Ruminations, December 6, 2008

Freedom from the press

Everyone knows that the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. It’s one of our most cherished principles. But what if, through some nefarious plot, there were no press? If there were no press to read, then isn’t that the same as eliminating the right to a free press in the Constitution? What’s the point of having the right to a free press if there is none?

But that’s silly, isn’t it? We have a strong and robust press, don’t we? I wonder.

Last week, the Journal Register Company announced that, unless buyers could be found, two Connecticut local daily newspapers, the Bristol Press and the New Britain Herald would cease publication after Christmas. The Journal Register Company is currently carrying $640 million of debt and had gross revenues of $463 million in 2007. Not exactly the position in which you would want to be if you ran a strong and robust press.

Last month, the New York Sun ceased publication. The Sun, which had taken the name of defunct New York paper, began publishing in 2002. It was a right-of-center paper that envisioned competing with the New York Times. Its editorial page set its philosophy for "limited government, individual liberty, constitutional fundamentals, equality under the law, [and] economic growth.” It received praise for its cov erage of news, arts and sports. But going up against the Times, especially in left-of-center New York, was a formidable and, as it turns out, impossible task – especially when the Times is, so to speak, sucking wind.

The Time’s circulation is projected to fall to under one million in the next 18 months – a drop of more than ten percent in 15 years. It reported that profit for the quarter ended September 30 was $10 million, down from last year’s third quarter profit of $28 million. Its bonds have been accorded “junk” status and its dividends have been reduced from $.21 a share to $.06. And it’s been reported that the Times is looking for buyers for its Boston Globe subsidiary, whose ad revenues are down 20%.

It’s getting worse. Last October, The Columbus Dispatch, The Minneapolis Star Tribune, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune, announced their intention to discontinue use of the Associated Press wire service. What will those papers be like without wire service and, more importantly, can the AP remain in business if it loses a big chunk of the revenues that those papers provide?

Other papers are losing ad revenue and subscribers and, to offset this revenue shortfall, are cutting coverage and laying off staff. This, in turn, makes the papers less attractive to its community and is resulting in further cuts in circulation and fewer ads.

One of the contributing factors to the demise of hard copy newspapers has been the availability of news on the Internet. Yet if the New Britain Herald, The Bristol and The Associated Press go out of business, their web sites will also cease to function. Who will we rely upon for our news then? If, as many believe, the main stream media is unreliable for unopinionated hard news, the not-so main stream media is even less reliable.

Is this bad? Of course. Aside from the loss of jobs, a newspaper provides a sense of community to its subscriber base and, without the papers the community it serves loses a part of what makes it a community.

When the New York Sun was in its death throes, New York city Mayor Michael Blumberg (I) and several New York State officials huddled together to determine if there was anything they could do to save the paper. (It would have been ironic if a newspaper that supports limited government received a subsidy.) Connecticut governor Jody Rell (R) and state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) have been in discussion to see what could be done to resuscitate the ailing Connecticut papers. Which leads to the question: can a newspaper that receives some form of government subsidies be truly independent of the government?

What’s the solution? If there is a solution and if we want to keep our carefully crafted constitutional rights, the solution must be focus on the Bill of Rights as much as it focuses on costs and revenues.

Words of war

Words are important. They shape how you look at things and how you perceive concepts and, ultimately, how you respond to them. In his campaign for governor in 2006, Deval Patrick (D, MA) said: "'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' Just words? Just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words? 'Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.' Just words? ‘I have a dream.' Just words?"

Patrick suggested to candidate Barack Obama that Obama excerpt those words and he did but that’s not the point. What is the point is what Patrick said. Words are important because they express ideas and philosophy. President Lincoln thought that the words of the US Constitution were superseded by the document that proceeded it – the Declaration of Independence and, thus “All men are created equal;” and hence, the Emancipation Proclamation.

With that labored introduction, let’s turn to the words that refer to the war at hand. We have been told by many that President Obama will have two wars to with which to deal: Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s wrong.

Obama has not inherited two wars he has inherited one war – the war on terror. I know, “the War on Terror” is a bad name but wars often have bad names. Some historians believe that the War of 1812 was really part of the Napoleonic wars that raged in Europe and should, by right, be called the First World War.

In Iraq, we are fighting al Qaeda, who increased their presence there coincident with the US invasion. Evidence clearly establishes that Saddam and al Qaeda were allies – loosely to be sure – but nonetheless allies. Now that victory in Iraq seems to be in sight, al Qaeda is shifting more of its forces to Afghanistan. As Afghanistan becomes an increasingly difficult theater for them, they will shift more into Pakistan. If they fail in Pakistan, what will be next? Somalia? India? Indonesia?

During World War II, we invaded Belgium, Holland and France. We didn’t look at each as a separate war: the war in Belgium, the war in Holland and the War in France. By looking at the war in its totality, we were better able to meet that challenges of each theater and defeat the enemy.

In our current situation, if we continue to look at each locale as a separate war, we will not act effectively to defeat an enemy that looks at the whole picture. And victory is important.

“Words”, said Barack Obama, “are important.” They are. And so are wars.

Bailing out the automakers

It would appear that Congress will approve a bailout of the American automobile industry if not under President Bush then under President Obama. Interesting. I wonder if some foreign auto maker would then bring suit against the US for unfair trade practices in subsidizing the American auto industry. But they probably won’t because it would be just too political and could give the foreign car maker a bad name in the biggest auto market in the world.

Then too, if Congress authorizes billions, the auto industry should have some Congressional oversight. Who is best qualified to do this? I would suggest Representative Barney Frank (D, MA) and Senator Christopher Dodd (D, CT). These folks were in charge of overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and, judging by their results, they probably have plenty of time on their hands.

Saving Money

For the latest round of Congressional hearings, the CEOs of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler drove to Washington. This was because Congress sufficiently shamed the executives at their previous appearance by pointing out that they spent $20,000 each to fly to Washington by private jet.

Let’s see. The GM CEO Rick Wagoner earned $14 million last year. With approximately 200 work days per year, Wagoner earns about $70,000 per day. So if he flies to DC on a private jet, it costs GM $20,000 plus half of a day’s salary each way for a total of $90,000. If he drives, it takes two days each way and, at $70,000 per day, it costs GM $280,000 in salary costs (plus gas and tolls).

So now, which is less? The trip flying by private jet for $90,000 or driving for $280,000? Congress figures wrong again and wins the shame game again.

Robert J. Kulak

West Hartford, Connecticut