Newspapers and civic pride stand or fall togetherBy Steven T. Jones
In his cover essay for this month’s Harper’s Magazine, “Final Edition: Twilight of the American newspaper ,” writer Richard Rodriguez (an editor at New American Media here in SF) describes the demise of newspapers as a byproduct of our declining sense of a common civic purpose and sense of place.
And by “our,” I and he mean San Francisco, because his essay focuses almost entirely on the San Francisco Chronicle, which was reportedly losing $1 million a day until its multiple waves of layoffs and recently was dropped by a quarter of its readers.
“If the San Francisco Chronicle is near death – and why else would the editors celebrate its 144th anniversary? and why else would the editors devote a week to feature articles on fog? – it is because San Francisco’s sense of itself is perishing,” he wrote.
He makes a good point. The Bay Guardian has long labored to help San Francisco define itself as a city of immigrants and outsiders brought together by shared progressive values and the proud desire to create a unique culture in this strange, dysfunctional country. I’m always amazed to hear “only in San Francisco” get used as an epithet, even by people who live here, for I can think of no higher praise.
By contrast, the Chronicle has tried to reflect the myopic and schizophrenic values of myriad Bay Area suburbs, a decision that I think is closely tied to its downfall. For example, the columnist that the Chronicle puts forth as the voice of San Francisco is C.W. Nevius, a former sports writer who lives in Walnut Creek and seems to have little understanding of the city’s political dynamics.
On its editorial page and in many of its news stories, the Chronicle actually gives credence to ridiculous arguments that we need to cut taxes and regulations to keep corporations and shoppers from bypassing us in favor of competing regional cities – as if the great city of St. Francis has any real competitors. Puh-leeze!
Newspapers should celebrate a place and its people and strive to be their voice, or to be the echo chamber that reflects the multitude of voices in this wonderfully diverse city. Instead, the Chronicle caters to the carping Neanderthals that populate its blog comment pages, people that regularly denigrate San Francisco. Or they try to define the city by the values of multi-generational westside residents or the Chamber of Commerce, rather than those who choose to live in and shape the city as it exists today.
There is great value in newspapers that are organically birthed by the city they call home. That was how most newspapers began, Rodriguez points out, and why they thrived for more than a century. And when they sold out to multinational conglomerations on the other side of the country, like Hearst, it’s why they die.
Another local media outlet, McSweeney’s Magazine, which is put out by the civic- and literary-minded folks over at 826 Valencia, does recognize the values of newspapers and civic pride. That’s why they’ve been hard at work on a broadsheet newspaper, San Francisco Panorama, that will hit the streets at the end of the month.
Unfortunately, it’s a one-shot deal. That’s too bad, because it’s getting awfully lonely as perhaps the last newspaper in town that sees its core mission as reflects San Francisco’s values and helping the city come together around a common purpose.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (13)
The reason the Chron is dying is that it: 1. quit doing investigative journalism and started manufacturing news to COVER-UP what is really going on: Developer politics, and 2. Hearst is going to get its properties rezoned from 550 to 1200 feet. That simple. Richard Rodriquez in Harper's is just writing pretty. Business is far more pragmatic. It is all about big bucks and SF as an international developer's capital sink, aka.million dollar condos with 1:1 ratio parking in super tall towers with great views (all 'throwaway' buildings when we are hit by a big quake as they are junk, structurally).
Posted by Charley_sf | November 6, 2009 04:12 PM
The reason the Chron is dying is that it: 1. quit doing investigative journalism and started manufacturing news to COVER-UP what is really going on: Developer politics, and 2. Hearst is going to get its properties rezoned from 550 to 1200 feet. That simple. Richard Rodriquez in Harper's is just writing pretty. Business is far more pragmatic. It is all about big bucks and SF as an international developer's capital sink, aka.million dollar condos with 1:1 ratio parking in super tall towers with great views (all 'throwaway' buildings when we are hit by a big quake as they are junk, structurally). And I have a reason to know what's up on the inside.
Posted by Charley_sf | November 6, 2009 04:15 PM
One wonders who Steve Jones has been blaming for the death of the typewriter industry? All the photo labs in the city are gone because of some aspect of the conspiracy somehow?
The music industry is thankfully slowly crawling back under its rock because of a lack of a new Rage Against the Machines to spew their ridiculous agit-prop and third rate rip off of Damaged by Black Flag?
Oddly the Guardian is more and more hysterical, represents the cities various self appointed and it is thinner and has less content every year, like the Chronicle. Also many "immigrants" don't share progressives values, they share the value that they should be able to come here and do whatever they want, but if given a chance they would vote the straight Catholic ticket to ban gay marriage and abortion, sadly. Amnesty would have prop 8 going down by a couple more points, sadly.
Appealing to a demographic of the cities chronic miserable complainers doesn't work for the Guardian but it would work for the Chronicle?
By the way, I read the article as I subscribe to harpers, odd that you read so much into it. Force of habit?
Posted by glen matlock | November 6, 2009 05:46 PM
What is really going on Charley? What is the Chronicle covering up?
Posted by glen matlock | November 6, 2009 05:57 PM
This was the takeaway message from the essay, that newspapers historically served as a somewhat objective observer and recorder of the archivable record of a place.
Not that a place needs a newspaper to chronicle its goings on, rather it is nice to have that EKG strip or cultural seismometer recording to create some unified experience or for the future to refer back to.
Of course, the Chronicle divorced itself from San Francisco long ago, and practically moved to its editorial and reporting function to some other city that is not San Francisco after the Hearst sale where they write from and phone it in.
The more that people read an account of a City and see that their city does not resemble that account on the ground, they realize that they're being sold a bill of goods, and tend to not pay money to be misled.
The question remains, however, as to what to we do to preserve some record of place if daily papers are gone. We already know how to deal with the lack of daily news reporting.
Posted by marcos | November 7, 2009 08:36 AM
Marc I likely will regret this; but as the Guardian dies a slow death like the Chronicle, what is your excuse for the Guardian?
I find it amazing that the progressives have such astute views on the Chronicle as to why it dies slowly, but they seem to think the Guardian's extended trip into being an union busting, extended footnote of retread 60's dreaming is somehow not suffering the same fate for the same reasons.
The Chronicle like the other already dead major papers, and the ones soon to follow (including footnotes like the Guardian "newspaper") will be gone because of the thing you are posting on right now, the internet. They didn't die because of some protracted being out of touch, but the realities of business in the internet age.
I do like your argument though, the Guardian is slowly dying and the reason for a paper to die is that it doesn't represent the community.
Posted by glen matlock | November 7, 2009 06:16 PM
Who will do investigative reporting when newspapers are gone?
Not bloggers. They feed off of newspapers and other media that actually pay people to dig up news and dirt on elected officials. When newspapers and other media die, the bloggers will be sitting around twiddling their thumbs with nothing to write about.
Posted by Barton | November 8, 2009 04:07 AM
Who will do investigative reporting? Maybe folks outside the US:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html
We have to have investigation over army/intel missteps on Hasan asked for by Joe Lieberman? To be doubtless reflexively dismissed by all the liberal media-- (making itself irrelevant with hand-wringing for the poor shooter--) and WHO will question and research the culpability of the government in all this?
BTW "the community", Americans, care about this atrocity and being asked for more blood & money by an idiot government that didn't prevent this, at the same time the US is busy confiscating hair-gel at airports.
It's left up to people watching to intervene wherever they can get their voice heard, no longer as passive consumers of news.
Posted by Creighton | November 8, 2009 09:29 AM
Glen, just as the Chronicle is valuable as a quick scan online even though it is quite slanted, that slant is going to alienate enough readers who don't see their realities reflected in print.
Similarly, the Guardian often positions itself as progressive kingmakers, often deciding who will and will not get press, who will sink and who will swim by that measure, and would position itself the official tabloid of record for the SF progressive movement.
The Guardian risks a similar fate as the Chronicle to the extent that its presentation of the progressive record does not track what San Francisco's progressives see on the ground. Endorsing Dennis Herrera in an uncontested race, the legal mind that advised a course of action that kicked all California queers in the gonads with Prop 8, or the one that kicked 33,000 voters in the gonads over a redevelopment referendum petition for instance? Please, at least get paid by BMWL for this kind of screed and hire some more reporters!
The Guardian has a small staff that does not have the resources or time to cover the range of San Francisco's progressive issues. Steve Jones as stipulated as much.
That means that the Guardian makes editorial calls that frame not just how things are going to be covered, but what's going to be covered and the greater amount of what is left uncovered. To the extent that those editorial calls reflect the subjective preferences of the Guardian staff rather than present to progressives our realities in San Francisco, the Guardian is playing with the same fire that is consuming the Chron.
Should the Guardian bleed to death, not only will the Guardian go kaput, but San Francisco's progressives will lose a soapbox. The only silver lining in this is that the Chronicle is falling as hard as it came for the same reasons, and downtown will be left without its favorite paper battering ram.
If it continues to be about the Guardian and their friends instead of an honest broker amongst progressive constituencies, then the Guardian will meet the same fate that appears to be the Chronicle's destiny, given the thin margins attendant with current economic forces.
-marc
Posted by marcos | November 8, 2009 09:41 AM
The Guardian's problems are quite different than the Chronicle's because we're different kinds of businesses. We're small and locally owned, surviving from month-to-month with no reserves or corporate assets to draw from. Our reader base has been strong and loyal, and so was our advertiser base until the SF Weekly and their parent company (formerly New Times, now Village Voice Media) adopted an illegal predatory pricing strategy (selling ads at a loss for half our rates) to try to put us out of business. That's a matter of public record and a 2007 jury verdict, and they now owe us more than $20 million, although they're trying mightily not to pay us. If we get that settlement and/or relief from illegally anti-competitive corporate behavior, the Guardian is going to be stronger than ever precisely because we are part of the fabric of this community and we reflect its values.
Posted by Steven T. Jones | November 9, 2009 11:24 AM
"Our reader base has been strong and loyal"
Except for the reader base which Dennis Herrera keeps on fucking over (cyclists, BVHP residents, Latinos in the Mission, queers), whom the SFBG insists on continuing to endorse.
"If we get that settlement and/or relief from illegally anti-competitive corporate behavior, the Guardian is going to be stronger than ever precisely because we are part of the fabric of this community and we reflect its values."
No, The Guardian would be stronger financially because it has seven figures in the bank. Financial strength does not necessarily translate into political effectiveness.
-marc
Posted by marcos | November 9, 2009 11:38 AM
Marc, I realize you don't always agree with us and our endorsements/editorial choices -- but I think you also realize that we're happy to hear criticism and to have these sorts of discussions. Which is what communities ties are all about.
BTW: "kingmaker?" Like the progressives have a king? Our readers think for themselves. We have limited space and have to make choices, but our only agenda is our vision for a better SF.
Posted by Tim Redmond | November 10, 2009 12:36 PM
Tim, it is not that we disagree on any given endorsement. To the extent that the Guardian makes editorial calls on its coverage that do not reflect peoples' experience, it risks the same fate as the Chronicle.
The Guardian guards its endorsements jealously, and to the extent that a dissonance exists between the Guardian's other coverage and people's experience, the value Guardian's endorsements are diminished. In general, I agree with your endorsements and don't want to see them weakened in power.
-marc
Posted by marcos | November 11, 2009 08:27 AM