’s one more example: There are plenty of unionized newspaper industry employees. You don’t hear about them making $80 an hour—but they’re still losing their jobs left and right, and they have no “job bank” where they can go convert oxygen to carbon dioxide and still get paid.
In short, I believe there’s a part for everyone to play. The problems come when either side gets greedy and throws things out of balance.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Anonymous ) on December 17, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I could be wrong, but I don’t think the newspaper industry affects the national economy the way the auto industry does.
According to today’s Birmingham News, Alabama alone stands to lose 76,000 if the Big 3 fail.
By the way, where has your criticism been for the other industries getting bailout money? I haven’t seen nearly as much space dedicated to AIG or Citigroup. Could it be you have an axe to grind with unions?
Report Inappropriate Comment