A Seattle Times op-ed column (7/4/09) by Free Press' Victor Pickard and Joseph Torres discussing the fact that "the public's changing media habits have eroded the newspaper industry's monopoly on the local ad market" describes the corporate response thus: "The big media companies are pressuring Congress to prop up their failed business models by allowing more media consolidation and relaxing antitrust laws so they can collude on new 'pay wall' and pricing schemes."

Reaffirming that "despite the many shortcomings of newspapers, our democracy requires a free and vibrant press," Pickard and Torres still maintain that

these shortsighted measures aren't the answer. We must recognize that the current crisis isn't just about the future of newspapers; it's about the survival of democracy-sustaining journalism. We now have a unique and fleeting opportunity to overhaul our media system and advocate for policies that would serve the informational needs of diverse communities....

For too long, newspapers and other mainstream-media outlets have abandoned their commitment to public service in the pursuit of short-term gains. Even today, many newspapers remain profitable but their corporate owners are burdened by huge debt loads incurred during earlier consolidation sprees.

We need new models whose sole criterion for success is not profit maximization. News isn't just another commodity. Journalism is an essential public service and critical infrastructure. Like many public goods, journalism has never been fully supported by the market; it always has been subsidized. But the advertising-subsidy system no longer works.

Detailing "much that needs to happen to rescue failing news operations while supporting the creation of new ones," the Free Pressers name a radically anti-corporate top priority: "First, we must rescue good assets from bad owners. Journalism is too precious to leave its future in the hands of absentee corporate owners." The Free Press group "recently released a report endorsing five policy proposals that would help sustain newsrooms." Hear more on this important topic on FAIR's radio program CounterSpin: "Jim Naureckas on the Future of Journalism" (7/10/09).

Free Press' Craig Aaron and Joseph Torres (Guardian.co.uk, 3/26/09) promptly knock down the scary development in which Nancy Pelosi recently "asked attorney general Eric Holder to consider loosening antitrust laws to help out struggling newspapers by allowing more media mergers. Holder responded by saying he is open to revisiting the rules":

Pelosi's request sounds innocuous at first--after all, struggling newspapers seem to need all the help they can get. But opening the door to more media consolidation is not the cure for the crisis in journalism. More of this bad medicine will only weaken reporting and worsen the health of our democracy.

As a few big companies swallowed up more local media outlets, they gutted newsrooms. The Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that the industry lost 5,000 journalists last year and has slashed 16 percent of its news staff since 2001. Is it any surprise that fewer people are buying newspapers when reporters are being taken off their beats and bureaus are being shuttered?

But media consolidation hasn't been a disaster only for dedicated journalists or the public who rely on reporters to keep an eye on their leaders. It's also been bad for business.

Just a few years ago, the average profit margin for newspapers was over 20 percent--with some bringing in twice as much or more. But that did not satisfy the newspaper executives or Wall Street. Instead of investing in the quality of their products and innovating for the future, the big media companies have been obsessed with short-term gains. Instead of bolstering their news-gathering or adjusting to the new media landscape, companies like McClatchy, Tribune and Lee Enterprises used these astronomical profits to buy up other properties.

And of course, throughout this process, "federal regulators rubber-stamped these mega-mergers," even though "the media giants took on massive amounts of debt."

Industry news outlet TV Predictions has a commentary from Phillip Swann (2/22/09) telling us that when "roughly 36 percent" of local television stations recently stopped broadcasting ahead of the digital conversion deadline ("stations save money by switching early because they would no longer have to transmit both analog and digital signals"), "the FCC received more than 70,000 complaints in the first two days." "Based on these developments," Swann writes, "you would think that the early DTV switch was a major disaster":

But good luck in finding that story in many of your nation's top trade and consumer publications, particularly if they are owned by companies that also own local TV stations which desperately want the switch to occur now.

For instance, the Los Angeles Times, which is owned by the Tribune Company, which also owns roughly 20 local TV stations, ran a headline last week that said: "Digital TV Switch Goes Smoothly in San Diego."...

The Columbus Dispatch, whose ownership also owns a local TV station in Columbus, ran a headline that said: "Switch to Digital TV Met With Little Fanfare." The Tampa Tribune, owned by Media General, which owns TV stations in 18 markets, published a headline stating, "Digital TV Switch Doesn't Faze Viewers."

Citing media news publications' "historic closeness to the National Association of Broadcasters and other industry heavyweights," Swann tells why "so many publications seemingly so eager to portray the early Digital TV switch as a huge success": "In the case of newspapers with ownership connections to local TV stations....their corporate parents have a vested interest in creating the perception that the switch is a success, so by God, their newspapers will toe the line or else." In other words, "Don't kid yourselves, folks. Newsrooms do not make decisions based solely on journalistic reasons."

Listen to the current FAIR radio show CounterSpin: "Brandon Lacy Campos on Digital TV Conversion" (2/20/09)