In David Halberstam’s book Summer of ’49, he writes about the pennant race between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees. But, he also captures, the importance of daily newspapers for baseball fans.
He writes: “After an early dinner, men and boys would hustle down to the nearest candy stands where every evening bundles of New York City newspapers were dropped. Those fans couldn’t wait to buy a copy of their favorite newspaper to read the recaps of the day’s games and to study the boxscores.”
As a youngster, 525 miles from New York City in Burlington, North Carolina, I awaited the delivery of our afternoon paper, The Daily Times News. On those hot summer days when the paper arrived, I quickly turned to the sports section and the box scores.
Those cherished days are gone. And if we aren’t careful, newspapers, one of the foundations of our communities might soon be gone.
In October 2021, my wife and I stopped receiving a hard copy of the Richmond Times-Dispatch in our home. Subscription cost kept rising. Without explanation devoted journalist at the Times-Dispatch kept disappearing, and the depth of reporting stories across the metro area diminished.
We now subscribe to an on-line version. I despise it. Newspapers and the newsprint they are printed on are meant to be held in the hands of readers.
That story of canceled subscriptions has played out across America. The impact of these cancellations can be found in sobering research from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.
Consider these findings: “The loss of local newspapers accelerated in 2023 to an average of 2.5 per week, leaving more than 200 counties as “news deserts” and meaning that more than half of all U.S. counties now have limited access to reliable local news and information.”
At this point in America, we need more than ever newspapers to give Americans full access “to reliable local news and information.” Sustaining our country and shaping its future depends on newspapers.
I have no journalism expertise. Yet, I believe newspapers have failed to adequately report their decline.
Don’t readers of newspapers deserve the same type of transparent reporting about the day to day challenges that publishers and editors face in keeping newspapers afloat?
Based upon a December 9 report by National Public Radio(NPR) the answer is no.
According to NPR, acting Post Executive Editor Matt Murray blocked publication of a story about the paper’s Managing Editor, Matea Gold’s departure. Gold is leaving the Post to take a similar role at the New York Times. Murray stated that “the paper should not cover itself.”
By opting not to “cover itself” Editor Murray is missing an opportunity. Part of me senses that the survival of the Washington Post and newspapers in America depends upon a newspaper’s ability to cover and tell its story.
Failure to “cover itself” is a sharp contrast to the commitment that post reporters and editors have made in reporting critical stories about the ups and downs of America. The Pulitzer Prizes earned by the Post didn’t come from timid leadership. Those Pulitzers were grounded in courage.
It takes courage to be a journalist. Early in his political career, Jimmy Carter learned this.
Mr. Carter was running to become a state senator in Georgia. He had uncovered voter fraud in Quitman County. Despite his findings, Georgia democrats and local press were unwilling to investigate this story.
Undaunted, Mr. Carter reached out to John Pennington, a reporter, with the Atlanta Journal. Pennington agreed to look into Mr. Carter’s claims. It was Pennington’s courageous, in-depth, fact driven reporting that exposed this corruption and help Mr. Carter to be elected.
Subscribers to the Washington Post and any other newspaper in America deserve the same courageous, in-depth, fact driven reporting in doing the difficult work of “covering itself.”
The Policies and Standards for the operation of the Washington Post covers many topics that are at the heart of journalistic integrity.
In the Opinion section, I read clearly about the paper’s “solemn and complete” commitment to keep news columns separate from the editorial pages.
However, I was curious about the following statements: “This separation is intended to serve the reader, who is entitled to the facts in the news columns and to opinions on the editorial and “op-ed” pages. But nothing in this separation of functions is intended to eliminate from the news columns honest, in-depth reporting, or analysis or commentary when plainly labeled.”
If the Post’s readers are entitled to honest, in-depth reporting, then why did the paper fail to run the story about Matea Gold’s departure?
The publisher and editors of the Post must understand that if “democracy dies in darkness” so can a newspaper.
Author’s note: I submitted this op-ed piece to the Washington Post on Saturday, January 4, 2025. I knew the piece would not be accepted. I know nothing about journalism and the daily operation of newspapers. But I believe newspapers in America have failed to adequately report the unraveling of their internal challenges. To me that is disgraceful to subscribers and readers of newspapers. We need transparent reporting of America’s continuing story more than ever. That transparency must include newspapers “covering themselves” not cowering to their owners.
might be baloney 