The Ohio Senate president (R-Lima) called coverage and opinions against Issue 1 the height of hypocrisy because he doesn’t like that people point out his own party’s sanctimonious stance. He didn’t mention that the GOP called the August election an undemocratic waste of taxpayer money before approving it in hopes of defeating an abortion amendment on the November ballot.
Whatever. There’s another point: the importance of local newspapers and how to keep them vibrant. As much as lawmakers from both sides criticize “the media,” we need local newspapers to keep citizens informed.
Note the difference between “media” and “local newspapers.” Lawmakers use “media” as a less specific catch-all phrase that confuses the public. Does that mean radio, TV, or the biased content providers, left and right, who write from a specific point of view?
Specificity would help in understanding the importance of thriving local newspapers.
Just ask the folks in Welch, West Virginia, in the heart of coal country and just a five-hour drive from Dayton. The Welch News closed a few months ago following a 100-year run, leaving residents of the small town in a news desert.
Residents don’t know what’s going on at council meetings, can’t read about happenings at local churches, and, most importantly, lack a trusted source of information. In a community with sporadic to nonexistent internet service, the people of Welch can’t even quickly get online to find news. Even if they could, there wouldn’t be anything local since the one reliable source closed.
“It was like a heartbeat, like a thread that ran through the community,” one resident told the Associated Press.
Since 2004, more than 1,800 newspapers — 60 dailies and 1,700 weeklies — have closed, according to a study by the University of North Carolina’s Hussman School of Journalism and Media. The report said that roughly half serve small and rural communities, and most remaining newspapers have a circulation of under 15,000.
These are all communities that lost that trusted source.
We hear anger when someone doesn’t agree with what they read based on their contradictory beliefs. But local newspapers, like this one, have a long tradition of doing their best to provide both sides of an issue in a news story as objectively as possible.
Objective doesn’t mean you get to read only what you agree with. Objective means providing factual information that helps you make up your mind.
And when people disagree with what they read, they can do what Huffman did. They can rip to shreds a newspaper that isn’t afraid of and relishes a different point of view.
Content providers who attract readers by supporting a specific viewpoint (Trump is a megalomaniacal, wanna-be dictator! Biden’s demented!) have done more damage to our democracy than anything any politician can. These content purveyors use sensational headlines to drive online clicks and revenue. People confuse them with legitimate journalism organizations, and that leads to a decrease in media trust.
Without a trusted news source, where would readers get information on Issue 1, and where would they read Huffman’s rebuttal? Sure, anyone could go to a website filled with pro or con Issue opinions, but that’s not the same as objective reporting. It’s not the same as getting both sides as this newspaper did last week when it published portions of a debate from people on opposite ends of Issue 1, or this week with contributors from both sides of Issue 1.
It’s hard to trust. It’s even harder not having a local source of information.
Ray Marcano’s column appears on these pages each Sunday. You can reach him at raymarcanoddn@gmail.com.
About the Author