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).