|
This interview is part of the Future of Journalism interview series.
This is an interview by OurBlook with Michael Saffran, adjunct professor of communication at Rochester Institute of Technology.
 You have advocated for a lift of the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban as one potential remedy for failing papers, with the lift being tied to a restriction on the number of stations/papers a company can own in one market. Could you elaborate on how this could help the financial situation of newspapers?
MS: Lifting the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban could benefit both newspaper and radio industries; however, rather than serving as an open-ended gift to media conglomerates, repealing the ban should be tied to stricter radio ownership limits.
According to an FCC study, newspaper/television station cross-ownership enhances the quantity and quality of TV news and public-affairs programming. Radio could similarly benefit from partnerships between broadcasters and publishers because most newspapers (with a few notable exceptions) are, much like radio, inherently local. Thus, the addition of print reporters to the small news staffs (if they exist at all) of cross-owned radio stations could enhance local-radio news ... an area in which local radio is currently underperforming, according to many experts.
Local newspapers (along with broadcast stations) could realize economies of scale, increased cross-promotional opportunities, and heightened visibility within local communities (as "faceless" newspaper bylines transform into "disembodied" radio voices, and vice versa). Moreover, some critics have strong reservations concerning ownership restrictions pertaining to publishing (for, unlike radio, publishing is not subject to the scarcity rationale necessitating spectrum allocation).
Existing proposals to tighten radio ownership restrictions might realistically stand a greater chance for enactment with tradeoffs agreeable to stakeholders on both sides. Thus, policy tying loosened cross-ownership restrictions with tightened radio ownership caps might be more effective than total opposition to newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership or, conversely, the near unilateral loosening of the ban (as proposed by the FCC but killed by Congress in May 2008). This compromise might also enhance the vibrancy of struggling AM stations by making them potentially more attractive to group owners seeking to maximize station counts within local markets.
If lifting the ban serves to benefit struggling local radio stations or newspapers (if there exists an industry currently more distressed than radio, it likely is newspapers), or if ending the restriction offers even the slimmest hope of fostering local newspaper startups, such outcomes should be nurtured.
What do you think of the idea being bandied about that governments as a last resort should bail out failing newspapers?
MS: I am not aware of any major media conglomerate (with the exception of Sirius XM Radio Inc.) that is in imminent danger of collapse without a bailout (unlike certain automobile manufacturers, which might have faced bankruptcy, if we are to believe some pundits). Thus, I would not favor a government bailout of the newspaper industry at this time.
In the event governments decide to do it, should they attach conditions as is being done for other bailout loans and grants or should it be a blank check?
MS: Conditions: Yes (similar to those imposed on other industries, such as CEO pay caps).
Blank check: Definitely no.
Philanthropic groups also are being mentioned as a possible savior for newspapers. What do you think of that as a possibility?
MS: The Poynter Institute for Media Studies/St. Petersburg Times model appears to be an excellent one. In addition, former Fortune magazine reporter Lee Smith, in an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education, recently called for a consortium of colleges to purchase the New York Times. I do not know how practicable the proposal is, but the idea certainly is an interesting one.
Specifically, you teach in Rochester and must have first-hand knowledge of the Democrat & Chronicle's prospects. Do you think it will survive? What effect will there be on your area if it doesn't?
MS: I do not have first-hand knowledge of the newspaper's financial state, but I would be very surprised if it were to fail (particularly considering that it is Gannett-owned). That said, if it were to fail, while it might impact the Rochester "psyche" short-term, I do not believe it would have long-lasting devastating effects on the region. The Rochester area is well served by an excellent alternative newsweekly (City Newspaper), community weeklies (published by Messenger Post Newspapers) and regional dailies (the Daily Messenger, for example), along with television stations and a couple radio stations (ones that actually broadcast some local news). Plus, Rochester survived the loss of its afternoon daily, The Times-Union, more than a decade ago when some cities were still two-newspaper towns.
Is there anything else you'd like to say about the future, if any, of newspapers ... including whether they deserve to survive?
MS: Independent media (media producing content not controlled by government, including both print and broadcast) are very important components in democratic society's "marketplace of ideas" and will survive in some form.
What is most interesting to me is this scenario: Imagine if, 20 to 30 years ago, someone would have proposed that the day could arrive when newspaper publishers would not be burdened by the cost of ink, newsprint, printing presses and physical distribution-and their audience size would be potentially limitless. Many publishers probably would have asked, "Where do I sign up?" Instead, for many the transition to the Web was bumbled.
Prof. Saffran has studied the impact of the economy and the Internet on traditional media such as radio and newspapers.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
