A New Political Watch Dog Needed?

In Paul Starr’s article, “Goodbye to the Age of Newspapers”, he acknowledges the rapid decline of the print industry. Newspapers across the country are flopping, as the public has turned to the internet for their primary source of entertainment. Cuts in the newspaper industry have led to decreased staffing for “statehouse” reporters, meaning less news coverage of state and local politics. Starr posits that newspapers serve a purpose larger than relaying the news; rather, they also are a fourth branch of government in the form of a watchdog. Less reporting of state governments means less accountability of local officials. I accept the validity of this theory; however, I think Starr underestimates the power of the internet in serving as a government watchdog.

We talked last week in class of the ability of the internet to catch politicians in campaign politics making less than wise choices. The internet provides the transparency and expediency to catch false political promises, embarrassing moments, and disgusting comments that can kill political campaigns. Instead of a department of thirteen reporters, the internet allows for millions of investigative journalists. With the video and camera capabilities of cell phones, and the cult-like popularity of social media sites, politicians are under the scrutiny of millions of eyes daily. Would North Carolina’s 2^nd District incumbent Bob Etheridge have fared better last Tuesday if not for this viral video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oqIP9yagkQ? What are the chances that a newspaper would have ran this story in the dominant print ad era? While print media falls short, hasn’t the internet in some ways empowered the average American?

I understand Starr’s fear in that the quality of journalistic government watch dogging has taken a hit from the newspaper cuts. The average blogger will not have the access, or possibly the skills to investigate specific areas of government financing. Essentially, Starr also posits that coverage is “dumbed down”; internet news searchers are looking for the ten second video clip rather than the three page analytical article. However, Starr fails to note that the average American newspaper reader only reads the first couple paragraphs of each story (and most don’t read stories not featured on the front page). Journalists are taught to spit the most important, but generalized, facts out first. Doesn’t that create a similar effect as a ten second video?

I think that Starr makes some solid points in his article, but he is perhaps too critical of new media outlets. For instance, he attacks the internet as a source of misinformation, yet concludes that the best solution for the revival of newspapers is (biased?) private non-profit funding. Is the newspaper becoming obsolete? Perhaps. Instead of attempting to resuscitate the dying print industry, maybe the solution lies in determining the most efficient usage of the online media.