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)