Mr. Bateman’s column of April 18, 2008 on the notoriety of the Post gave me a chuckle, but also stirred a few thoughts on the state of newspapers in Abbotsford.
It is interesting that the behaviour of the Post in covering local issues has resulted in it covering both ends of the notorious definition spectrum. Notorious: adj. known widely and usually unfavourably.
It is hardly surprising that local politicians view the Post unfavourably, having become use to the friendly treatment of the chain owned local papers, Can-west Global’s The Times and the Black Press’s Pravda.
Should the staff of the Post need to seek solace concerning the politicians unfavourable view, they can take heart from being widely known among the public as the only local source one can count on for news, commentary, letters and opinion that questions the actions of local politicians and calls them to account for the outcomes and consequences of their actions.
This brings up an important, and perhaps somewhat misleading, point that Mr. Bateman raised.
“The press holds politicians accountable on behalf of the public.”
This is a nice theory and would be in keeping with the stated journalistic principle: “The public’s right to know about matters of importance is paramount. The newspaper has a special responsibility as surrogate of its readers to be a vigilant watchdog of their legitimate public interests” (from the Associated Press Managing Editors: Ethics code) – if it was the state of affairs vis-à-vis our local papers.
I grew up reading my home town local newspaper and was fortunate to have an opportunity from time to time ask questions of the owner/publisher/editor, a friend of my father. The paper was a part of the community, involved in what was happening in town and acting as the citizen’s eyes and ears.
Over the years since that time the nature of the press has changed; with local papers being bought up by chains and so answering to corporate headquarters in another city. The landscape for newspapers today is a minefield of challenges from the internet and other technological changes.
On the cost side local papers deliver the news via the most expensive option – delivery to every home in the area.
On the revenue side, technological change has seen competition from the internet and other new media tearing large chunks out of traditional print media’s classified advertising revenue. This has left local papers with a revenue stream that is not simply declining, but is falling at an incredible rate.
Papers have tried to protect what revenue they can by being innocuous and thereby not offending any advertisers. In light of this revenue crunch the boosterism, acceptance of statements made as though they were fact and not asking any obvious but uncomfortable questions, is hardly surprising since the only advertising contracts of any consequence in Abbotsford are those of the City and the School District.
That readership is also in serious decline should surprise nobody, since these type of editorial choices lead to blandness.
Editorial policy and story choices lie in the hands of the owners and what they print is entirely their right to choose. Just as readers have the right to choose not to read the dreary, dull result of these editorial choices.
It is just unfortunate for the local communities that, at a time they are faced with serious challenges to their very survival, local papers are in the hands of management that has never had to actually “sell” a newspaper.
Newspapers are a product and if you want to sell a product in an increasingly competitive market it has to be a product people want.
Blandness or trying to be inoffensive, the paper everyone loves, may be fine for the bottom line were the contents of the paper need only serve as filler around the ads; where the paper itself serves mainly as a wrap for flyers to be delivered in.
Blandness will not cut it in the long haul, perhaps not even in the short haul, in a competitive, changing and challenging marketplace where the need is not to be “loved” but to be read, to be the paper everyone chooses and wants to read.
Newspapers need to be an important and integral part of the community, a must read, in order to reverse the loss of readership, regain advertising revenue and make viable the possibility of subscription revenue.
People subscribed and paid for the hometown newspaper of my youth reading every issue front to back because it was full of interesting news, commentary and opinion. It contained all the juicy tidbits and nitty-gritty because that was the editorial policy the old Georgetown Herald pursued. And while it occasionally lost advertising over something it printed, it gained and held the bulk of its advertising because it was a must read.
Even without factoring in the consequences of management that seems intent on continuing current practices into oblivion, I would argue that the community is poorer, in fact ill served, by this Blanding. Particularly true in an election year such as this is. Democracy is based on the public making informed choices; being served up boosterism and bland pabulum does not help in making informed decisions.
Questioning Plan A thoroughly, having the head of the ratepayers association, the thoughts of a retired councillor and Mr. Bateman on its pages is the path to becoming the paper of choice, the must read – the paper people actually look for, going out of their way to find a copy to read.
I would call that a solid business plan, lacking perhaps only the writings of a columnist with a … shall we say somewhat unique world view.
I would advance the argument that it is not only debate that is better for having The Post on the scene. Democracy and the ability of the citizens to participate and make informed decisions is better served with the Post and its independent counterpoint on the scene.
