OPINION: Bailout blunder contemplated

For anyone paying attention to media these days it will come as no surprise that newspapers are having trouble. Even giants of the industry such as the New York Times are cutting employees and searching for revenue. Some media experts expect 2009 to be a year that sees newspapers of all sizes throwing in the towel.

According to a Reuters report, that's a very real and immediate possibility for a pair of papers in Connecticut. The Bristol Press and The Herald in neighboring New Haven are in danger of closing their doors soon because their parent company has millions of dollars of debt, preventing it from being much help to the beleaguered papers.

Like a John Ford hero arriving with the cavalry in the nick of time, however, an unlikely savior could be state Rep. Frank Nicastro, whose district includes Bristol. He's lobbying the state government for help to keep the two papers alive. "The media is a vitally important part of America," he noted. Although that's certainly true, Nicastro is confusing "newspapers" and "media." The two words are not interchangeable.

Americans these days want instant news. They want to know why the streetlights aren't on after dark but they were the previous night, and they want to know why seemingly every fire truck in the city is headed downtown. And they want to know it now.

Newspapers have a difficult time responding to those demands, though many are holding on to market share with Web sites offering up-to-the-minute updates on breaking news.

Newspapers offer more in depth coverage, and allow readers to go back and reread something they might not have understood. Print works well for covering detailed information such as government budgets and complicated timelines.

Critics of Nicastro's request worry that any government help will skew the way the papers report on government, one of the press' primary functions in our society. "You can't expect a watchdog to bite the hand that feeds it," said former reporter and editor Paul Janensch, who now teaches journalism at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut.

Others don't see a problem with the Department of Economic and Community Development's plan to offer tax breaks, financing opportunities and other incentives to publishers who might buy the papers and keep the presses rolling. Said Joan McDonald, the state's economic development commissioner, "It is what we do ... with companies, whether it's in aerospace, biomedical devices, biotech or financial services. If a company is developing laser technology, we don't get into the business of what lasers are used for." She went on to say that the state doesn't see offering tax breaks as attempting to influence the press.

Influencing the press likely isn't the state's agenda, but any government help given to media will be seen by the public as doing just that. How, then, can readers believe what's reported in state-supported media?

Even people who should know better get this one wrong. According to the Reuters report, "Former Miami Herald Editor Tom Fiedler said that a democracy has an obligation to help preserve a free press."

Fiedler has it exactly backwards. Democratic people have no obligation to a press. The press has an obligation to democratic people. A free press is a necessary precondition to a democracy - it precedes democracy, it is not a product of democracy.

Nicastro worries that if the papers close, journalism in those cities will go away. That's simply not true. Journalism will continue in TV and radio reporting, neighborhood newspapers and even bloggers reporting on what's going on in their communities. The free press envisioned by the Founders was limited by the technology of the times.

Modern journalism is delivered through numerous channels besides print journalism.

Government aid to businesses is never a good idea. Businesses should stand or fall on their own, without government interference. In response to President George W. Bush's bailout of the automakers, many pundits clamored for increased requirements on those companies, to ensure our money is being spent properly. Would such intervention in the media be necessary, also? That's a troubling thought. Better to have newspapers go under than become wards, and possibly instruments, of the state.