I’m A Millennial. I Pay for Newspapers. Here’s Why.

As a digital native I never actually paid for my news, until recently.

As a digital native I never actually paid for my news, until recently.

That’s a problem.

I believed a social media feed of well-vetted news sources and reputable media outlets was enough to adequately inform me.

That’s a problem.

While I was building my “news nest” so was everyone else. But to one person TMZ’s latest gossip piece about Selena Gomez’s pet turtle is as important as a Washington Post op-ed about Chinese economic policy is to another. To some folks the front page of the New York Times is as reputable as the front page of Brietbart.com.

And that’s a BIG PROBLEM.

ALL NEWS IS NOT CREATED EQUAL

Alex Jones is to news what Ted Bundy is to women’s rights. He makes Joseph Goebbels look like Ken Burns.

Yet our president-elect accepts Jones’ bilious sputtering as truth, apparently.

For instance, this lie about winning the popular vote by three to five million votes, which can be traced back to Jones (in this Infowars piece from Nov. 14 that says exactly that). But Trump doesn’t want to cite him as a source. Why? Because any sane person who listens to Alex Jones for 30 seconds knows that he’s certifiable. But the lie suits his purposes.

It was the same with birtherism.

You bring up a lie to undermine an opponent’s credibility (the more outlandish the better), repeat it a bunch, and then back away once it’s eventually disproven none the worse for wear.

Trump knows it’s not up to him to prove his claims — it’s up to the press to disprove them.

And this time instead of Obama or Hillary Clinton, his new enemy is the press corp itself. A war against the press is a war against freedom of information (unbiased information) and that is nothing less than an assault on our democracy.

I see my newspaper subscriptions like an investment in the future of our nation — as seed money for the investigative journalism that will be and must be done in the coming months and years.

At their best throughout American history it has been newspapers that have carried the torch of transparency, holding it up to illuminate the inner workings of the government, the military, law enforcement, the church and other institutions that would rather not humor decent, disagreement or civilian oversight. It’s been print reporters who did the exhaustive work of investigative journalism, who uncovered stories the public deserved to know, that changed the world. Even now as their ranks dwindle, their pay remains stagnate and they stand to become First Amendment martyrs to the Trump administration it’s newspaper reporters who did the real work of journalism. Still, they are the ones who write the stories that get read, in some form or another, to the American public on TV and over the radio every day.

Relying solely on radio or TV news is much like being a baby bird — The stream of information at which you eagerly lap is actually regurgitant but if you don’t know any better it tastes great.

Now that’s not to disparage American media consumers (I’ll leave that for another post). That barb is aimed at television “journalists” — most of whom just want to be on TV and/or look good on TV.

What was once the domain of a proud lineage of broadcast journalists like Cronkite, Murrow, Dan Rather, Barbara Walters, Gwen Ifill and others of the like is now the territory of propagandists, puppets and sycophants for the most part. Where is the dialogue between two profoundly differing yet no less substantive viewpoints like what you saw when Gore Vidal debated William F. Buckley on national television?

I’ll leave it with this quote from a speech by Edward R. Murrow to CBS television affiliates in October, 1958:

“Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore also the future of the corporations? This method would also provide real competition between the networks as to which could outdo the others in the palatable presentation of information. It would provide an outlet for the young men of skill, and there are many, even of dedication, who would like to do something other than devise methods of insulating while selling.

There may be other and simpler methods of utilizing these instruments of radio and television in the interest of a free society. But I know of none that could be so easily accomplished inside the framework of the existing commercial system. I don’t know how you would measure the success or failure of a given program. And it would be very hard to prove the magnitude of the benefit accruing to the corporation which gave up one night of a variety or quiz show in order that the network might marshal its skills to do a thorough-going job on the present status of NATO, or plans for controlling nuclear tests. But I would reckon that the president, and indeed the stockholders of the corporation who sponsored such a venture, would feel just a little bit better about both the corporation and the country.”

You can see a dramatic (and well done) rendition of that speech in the film “Good Night and Good Luck” and on YouTube here.

So these are just are few reasons why I subscribe to newspapers and other print publications, including The New York Times, The Seattle Times, The Washington Post, The Week and of course my hometown paper, The Wenatchee World.

I urge you to seriously consider taking out a newspaper subscription (or five) as well. If we vote with our dollars then vote the freedom of the press by paying for newspapers.