Across the state, four major newspaper concerns exert significant influence over news and opinion: Lee’s Wisconsin State Journal, Journal Communications’ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Gannett’s local papers scattered mostly across central Wisconsin, and the Capital Newspapers (publishers of The Capital Times and now WisPolitics, WisOpinion, etc.)

Capital Newspapers may seem a surprising inclusion, as their afternoon daily went under years ago, but they’re a present (and perhaps will be an even greater future) influence on news and opinion here. Their relationship to the ailing Lee gives them a chance to expand, should Lee pull out of our state. (See, along these lines, Blaska’s speculation about Lee’s future, and that of Capital Newspapers – denials for now).

Editorials or reporting?

What’s more important to a reader: editorials or reporting? There’s no certain answer. For me, it’s reporting — independent, multi-sided, unbowed to political authority. Although their editorial positions differ, each of these statewide (or national) chains has independent, solid reporting.

No matter how important editorials are, they’re less important than they used to be — editorial boards now compete with opinions published on readers’ websites, blogs, Facebook pages, etc. The voice-from-on-high authority they once had, amplified by the exclusivity being one of few publications, is gone forever. Owning a newspaper to advance an opinion just isn’t as effective as a generation ago.

Some publishers still haven’t seen the power of other, new media, and have kept their editorials offline. It may seem sensible (to drive readership to the print publications), but it’s a significant mistake. Opinion that’s not online misses too many eyes, and leaves its publisher less far less influential than it otherwise would be. Losing out on email, websites, blogs, Twitter, and especially Facebook leaves print-only editorials merely phantoms of their potential.

For editorials, you’re online, or you’re lost.

But in the end, I’d read a paper with great reporters regardless of its editorial outlook. For the State Journal or Journal Sentinel, there’s a gap between reporting and editorials that’s evident in politics and quality: the reporters are stronger than their papers’ editorial boards. Hall, Spicuzza, Stein: very fine reporters, who probably don’t share their editorial boards’ views on many issues. In politics, I can guess that I’d disagree with them, but it doesn’t matter: good reporting is good reporting.

Where are these papers going?

The last election tells most of the tale.

A paper surrounded by red will head right, I’d guess, at least for editorials. Democrats have told me that they think the generally supportive editorial stance of the Journal Sentinel toward Scott Walker is a matter of temporary political expediency. I disagree — I think it’s a permanent adjustment to the deep red belt that surrounds Milwaukee County. Lee in Madison, always to the right of the Cap Times, won’t stay that way much longer: they’ll either tack left into a sea of blue, or the next sole owners of the State Journal will.

Sham Newspapers.

Finally, it’s worth noting the rise of sham newspapers, too dishonest to admit that they’re political activists first, reporters or journalists not at all. Among them, one finds the Wisconsin Reporter, but there are others (MacIver Institute’s News Service). For a bit about them, see Dan Bice’s Conservative outlets write all the news that fits their tilt.

Bice has a follow up about funding for the generally liberal Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, but WisconsinWatch is a genuine news organization, with conventional journalistic standards. See, also from Bice, Liberal billionaire helping fund media groups in Wisconsin.

(Note: both my sites are easily recognized as commentary sites, and neither have nor need funding from political parties or billionaires of any kind.)

Wisconsin Reporter (with a blogger now onboard to boost interest), isn’t a newspaper: it’s a series of campaign talking points masquerading as news. Bloggers aren’t reporters, they have no reason to try to be, and would fail at conventional reporting if they tried. Wisconsin Reporter offer their content for free, but the only newspaper that would run it would be one of the ‘community relations’ model. The Daily Union has gone down this path, on the front page, and it may make sense for them, but it’s no better than running an editorial on the front page. Actually, it’s worse: these stories don’t make clear that they are, ultimately, political talking points in search of a political agenda.

News from a politician is his news, advancing his agenda, and protestations of high-principles and impartiality are either disingenuous, or self-deluding. Insisting otherwise does not make it so.

Not all of these sham sites will survive – there is only so much political funding to go around. One or two will make it, the others will likely fold.

Yet, afterward, there will still be traditional newspapers in Wisconsin, along with Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and personal websites.

Previously: Press Series: Part One (Why Newspapers?) and Press Series: Part Two (Whitewater-Area Newspapers).

There are three traditional newspapers in these parts: the Whitewater Register, the Daily Union, and the Janesville Gazette (online as the GazetteXtra and a Walworth County edition, WalworthCountyToday).

I’ve written about these papers before, most recently last fall. (See, Whitewater-Area Newspapers, Fall 2010.) They’re not the only news, the only papers, or the only websites; they’re the three traditional print publications in the immediate area. For FREE WHITEWATER posts under the category of press, here’s a category link.

I write about the press as a reader, without any professional journalism background.  Many people are interested in the press as lay readers. One approaches newspapers the way a person drinks water: not with any particular expertise or training, but as a natural inclination (perhaps intensified by upbringing).

What’s traditional reporting? That’s quite a question, but here’s a simple, plain answer that defines well enough.  Traditional reporting often has these two aspects: news stories (unlike editorials or op-ed essays) present more than one side of an issue, and those stories solicit differing statements (if possible) about that issue.

That’s one reason, among others, that neither FREE WHITEWATER nor Daily Wisconsin are traditional news sites; they’re opinion sites that offer commentary on the news. Both are blogs, offering differing amounts of commentary, but commentary nonetheless. They’re recognizably new media, and until the advent of the Web, America hadn’t seen a form like blogs since the end of pamphleteering.

So, do all three approach these aspects the same way? But looking at the Whitewater Register, Daily Union, and Janesville Gazette, one quickly discerns a divide between the first two and the third. The Register and Daily Union come closer to a ‘community consensus,’ ‘community relations’ form of news than the Janesville Gazette.  The Register and DU (when covering Whitewater) are less likely to offer diverse or contradictory opinion to a community consensus, or insiders’ point of view.

For the Register and DU, a difference of opinion typically means quoting one officeholder’s view in contradiction to another’s (if there’s even that level of diverse opinion).  There’s almost no effort to quote an expert in opposition to a bureaucrat’s or politician’s opinion.

By contrast, the Gazette‘s reporters will report information in contradiction to an officeholder’s views, or even those of several insiders collectively.  This gives the paper a level of independence that the other two lack.  In a small town, writing unfavorably of a politician is difficult, as there’s sure to be a concerted effort to freeze an ‘uncooperative’ reporter from access to information, interviews, etc. (Every paper writes a few beat sweeteners; it’s when most stories sound that way that there’s a shift away from independence to sycophancy.)

But from the point of view of those insiders who expect cheerleading from the press, it’s not a shift away from treasured independence, but a defense of press-political cooperation.  They’re convinced a close connection is better for a community, and they’ll not be dissuaded. (It may also be momentarily useful to retain readership, especially if that readership is skewed to an older audience that wants to be reassured.)

I’d say that cooperation comes at a high price: politicians will roll fawning reporters, and leave their papers looking supine.  Newspapers don’t have a problem with blogs, of all things; they have a problem with looking servile toward smarmy, fast-talking politicians. The problem results in reduced newspaper readership.  An aging demographic that prefers reassuring news isn’t a good longterm investment; our younger generations are more ironic, skeptical, independent. In  these ways, the future is a return to Americans’ traditional independence from, and skepticism of, political authority.

Yet, it’s not just image, or circulation, that suffers: the kind of consensus that manipulative politicians want is destructive to the community: their unchecked opinion produces dull, less-exacting policies. They get their way, but their way is less effective for the city than it would be in a more critical, competitive environment. They get their way, but in an environment where their own striving for a monopoly on opinion leaves that very way open to contempt and ridicule from an alienated constituency.

Virtually no ordinary person is fooled by a party-line, or booster’s view: the average person is more than a match for those politicians who try to manipulate opinion.  I think ‘opinion-making’ is futile; Americans come to their own conclusions. (See,  The Impossibility of ‘Opinion-Making’.)  One may reinforce an existing opinion, but there’s very little ‘creation’ going on.  One writes to express one’s opinion; believing one is making opinion in the community is a conceit.

If people are alienated from the press and politicians (and many are), then the press and politicians have only their own patronizing, none-too-subtle schemes to blame.

Style. Of the three papers, I’d also say that the Gazette sounds most like a tradition paper, written in a  style that comes closest to the tradition tone of journalism — often punchy, written concisely, throwing as much as possible in the lede, or at least the first two paragraphs. I like that style, when reading a paper, but that’s simply a matter of tastes.

Content. The DU, when covering Whitewater, offers much longer stories, often spanning several topics from a public meeting, and listing considerable detail.  Not concise, but detailed.  One would almost think that the stories were as lengthy as … certain blog posts.  On the Web, where electrons cost nothing, length doesn’t involve the expense that newsprint does, and that newsprint always will.

The DU‘s approach doesn’t seem space-limited.  That’s neither good nor bad, but merely different (and, I think, noticeable).  It leaves me wondering, as with my observation about having a readership that may want the reassurance of a community-consensus approach, whether the DU has an older demographic than the Gazette.  Being an afternoon paper, a rare bird these days, may also be a reflection of a different demographic (or lead to a different one). (About the filling-up-of-pages, I’ll have more in a subsequent post.)

The Register has been through a great many shifts and changes, but it has survived, and may continue to do so.  I’ve begun to follow it again, after a lapse, having once followed it intently.  (I’ve been critical of it in the past, but I have no personal connection to, let alone dislike of, anyone at any of these papers.  I am contented as a reader.)

I see the value of lengthy detail in a newspaper, but it’s hardly a secret that I wish our local newspapers were more independent, and examining, of political authority.  Hard is the plucky way in a small town.

Previously: Press Series: Part One (Why Newspapers?)

Next: Press Series: Part Three (Statewide Press)

Like millions of others, I grew up in a newspaper-reading family.

A family would have several papers, morning or afternoon, at a time when afternoon dailies were still common (and commonly profitable). One read almost every part of the paper, and the names of reporters, editors, and publishers were well-known to readers. So one would talk about what a reporter or editorial board wrote, using the names of the respective authors.

Beyond the newspapers of the household, one could read still more papers, from across America and around the globe, at a proper library. It was one of the routines of life to augment the reading of one’s household papers with these others.

There was no luxury in this; it was part of a larger routine, and nearly as important in emphasis as meals, work, academics, or active pursuits.

Nor was there adulation of newspapers, but rather respect when they reported well, and criticism when they did not.

I publish two blogs, both of which are of commentary, but not the distinctive reporting that characterizes a fit newspaper. The difference between these forms is vast.

There was no call to journalism in families as I’ve described; they were readers, not would-be reporters. I have never had the desire to be a reporter or journalist, and never the foolish opinion that I would be good at it, in any event.

And yet, for it all, blogs of politics and commentary took off simply because they were possible for individual expression (through the Web) and seemingly necessary (through the often uncritical reporting and commentary of complacent papers). The relationship between mediocre reporters and politicians was too close, too cozy, too condescending of readers’ judgment.

Bloggers are the beneficiaries of a stronger and healthier newspaper era, where critical readers expected, and often received, solid information.

Much has been said about the death of the newspaper industry, and many papers have gone under, but that industry will go on, and find even a renaissance, of sorts. The decline is a trend that’s been evident for decades, and long before bloggers emerged on the scene.

Some who have announced the death of newspapers have done so in circumstances of unwitting irony. The video clip below is from Wallstrip, a video podcast. The photogenic host, in 2008, proclaims the death of newspapers. The irony: she was soon thereafter replaced by a more attractive woman, and soon after the replacement the podcast, itself, went under.

Newspapers – YouTube.

Like blogs (electronic versions of pamphlets), some newspapers will go on. I certainly hope they do; I hope just as much that those papers that survive new trends and the Great Recession will return to an independent stance unbowed to politicians, bureaucrats, and government-subsidy-hungry corporations.

I’m yet an optimist. America will come through these hard years stronger than even before, and so will hard-charging, plucky, watchdog newspapers.

Next, in Part Two, tonight: Local Newspapers. more >>