A Modest Proposal for Fixing Journalism in Northern New England

Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe recently reported that “a National League playoff team gave its scouts a whopping $200 bonus for their good work,” adding: “We will not embarrass them by identifying the team.”

Though obviously trivial even as a sports story, this quip is noteworthy for how brazenly it brags of violating journalism ethics. Reporters are supposed to be agents of their readers, as opposed to doing the bidding of their sources, including officials of teams that don’t want to be publicly flogged as cheapskates. This kind of transgression is precisely what got Judith Miller in trouble when, as a New York Times reporter, she famously allowed herself to be co-opted by Dick Cheney henchman Scooter Libby.

That reporters now boast of failing to act in the best interests of their readers is evidence that print journalism is in a state of crisis. Nowhere is this more so than in northern New England. From Passamaquoddy Bay to Lake Champlain, newspapers grow smaller and less interesting. Many, like the dailies in Portland and Burlington, are cookie-cutter outlets of national chains. Most, even the independents, find themselves increasingly unable to afford covering their states and communities with any depth or insight. Thus, for example, the government agency that happens to employ me remains a goldmine of unreported news.

The thoughtful reportage that civic-minded people crave is not unlike the citrus fruit that some Dartmouth faculty families wanted but could not get in the 1930s. So, just as love of oranges led in 1936 to the founding of the Hanover Consumer Cooperative Society, love of truth should cause the establishment of a reader-owned, professionally run, regional daily newspaper that is organized as a consumer co-op.

Skeptical? Recall that one of our nation’s most venerable journalism institutions, which traces its roots to 1846, is a cooperative. I refer to Associated Press. As a former employee of AP, I can testify that in its heyday the organization was proud of its status as a cooperative and was a bastion of vigilant reporting that was fair and balanced (in the pre-Fox era when that phrase still retained its literal meaning).

These days, even AP is shaky, as evidenced by its politically motivated firing in 2006 of longtime Montpelier correspondent Christopher Graff. In 2007, AP appears to have taken up an authoritarian social agenda, as evidenced by big national stories implying that sexual abuse is rampant among public educators and that nontraditional families are cauldrons of domestic violence. Keep in mind that AP is a producer cooperative, owned not by readers but by member newspapers.

One person asked about the idea of a cooperative newspaper doubted that a democratically controlled journalism enterprise could avoid devolving into rank partisanship, presumably with the views of the majority party prevailing. Perhaps – but then we would be no worse off than New Hampshire is today, since its biggest daily newspaper has for decades been unabashedly oriented in one political direction.

My theory is that readers, as owners of their newspaper, would aim higher than the journalism of William Loeb. Call it faith in democracy, based on experience on the board of a $65 million/year consumer-owed business that competes successfully with supermarket conglomerates.

In reality, the real obstacle, for this and any other aspiring consumer co-op, is raising capital. People aren’t used to the idea of investing money to seek returns that are largely intangible. Such returns, in the form of truth, enlightenment and civic empowerment, would be bountiful for a reader-owned paper. Admittedly, it is probably an idea whose time has not yet come. But if the owners of this newspaper ever decide it is time to sell, remember that you read it here first.