What the Decline in Local Journalism Means for Local Governments
A familiar, yet continually haunting, phrase that many will recognize is the slogan of The Washington Post: “Democracy Dies in Darkness”.
The Post announced its first and only slogan in 2017, meeting swells of criticism and mockery, calling the phrase melodramatic and akin to the title of a heavy metal rock album.
The slogan’s reveal introduced the public to an ominous truth that reporters at The Post and in other newsrooms across the country have been witnessing for well over a decade.
In the fifteen years leading up to 2020, over a quarter of news organizations in the United States had closed. That includes over 2,100 local and regional newspapers.
In 2019, the New York Times and Brookings called the decline in local news a crisis. Another source cautioned the decline as an “extinction-level event” for journalism if the country were to enter into another recession.
And that was before the pandemic. Since 2020, even more newsrooms have been bought out and shuttered and journalists laid off despite local dependency on critical, potentially life-saving, reporting.
At the start of 2020, approximately 1,800 communities in the United States do not have a local news source, and half of all counties, 1,540, only have one source.
What Does This Mean for Local Governments?
The decline of local journalism and the threat to democracy are in direct correlation.
If you think about it, local government is the most true form of democracy in this country. The outcome of local elections are often decided by a margin of a few dozen votes, and depending on the election rules of a locality that number can be fewer.
It is not unusual for Council members to enumerate the opinions of their constituents to determine how they will vote on a controversial issue. Zoning cases are often determined by the amount of support or opposition from the impacted community. Changes to policies and new city programs are often a result of the persistence of engaged stakeholder groups.
State and federal level policies and issues are often born in local court systems, in City Council chambers, or through local grassroots initiatives. These efforts must start somewhere.
By its nature, national reporting is broad and limited to stories that will impact a great majority of people, or be of interest to many. Similarly, regional reporting from one region will usually be inapplicable, and arguably inappropriate, to those living in another.
In contrast, local journalism captures information that is most relevant and relatable to a community. National topics like gun violence and race relations are put into context to a certain community. At this level, citizens are better positioned to develop personal judgements on an issue that can result in an informed vote or even engage in activism.
But as newsroom staffing levels continue to shrink, it becomes increasingly hard to guarantee widespread coverage. One study revealed that due to low staffing levels, now newsrooms react to news occurring within a community rather than setting the agenda to influence what is being reported. Stories are written after decisions are made, instead of informing the public about an upcoming issue or policy change to watch at the local level.
This distinction is alarmingly important for local governments to understand and consider. Reactive journalism contributes to a commonly heard citizen complaint - that the local government is making decisions without public input. When in reality, the public at large is not receiving information about upcoming local government decisions, despite the government’s best efforts.
At a local level, the reduction in newsroom staffing and/or the absence of local journalism looks like:
City Council, School Board, and other public meetings going uncovered by reporters
A rise in corruption and fraudulent activity by local elected and appointed officials
A decline in clearance rates of violent crime
A decline in public trust of local government
An increase in the cost of local government, including taxes, salaries, and borrowing costs
A reduced sense of community and social cohesion among residents
A lack of local context on national issues
A reduction in competitiveness of local city elections and reduced voter turnout
A rise in partisan politics and split-ballots at the polls
A reduction in community engagement
This list is kept short intentionally, because there are far too many areas in both government and society that are negatively impacted by the lack of journalism.
As local news sources continue to thin and disappear, local governments can expect to experience some or all of the above, if they have not already. Decision-making will become more polarizing and challenging as fewer residents are informed and engaged in the process.
Local journalism is the glue that holds communities intact as a functioning, healthy democracy. It has never been more important for local governments to take action to halt the decline of local journalism in their communities.
Part of a Larger Issue
The decline in local journalism is one of many factors contributing to a larger issue. We are currently witnessing the consequences of mis- and disinformation spreading and taking root in communities across the globe.
The spread of mis- or disinformation threatens basic democratic principles, such as our collective public health and election integrity and contributes to the rise in violence against minorities, among a myriad of social harms.
In November 2021, The Aspen Institute’s Commission on Information Disorder published its final report. The opening paragraph defines the crises phenomenon:
Information disorder is a crisis that exacerbates all other crises. When bad information becomes as prevalent, persuasive, and persistent as good information, it creates a chain reaction of harm.
Information disorder makes any health crisis more deadly. It slows down our response time on climate change. It undermines democracy. It creates a culture in which racist, ethnic, and gender attacks are seen as solutions, not problems. Today, mis- and disinformation have become a force multiplier for exacerbating our worst problems as a society. Hundreds of millions of people pay the price, every single day, for a world disordered by lies.
Commission on Information Disorder Final Report, Aspen Institute
The second paragraph of the Report states (bolded emphasis added):
In the face of this challenge, we would expect information disorder to be a central concern for anyone in society who bears the title of “leader”. Proactive leadership, rising from within every sector and institution in our society, is our only way out of this crisis. And yet it is sorely missing. The committed and powerful leadership we need is not yet the leadership we have.
Information disorder is not a new issue, nor can it ever be completely eradicated, as that goes against the principles of a free and open society. However, the persistent spread of harmful and life-threatening mis-information can be mitigated and controlled, albeit with considerable collaboration among many entities.
The actionable frameworks recommended by the Commission are as complex as the issue itself and cannot be implemented solely by one entity. Moreover, there is more to this issue that is yet to be understood. The fluid nature of technology and media requires continual attention.
At the very least, local governments can become familiar with information disorder. Better, localities can serve as leaders by bringing groups together to facilitate discourse. At best, local governments can build consensus and momentum to lobby State lawmakers to enact the desperately needed regulations that will combat information disorder on a larger scale.
Solutions to the Decline in Local Journalism
Scholars and practitioners have been analyzing the decline in local journalism for over a decade. While policies and solutions to the decline in local news sources are being discussed at the Federal and State levels, any action must be complemented with the support of localities. Conversely, any innovative solution implemented at a local level will likely attract wider attention.
The advent of technology and economic challenges are widely considered the most significant contributing factors to the decline of local news rooms. As more local news organizations are bought out by regional and national entities, resources and staffing dissolve. While the problem is largely financial, the problem spans many aspects of society, government, technology and media.
The silver lining here is an optimistic belief that local journalism can be saved through a creative combination of financing models, technology enhancements, and policy solutions.
Widely agreed upon solutions include:
Reinventing the newsroom business model to reduce dependency on advertising revenue. The for-profit model is no longer viable and must be challenged. There has been some success with turning local news organizations into nonprofits, which promotes public engagement and fair reporting.
An increase in public funding to local journalism. This may include tax deductions to encourage personal donations, changes to tax codes to allow for nonprofit formation and deductions from advertising revenue, and creation of public funds to issue grants to local journalism efforts and apprenticeship programs.
Support and encouragement of entrepreneurs building local, digital news platforms.
Federal level antitrust legislation to cheque the powers of large online platforms that undercut local journalism, among other Federal regulations.
Looking Ahead
The unfortunate reality is that local journalism will not fix itself, and its current downward trajectory is causing more harm than good. There are real threats to the stability of our country’s democracy if local journalism were to disappear entirely.
Local governments can and should have a prominent role in halting the continued decline of local journalism in their communities. It behooves local governments to find ways to ethically support their local newsrooms, instead of bemoaning the latest article riddled with inaccuracies and scant detail. There are reasons this level of reporting is occurring beyond the capacity of any one reporter.
Remember that local journalism is for the common good, and its absence creates more harm for local governments than when journalism was alive and thriving. It’s time for local governments to extend the olive branch to support a critical industry in crises.
