SF Chronicle May Fold

There was big news in San Francisco yesterday afternoon.  Hearst Corporation, which owns the San Francisco Chronicle (among 15 other newspapers), announced that it requires “deep” cuts at the Chronicle or it will seek a buyer, and — if a buyer cannot be found — close the Chronicle.  The Chronicle has been publishing in San Francisco since 1865.

The Hearst Corp. on Tuesday announced an effort to reverse the deepening operating losses of its San Francisco Chronicle by seeking near-term cost savings that would include “significant” cuts to both union and nonunion staff.

In a statement, Hearst said that if the savings cannot be accomplished “quickly,” the company will seek a buyer, and if none comes forward, it will close The Chronicle. The Chronicle lost more than $50 million in 2008 and is on a pace to lose more than that this year, Hearst said.

The newspaper business certainly is hurting.  As advertising revenue declines — as it is for all media — revenues will fall.  The article notes that it costs the Chronicle more than two times its subscription rate to publish and distribute the newspaper.  The rest, ostensibly, is to be made up by advertising revenues.

This situation — losing scads of money — is not confined to just the Chronicle.  The New York Times has had financial problems, as had The Washington Post (they reported huge losses today), and most other daily newspapers in this country.  It doesn’t help that many people are not buying the print edition of newspapers and are getting the same content online for free.  Why pay for what you can get for nothing, especially in these economic times?  I do it.

I love being able to read newspapers online.  I can read papers from several cities — San Francisco (the Chronicle), Washington (the Post, the Blade), New York (the Times), Los Angeles (the Times), Jerusalem (the Post) — you get the idea.  I think it helps me stay informed, reading several different news sources.  I quote liberally from them in my blog; and I benefit from their reporting.

Newspapers — like them or not — provide a valuable function in society, even in the instant news culture we live in now.  They are able to go more in-depth on stories than television and radio.  They play a vital societal role in holding government accountable (even if they do that imperfectly).

So what do they do?  Charge for website access in this web-must-be-free culture?  I’d be willing to pay a small amount for access (and quoting rights) to my favorite news sources.  Would you?  Would you, knowing that if you don’t, we’ll lose our big daily newspapers?  Does it matter to you?  It does to me.

I can’t imagine what it would be like without a major daily in each city.  (Sorry, SF Examiner lovers.  That paper is a rag.)  And that day may come very soon for San Francisco.

Viral Emails Attack Obama

The Politico posted a story last night about Obama having to “Americanize” himself in the eyes of voters because of a viral email campaign designed to undercut him.  This concerns me.

The spread of these e-mails has forced Obama to embark on a campaign to Americanize his image and his biography. Pivoting away from his pitch to a primary election audience uninterested in flag-waving and nationalism, he’s returning to the message that first brought him to the national spotlight in 2004: the idea that his is the quintessential American story.

He’s also drawing the campaign into partisan combat, blaming Republicans for the smears even though they have not been traced back to GOP sources. “The Republicans, they’re trying to make [it] ‘this is not about you; it’s about me.’ They’re trying to say, ‘Well, Obama, we don’t know him that well, he hasn’t been around that long, he’s got a funny name; maybe he’s a Muslim,’” Obama said Monday in Montana. “They want to make people worry about me.”

An eye-opening video shot by the online Real News Network earlier this month in West Virginia drove that point home.

One voter concludes that, “The United States of America should be run by somebody from the United States of America.” When reminded by the reporter capturing the footage that Obama is, in fact, American, the voter responded: “He’s Muslim.”

Nearly every day of the primary, newspaper stories in places from the Pacific Northwest to Pennsylvania have been filled with similar anecdotes.

So, as he pivots from wooing left-of-center primary voters to winning over the broader American electorate, chief among Obama’s priorities will be dispelling the notion that he is somehow not fully American.

It’s a sad state of affairs that people on the Internet can do this.  But it’s even worse that newspapers and other media give these falsehoods credence.  Reporters should know better.  And they’re edited (unlike me), so that’s another layer of accountability.

The Internet is a wonderful thing.  It allows many people visible speech that they didn’t have before.  (Before I started this blog, all I could really do is write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper — which may or may not get printed — or spout off to family and friends.  Now if I have a thought I can put it out there for people to see and comment on.  It’s a great thing.)  But much of it is anonymous, which allows people the opportunity to spread information that is known to be false.

The end result is that a formidable presidential candidate has to spend his time debunking falsehoods about himself that have already been debunked.  It’s pretty vicious, really, and cowardly, to conduct this kind of smear campaign against someone anonymously.  And it’s a shame that Obama has to defend himself from this kind of thing because of his name.