Apr 14 2009

The PG&E of Newspapers

Clint Reilly

One utility company dominates Northern California. But what if one corporation controlled every daily newspaper?

Newspaper firms argue that monopolies – which streamline production and editorial costs – are the only way for financially beleaguered metropolitan dailies to survive.

The California Public Utilities Commission regulates PG&E for consumers. But who regulates a monopoly newspaper?

If large media conglomerates – unfettered by anti-trust laws – are given a blank check to re-engineer news-gathering in the absence of competition, the results could be grave.

Critical coverage of the local school board or city council becomes overhead to be cut. Big stories that two or three reporters once competed to tell are left to a single overstretched soul. And independent editorial boards, once the primary opinion-making bodies in our society, get boiled down into an overworked (but cost-efficient) regional unit.

What is needed in an era of consolidated media is a new institutional paradigm. The old rules no longer apply. Newspapers have long touted their special status as “watchdogs for the public interest.” But in a monopoly situation, the watchdog for the public interest requires a public watchdog.

Most newspapers make little effort to involve the public in their planning and tactics. Decisions on editorial positions, news-gathering strategies and news prioritization are taken behind closed doors. To the extent that newspapers engage the public on these issues, it is mostly reactive: letters to the editor, a perfunctory column by the ombudsman or redress by a company-appointed public editor.

This simply cannot continue if newspapers are allowed to consolidate. The doors must be thrown open wide to public participation in an institutionalized, structured way. This will increase accountability and ensure the continued competition of diverse perspectives. It will also add value to the publication by reconnecting the paper of record with the people it serves.

If structured and managed correctly, public input into news-gathering and editorial decisions will build social equity in under-served communities and provide the newspaper with new lines of inquiry into civic issues. And by making the public a formal stakeholder, a monopoly newspaper could maintain its most important asset: credibility. That’s good for readers and better for newspapers.

I propose the creation of three types of oversight for the newspaper monopolies of the future: the Front Page Council, the Citizen Editorial Board, and a State Newspaper Commission to guard against unfair business practices.

These revolutionary new institutions would stem abuse in three areas affected by the emergence of a newspaper monopoly: news-gathering, editorial policy and advertising.

The Front Page Council, composed of independent citizens, would represent a broad cross-section of the community. The Council would watch the news-gathering process, offer advice on news priorities and guard against slanted coverage. Most important, these individuals could protest vocally and formally when news coverage is destroyed through irresponsible layoffs. Newspaper executives could no longer ignore the social cost of their actions.

The Citizen Editorial Board is another crucial component of the new era. Although recent years have seen the proliferation of opinions online and elsewhere, newspaper editorial boards still have unrivaled access to elected officials and broad opinion-shaping power. Formalized public involvement on the editorial board would prevent the potentially dangerous concentration of opinion-making power in the hands of unaccountable corporate chieftains. It would also help editors take the pulse of informed local opinion.

Finally, a monopoly situation would require regulatory oversight to ensure fair business practices. If newspapers are granted an exemption from anti-trust laws, then they should be subject to reasonable regulation that prevents price gouging and other monopolistic malfeasance. A State Newspaper Commission with members appointed by the Attorney General and the Governor could solve the problem.

America is built upon the theory of checks and balances. That’s why the Founders erected three branches of government. That’s why Theodore Roosevelt created regulation to curb corporate power.

The same goes for the so-called “fourth estate.” When the balancing effect of competition is removed, a check becomes necessary. If the old rules no longer apply, then it is time for new rules.