Local news is where it's at

There may be no clearer industry example of ‘Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde’ than the newspaper business.
Ask the editor of a large daily newspaper how business is going and the typical response is, “We’re hoping it’s bottomed out and we’re clawing our way back up.” Ask a weekly newspaper editor and you may hear, “What? There’s a problem?”
That’s because this information business is like two ships at sea. The large dailies have already hit the iceberg and are grabbing for the lifeboats. Meanwhile, the weeklies are floating by under their own power, wondering what all the fuss is about.
Local newspapers flourish because of their local content -- births, deaths, engagements, weddings, lunch menus, school news and such. The emphasis is on local news. The late Charles Kuralt said their mandate is to be “relentlessly local.” And editor-author Jock Lauterer borrowed that phrase for the third edition of his book Community Journalism – Relentlessly Local. Because local is where it’s at.
Robert M. Myers, publisher of the Lapeer (MI) County Press, took weekly newspapers to task in a 1962 Time magazine article that proclaimed “The American rural weekly is valueless, lily-livered and moribund. It is run by ‘printers’ who stuff their pages with syndicated hayseed features and eke out a precarious living on job-printing contracts….” Well, Mr. Myers, “hayseed features” and “who went where” must be what people want, because local weekly newspapers are holding their own while the large newspapers are calling for the lifelines.
To be fair, large daily newspapers are waging battle against several forces. Radio and television have cut into what was once a print monopoly of news. In 2007 the New York Times reported that national newspaper circulation peaked back in 1984 with 1,600 morning and afternoon dailies with 63 million circulation. But in the last 30 years those numbers slipped to 1,452 newspapers and 53.5 million circulation despite, as Thad McIlroy reports, nearly a doubling in the size of the national population. But the biggest threat, by far, is the Internet and its features that appeal to the fast-paced, changing lifestyles of today’s on-the-go consumer. Meanwhile, the dailies have arrived late to the dance, and are now trying to catch up on the dance steps. This is taking a variety of forms from free online content to paid portals to all-paid content.
In contrast, the Suburban Newspapers of America reported in 2010 that “Suburban and community newspapers executives report optimism and growth.” According to McIlroy, “The beta results showed that 2007 was a growth year for the community newspaper industry with advertising revenue up .5 percent as compared to the overall industry decline of 7.9 percent” reported by the Newspaper Association of America.
And this growth is not limited to the United States. “Community newspapers are a growing medium across Canada,” reports Community Media Canada. “As circulation at daily newspapers declines, community newspapers are growing, since they maintain their monopoly on truly local content.”
Yes, Charles Kuralt said it best. “Relentlessly local.”
Back in 1951, Wilbur Schramm and Merritt Ludwig wrote, “The extraordinary hold which weekly newspapers have on their readers and the important part these newspapers play in socializing their communities have long been recognized.” And in 2003 Richard Fusco wrote, “Weeklies are a part of the community and readers have an emotional bond with their hometown paper. They see their friends and family and even themselves. Their letters to the editor on local issues are printed regularly. Weeklies are more a living thing and less an institution than dailies.”
And if you don’t believe that, watch the crowd form at the post office each week when the newspaper comes out.

We can't afford to wait

The South Dakota Legislature missed its chance this year to outlaw the dangerous practice of texting while driving. The House Local Government Committee rejected the bill, 8-5. House Speaker Val Rausch thought lawmakers could write a better bill to encompass other forms of distracted driving.
How long should we wait before someone is killed by this dangerous practice? Or has it happened already? Reading a text message while driving was at the center of at least one recent accidental death trial in South Dakota.
Will a life or lives be taken by this dangerous practice while we’re waiting for that “better bill” to be introduced and passed? Studies show drivers who text are 23 times more likely to be in an accident. That makes this more a question of “when” than “if.”
The state legislature should act on this measure before it is enacted by Congress, just as the blood alcohol limit was lowered by mandate in order to accept federal highway funds. The Governors Highway Safety Association reports that 30 states already ban texting while driving. Alabama will be number 31 if the measure, which passed their House by an 86-2 vote on March 31, is passed by their state senate. South Dakota should step up and be #32.
South Dakota shouldn’t wait. Let’s not wait another year for someone to be killed by this practice and lives to be destroyed before we take action. I don’t want this to happen to someone you or I know. There’s too much at stake. It’s too likely to happen.
David L. Stoltz

Think before you act

The Muslim world is reacting with anger and violence over the burning of the Quran by a small Florida church. Recent protests in Afghanistan left 20 dead, hundreds injured and thousands protesting and rioting.
The Taliban claimed Western countries excused this action in defense of “freedom of speech,” while Afghans “cannot accept this un-Islamic act.” NATO officials, meanwhile, have reiterated their condemnation of the Quran burning.
According to reports, about 30 people attended the “mock trial” for the Quran outside the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, FL on March 20. Pastor Terry Jones is quoted as saying, “We had a court process. We tried to set it up as fair as possible, which you can imagine, of course, is very difficult.” And after six hours of deliberating by the 12-person jury, the verdict was delivered. This followed the church’s much-publicized threats last 9-11 to burn copies of the Quran in protest of plans to build an Islamic community center near Ground Zero.
According to USA Today, Jones said that burning the book was chosen over shredding, drowning or facing a firing squad by a vote tallied on the organization’s Facebook page.
How democratic.
The end result: innocent people dead (including several UN employees), arrests, injuries and violence. And more venom directed at the United States.
But the big question remains. Is this free speech or incendiary action? And if it’s protected speech, is that blanket authority to say it, or in this case, do it? Does the fact it’s protected make it the right thing to do?
Columnist Rick Sanchez offers General David Petraeus’ view that there was nothing brave about burning the Quran over here when US troops will suffer the consequences over there. Add to that some innocent UN employees and others as well – 20 and counting.
Just because the First Amendment guarantees a right to freedom of speech isn’t carte blanche to act before we think. Years ago the U.S. Supreme Court established that prohibited speech must present a “clear and present danger that [the words] will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” And Congress has the right to outlaw certain forms of conduct that are harmful to the nation. But in 1927 Justice Louis Brandeis opined that to find that “clear and present danger” the speech must be shown “either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated….” Pastor Jones’ actions didn’t openly advocate violence. But serious violence was certainly highly probable.
Still, this is not to excuse the acts of violence perpetrated by offended Muslims on Afghans, UN workers, and, potentially, US troops. But sometimes making a statement just because one can is foolhardy, dangerous and counterproductive. Several have died already because of this action, which has thrown more gasoline on what is already a burning hatred.
Under the First Amendment, Pastor Jones had the right to do what he did.
Now he should explain that to the families of the dead.