For sale: Daily newspaper with a captive audience, healthy profit margin and demoralized staff. Serious inquiries, only…

Since Newsday owner Sam Zell admitted last week that the property was, in fact, for sale, the rumor to that effect was finally laid to rest. Which made room for the media – the media! – to portray Rupert Murdoch as the only viable alternative to buy the profitable daily newspaper. A hero, if you will.
So where does all this leave me, you and the other 2.7 million people we share this Island with? It leaves us teetering on the brink of a grand opportunity.
Here’s why.
For all the moaning happening within the newspaper industry about declining circulation, loss of readers and plummeting advertising dollars, it’s still a pretty good business to be in. Consider this: Newspaper profit margins are in the high teens – almost double that of other industries in the U.S., according to the Project for Journalism Excellence’s latest State of the News Media Report. Of course, in 2004, newspaper profit margins were in the low 20’s, so we are seeing an erosion of sorts, but it’s still not Mac ’n Cheese time.
Right now, the real challenge newspapers – and all forms of media – are facing is how to provide you the content you want, in the format you want, at the moment you want. In the quest to be innovative and visionary, the media industry is running to the internet for the answer. For the most part, everyone’s coming up with the same results: Sure, more revenue is coming in through advertising on the Internet, but it’s slow growing and, like all ad revenue, contingent on a healthy economy. That last part is especially important and especially troublesome to all businesses in America today.
The challenge Long Island, in particular, is facing is the threat of media consolidation at levels unprecedented in our region. What Long Island needs most at this moment is not what a media mogul can provide. The Murdoch-owned News Corp.’s recent acquisition of weeklies in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens give his empire too much say in too little space, not too mention what he owns in New York that influences that country. To acquire the dominate voice on Long Island takes Montauk to New York and turns it into a highway littered with News Corp.-driven information.
The possible sale of Newsday is the most critical topic affecting Long Island right now, and the reason it takes precedence is quite simple: The flow of information is about to be interrupted. And that is the exact reason the sale of a newspaper should be of utmost concern to the millions of people who call Long Island home.
So what we have here is a grand opportunity for Long Island to lead the way in the future of the news media, much in the same way we gave birth to the ’burbs and coddled aviation. Instead of allowing another mega media company to acquire Newsday and lose what’s left of the voice Long Island needs to bind this region together, we need to seriously explore other options. There’s lots of parking lot chatter about deep-pocketed local business types who’d be interested in buying the paper or maybe, with the paper’s price tag rumored (again) to be anywhere from $300 million (too little) to $1 billion (too much), banding together as a consortium to make the purchase. Such an action would serve to keep the paper local, something it hasn’t been since 1970, when Times Mirror bought it from Harry Guggenheim.
More likely, the time is right to consider running the newspaper as a nonprofit enterprise which is, quite possibly, the wave of the future. The philosophy of the nonprofit structure is to be of service to the people, which is directly in line with the true purpose of a newspaper. In-depth reporting, such as the type of investigative pieces we find less and less in corporate-owned media, could be nurtured and funded through a foundation within the nonprofit. While the nonprofit concept may seem unusual, it’s worked with great success on the other side of the pond, with the BBC and The Guardian, for example. Here, we have quite a few, including C-SPAN, the Christian Science Monitor, and the local paper, The Day, in New London, Conn. operating under the nonprofit structure. Even more intriguing: Since 1848, the Associated Press has existed as a cooperative venture funded by the fees of its members. In a way, it operates much like a credit union, with its members owning a part of the company. In fact, if the people of Long Island simply tossed together what they spend for their daily cup of Starbucks, you’d have a newspaper startup funded by the community. In return, the newspaper could focus on taking care of the community and reinvest the profit into the newspaper. That hasn’t happened here in a very long time.
The opportunity to reclaim a vital component of Long Island life is here. Isn’t anybody listening?

# # #

What Price for Local News?

Big trouble is brewing, and it’s more threatening to Long Island’s future than any other issue that’s been laid on the table.

The sale of Newsday trumps affordable housing, taxes, energy and even brain drain as the most critical topic affecting Long Island right now, and the reason it takes precedence is quite simple: The flow of information is about to be interrupted. And that is the exact reason the sale of a newspaper should be of utmost concern to the 2.7 million people who call Long Island home.

Potential bidders for the paper surprise no one, as their names have been bandied about for years: Murdoch, Dolan, Zuckerman. What mega-media company would not have an interest in a newspaper that still boasts one of the highest concentration rates in one of the most desirable markets in the country and, until recently, served as the fabled cash cow that helped offset losses at other Tribune Co. newspapers, including the perpetually troubled L.A. Times.

Yet, Newsday and the people of Long Island, deserve better.

Should any of the named prospects take title of Newsday, we face the ramifications of uber media consolidation, at levels unprecedented in our region. Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we’ve watched media companies acquire and merge, FCC regulations lessen and newsrooms disintegrate. Much of the M&As are reported to be for reasons of “synergy.” Since 2000, such synergy has borne witness to more than 72,000 media job cuts. If news and information put into perspective is what you want in your local news, you’ll find plenty of wire copy and repackaged content from other media properties in the same family to take the place of what you want, need and expect in your local news. If media companies as local businesses and employers speaks to your interests, you’ll find an incredible track record of downsizing combined with profits going to headquarters, instead of reinvested in the local property and its people.

Under Tribune Co. (prior to Sam Zell’s recent purchase of the company), Newsday has gone from a regional player with a strong track record for carefully chosen, well crafted national and international news, to a daily paper operating without a national desk, no foreign bureaus and a regional and local staff so slimmed down it’s bordering on anorexic. The product has changed greatly. With it, Long Island’s perspective of itself is shifting. Heavy on police blotter and random acts of crime, it’s an eye opener: Despite all the talk of the Island’s stronghold as a sleepy suburbia, those things do happen here. To give credit where it’s due, perhaps Newsday Editor John Mancini’s biggest achievement has been to abruptly awaken this place into recognizing it’s not so sleepy, nor as suburban as it pretends. New York Newsday was once touted as the tabloid in a tutu. Now, its provincial sister paper has turned tabloid, without the benefit, nor the budget, for frills.

What Long Island needs most at this moment is not what any of the Big Three can provide. Mort Zuckerman’s holdings concentrate too much power within the New York metro area, but pale to those of Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch’s News Corp.’s recent acquisition of weeklies in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens give his empire too much say in too little space. To acquire the dominate voice on Long Island takes Montauk to New York and turns it into a highway littered with News Corp.-driven information. Conversely, the concept of the Dolan family’s Cablevision acquiring Newsday places total control of the information Long Islanders receive in the hands of two properties, Newsday and News12, squarely in the hands of one owner.

There’s another aspect of information control that seldom sees the light of day: it has nothing to do with how a story is covered and has everything to do with which stories are ignored. Reporters won’t cover stories that present a conflict of interest, and editorial writers face the same dilemma. The conflicts increase as media companies are bought by larger entities. Depending on how centralized a media company, certain topics may be mandated as off limits. It’s a much more subtle threat to the free flow of information, yet it happens.

While the price of Newsday’s worth may be speculated between $300 million to $1 billion, those numbers don’t and can’t reflect its true value in the right hands. What is the real value to keep a region informed and therefore, vibrant and competitive? What would you pay for someone to trust your word? Local news is a valuable natural resource, just like the water you drink and the air you breathe. Information has the ability and the power to open your mind to new ideas, solutions and philosophies. The power of the press, when placed in the wrong hands, or too few hands, changes the fundamental concept of all American freedoms and goes straight to the heart of a democratic society. Since 1996, has America been that strong of a country? Recently, we’ve seen war on our own soil. More recently, we’ve lost our super power status and watch as three countries are poised to overtake the United States as the place where your children are guaranteed a better life. A strong, responsible news media keeps society healthy. The formula is proportional.

Is Long Island so strong we can afford to lose our only daily newspaper to big media?

We’ve seen what media consolidation has done across America, and Long Island has been bleeding all along: Our 19 commercial radio stations have not one news reporter among them, leaving us highly vulnerable in times of emergency. Put into such context, it’s imperative that Newsday end up in the hands of an independent owner who values Long Island. That won’t happen under the helm of a mega-media company.

Like it or not, Long Island’s future is tied directly to Newsday’s future. And now that our lone daily is no longer quietly being shopped around for prospective buyers, what happens next has the power to change your life.

What can you do to help? Ask your friends and family to read this piece. Forward it to your local politicians and the FCC, and let them know you care about the quality of your local news and you need a local daily newspaper that cares about Long Island.

Big News, Little Coverage, No Surprise

On Tuesday, the biggest news of the day never made the headlines.

That’s because the news was about the news itself -- and how the FCC gave a gift to the media and a lump of coal to the public.

It was on Tuesday that, despite public outcry to the contrary, the FCC loosened its broadcast-newspaper cross ownership rule. The rule, created in the ‘70s, was meant to protect and ensure a diversity of voices within a market.

Times have changed.

At the FCC today, there’s no concern for diversity of any kind, whether it be voices or demographics. Now, this ruling change has ushered in the ability for big media to get bigger and – can you imagine? – your news to have even less substance.

With Newsday owned by the Tribune Co., which also owns the CW 11 here in the New York market, the Trib needed the ruling change in order for the company to be sold. But on Nov. 30, the FCC voted to allow Tribune a waiver from the cross-ownership ban. Yesterday, the FCC announced more than 40 waivers have been granted. Clearly, the Trib’s needs were just the tip of the iceberg.

FCC Chair Kevin Martin argued that the cross-ownership ban was unnecessary in today’s marketplace, what with the rise of the internet as a communications medium – and all those cable channels.

But the reality is, the Internet as a source for public opinion and debate came about in reaction to media consolidation. Disenfranchised and disheartened by not having a place to tell their truths, bloggers and citizen journalists were born. And, yes, while we could argue there is a cacophony of voices available to anyone with a computer, those voices have few followers and not everyone has a computer. Hovering on the horizon, too, is a movement to silence the Internet, as four companies stand to gain control of the content. If that happens, your searches will bring you content preferred by advertisers -- and gone will be what had momentarily, at least, been a promising frontier for free speech. It should come as no surprise: Anyone who’s watched independent bookstores, movie theatres and even local coffee shops be replaced by national chains can easily see how our media now suffers in the same manner. Lacking depth and breadth of knowledge, news today offers immediate information instead of perspective.

As for having hundreds of channels and more choices than ever, what we really have is more delivery channels and less news coming at us from fewer people with less experience. Every time a media outlet consolidates, the news staff is among the first to be cut. Out the door goes the institutional knowledge, the street smarts and the product itself. Next goes investigative journalism: the kind of news that tells you where your tax dollars are really going, what’s happening inside your children’s schools and whether or not your drinking water is safe.

If we have so many options and varied voices, and our media is as healthy as the FCC claims it is, then how does a story such as the “miracle in the mine” happen across the nation? The one that erroneously reported the miners in Sago were still alive? The same story ran on cable and broadcast, and in your daily newspapers. When all was said and done, the media took pride in noting which outlet broke the misinformation first.

Clearly, something rotten’s in Denmark.

Here on Long Island, we could be the poster child for the ills of media consolidation. While we boast 19 very commercial radio stations and, in fact, are home to the 18^th largest radio market in the country, what do they offer in the way of public interest, convenience and necessity? Nothing. Without one single radio news reporter on the Island today, our local radio stations are indistinguishable and local only in location, not content. The middle-of-the-night or wee-hour of the morning public affairs programming leans heavily toward the advertorial. Uninspired marketing, at best. Insipid talk, at worst.

Newsday, which had been the source for Island media to follow, has marched from a daily with acclaimed international and national reporting (and flawed local news) and blossomed into a local shopper filled with AP Wire and syndicated reports (and even less, but still flawed local news). The product tells the tale: The foreign bureaus have all closed, the Washington, D.C. and Albany staffs have been cut, and the local news desks continue to bleed. As Newsday’s localism diminishes, a trickle down effect is taking place at other local news outlets that relied on Newsday to pave the way.

What’s intriguing is how the FCC has patted itself on the back this year for being so responsive and holding multiple public hearings. But, with the public typically given about five days notice before a public hearing and thus having little time to prepare and present, these forums have become an expected exercise in futility. That’s why it speaks volumes about public dissatisfaction with today’s media when a public hearing attracts so many with so much to say that the meeting continues well into the night, as we’ve seen happen this year. It’s also noteworthy that the FCC seldom sees how its decisions play out on the street: The information they review is so whitewashed and limited they can’t understand what the fuss is all about.

This is what it’s all about: It’s about having what appears to be hundreds of channels and choices, but what is really nothing but repackaged content and syndicated generalizations of interest to no one and of great consequence to everyone.

Perhaps Martin thought his last-minute, push-through vote would escape public attention, what with everybody busy with the holidays and all. But not so fast. Yesterday the House introduced the “Media Ownership Act of 2007,” which promises to overturn this new ruling. (The Fair Media Council continuously files comments with the FCC, politicians and supports like-minded organizations on issues such as these, but we encourage you to let your individual voice be heard, too. Tell us what you think.)

One of the great ironies is this: Regulation is at odds with a free press. So maybe the public would be better served if the FCC quit trying to rewrite already-broken rules (as the need for those 42 waivers would attest), and instead demand the media explain why they deserve the right to rent the public airwaves in exchange for half a trillion dollars a year?

Or, by looking at the makeup of their designated media markets which, like technology and population patterns, have grown up over the years and redefine those that don’t make sense? For example, Long Island and other outlying areas around the country that have unusual and highly demanding needs in times of emergencies? Perhaps, too, if we were to look at media from an economic standpoint, which the FCC does: come up with a formula that allows companies of all sizes an equal chance at owning a company that happens to distribute news and information? How intriguing that the Free Enterprise system relies on the success of small, medium and large businesses in order to prosper, yet Free Enterprise and American media have nothing to do with one another. If, too, we are to buy the argument that so much has changed since the ‘70s that the current rules don’t work, then maybe it is time for cable to be regulated, and the playing field finally leveled for broadcasters. After all, Gen Y and even latter-born Gen Xers don’t know there’s a difference between cable and broadcast, so why hold on to more boundaries that don’t work?

Perhaps, if the FCC looked closely enough, they’d find their laissez-faire attitude has done great things for big media, but nothing for the people in need of localized news that can help them live better lives. Much in the same way mass-produced movies, books and cups of coffee have robbed us of untold cultural experiences.