Paper Trail
Jan 30th 2007, 08:41 PM
In a democracy, riling the citizens is often the first step toward reform
WALKER LUNDY
Special to the Observer (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/opinion/16577059.htm)
"It is a newspaper's duty to print the news and raise hell."
-- Wilbur Story, founding editor of the Chicago Times, 1861
"When will you arsonists at the Observer stop trying to inflame the public?"
-- Letter to the editor, The Charlotte Observer, 2007
For my first community column, I want to write about hell-raising.
We don't have enough of it -- at least in newspapers.
Why is that?
Newspapers are looking inward these days, struggling to solve a variety of their own problems. Readers are bailing out like frat boys when the beer keg runs dry, and profit-hungry Wall Streeters are muscling publicly held newspaper companies to sell themselves to any gang of rich guys who can do a deal.
The newspaper industry's response is to print more feel-good journalism in hopes of making readers happier and to blow up sizable portions of their newsrooms in hopes the moneymen won't demolish the rest.
It reminds me of the infamous quote from the infantryman during the Vietnam War: "We had to destroy the village to save it."
A casualty in all of this is democracy.
The reason the Founding Fathers started with freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights is because they wanted to protect journalistic hell-raising, stories that lead to change and that someone -- often the government -- would prefer newspapers not print.
Here's the social contract our founders envisioned: Newspapers would print the truth and raise hell, even if it angered people sometimes. In turn, citizens would read the newspaper and be informed, even if it sometimes made them outraged enough to spit out their breakfast. Truth is, readers, if you always agree with your newspaper, you need to read another newspaper.
Ignorance threatens democracy
Today, newspapers are more disinclined than at any time in my memory to "print the news and raise hell." Many people, as represented by the letter-writer above, are less interested in reading about it, too.As a result, too many Americans are uninformed or misinformed. And that is a threat to democracy. Don't believe me? Remember how long it took a majority of Americans to figure out the falsity of the Bush administration's claim that Iraq was involved in 9-11?
What about the paper you're reading now?
In my opinion, the Observer is a very good newspaper, especially when you grade it on the curve of American newspapers. Tommy Tomlinson and other columnists are excellent. Coverage of feature topics -- entertainment, family, food, gardening and home -- is top-notch. Sports and Business are solid and the Lake Norman section is a must-read for those of us who live up here.
But the Observer doesn't raise hell enough to suit me. Too often, the readers -- through letters to the editor and The Buzz -- do a better job than the staff.
Some opportunities:
Charlotte is considered one of the most pro-business cities in America. Why is this and what are the positive -- and negative -- ramifications to this?
Who is responsible for so many Charlotte area roads being inadequate and what do they have to say for themselves?
If the duly elected Mecklenburg County leaders want to ban smoking in public places, why should the North Carolina General Assembly be able to prevent that?
When Bush administration officials are revealed to be misrepresenting, prevaricating or just plain bull-throwing, why is the story too often buried inside the paper -- or not published at all?
Giving readers what they want
The Observer letter-writer wants less inflammation of the public. I want more. In a democracy, riling the citizens is often the first step toward reform. That has often begun with a newspaper story.
The Observer has won Pulitzer Prizes in previous decades exposing brown lung disease and the PTL Club. Today, on page 1, instead of hell-raising, you are more likely to find an inspirational story, maybe with the word "plucky" in it somewhere.
Many readers, including the letter-writer, prefer plucky to hell-raising, and the Observer is trying to give the readers what they want. But that's not necessarily good for democracy's long-term health.
What is the solution? It's easy and it's hard -- easy because it's in the hands of you, the people; hard because too many of us, like the letter-writer, don't want to be challenged by hell-raising journalism. They only like to see it when it's directed at people with whom they disagree.
Readers, you get the kind of newspaper you demand.
And that will get you the kind of democracy you deserve.
Speak up for hell-raising journalism or put up with things as they are. It's your choice.
Walker Lundy retired as editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2003 after 39 years in the newspaper business, including three years as metropolitan editor of the Observer, 1973-76. He lives on Lake Norman in Sherrills Ford. Write him c/o The Observer, P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, NC 28230-0308, or at walkerlundy@hotmail.com.
WALKER LUNDY
Special to the Observer (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/opinion/16577059.htm)
"It is a newspaper's duty to print the news and raise hell."
-- Wilbur Story, founding editor of the Chicago Times, 1861
"When will you arsonists at the Observer stop trying to inflame the public?"
-- Letter to the editor, The Charlotte Observer, 2007
For my first community column, I want to write about hell-raising.
We don't have enough of it -- at least in newspapers.
Why is that?
Newspapers are looking inward these days, struggling to solve a variety of their own problems. Readers are bailing out like frat boys when the beer keg runs dry, and profit-hungry Wall Streeters are muscling publicly held newspaper companies to sell themselves to any gang of rich guys who can do a deal.
The newspaper industry's response is to print more feel-good journalism in hopes of making readers happier and to blow up sizable portions of their newsrooms in hopes the moneymen won't demolish the rest.
It reminds me of the infamous quote from the infantryman during the Vietnam War: "We had to destroy the village to save it."
A casualty in all of this is democracy.
The reason the Founding Fathers started with freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights is because they wanted to protect journalistic hell-raising, stories that lead to change and that someone -- often the government -- would prefer newspapers not print.
Here's the social contract our founders envisioned: Newspapers would print the truth and raise hell, even if it angered people sometimes. In turn, citizens would read the newspaper and be informed, even if it sometimes made them outraged enough to spit out their breakfast. Truth is, readers, if you always agree with your newspaper, you need to read another newspaper.
Ignorance threatens democracy
Today, newspapers are more disinclined than at any time in my memory to "print the news and raise hell." Many people, as represented by the letter-writer above, are less interested in reading about it, too.As a result, too many Americans are uninformed or misinformed. And that is a threat to democracy. Don't believe me? Remember how long it took a majority of Americans to figure out the falsity of the Bush administration's claim that Iraq was involved in 9-11?
What about the paper you're reading now?
In my opinion, the Observer is a very good newspaper, especially when you grade it on the curve of American newspapers. Tommy Tomlinson and other columnists are excellent. Coverage of feature topics -- entertainment, family, food, gardening and home -- is top-notch. Sports and Business are solid and the Lake Norman section is a must-read for those of us who live up here.
But the Observer doesn't raise hell enough to suit me. Too often, the readers -- through letters to the editor and The Buzz -- do a better job than the staff.
Some opportunities:
Charlotte is considered one of the most pro-business cities in America. Why is this and what are the positive -- and negative -- ramifications to this?
Who is responsible for so many Charlotte area roads being inadequate and what do they have to say for themselves?
If the duly elected Mecklenburg County leaders want to ban smoking in public places, why should the North Carolina General Assembly be able to prevent that?
When Bush administration officials are revealed to be misrepresenting, prevaricating or just plain bull-throwing, why is the story too often buried inside the paper -- or not published at all?
Giving readers what they want
The Observer letter-writer wants less inflammation of the public. I want more. In a democracy, riling the citizens is often the first step toward reform. That has often begun with a newspaper story.
The Observer has won Pulitzer Prizes in previous decades exposing brown lung disease and the PTL Club. Today, on page 1, instead of hell-raising, you are more likely to find an inspirational story, maybe with the word "plucky" in it somewhere.
Many readers, including the letter-writer, prefer plucky to hell-raising, and the Observer is trying to give the readers what they want. But that's not necessarily good for democracy's long-term health.
What is the solution? It's easy and it's hard -- easy because it's in the hands of you, the people; hard because too many of us, like the letter-writer, don't want to be challenged by hell-raising journalism. They only like to see it when it's directed at people with whom they disagree.
Readers, you get the kind of newspaper you demand.
And that will get you the kind of democracy you deserve.
Speak up for hell-raising journalism or put up with things as they are. It's your choice.
Walker Lundy retired as editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2003 after 39 years in the newspaper business, including three years as metropolitan editor of the Observer, 1973-76. He lives on Lake Norman in Sherrills Ford. Write him c/o The Observer, P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, NC 28230-0308, or at walkerlundy@hotmail.com.