Journalists should speak up in media-consolidation fight

CHICAGO — If an industry is shedding jobs and ripping the heart out of its core product, logic would dictate that people in that industry try to cure what is wrong.

That is exactly what is not happening in the newspaper or broadcast industries. The large, mostly public companies that control much of the media are pushing for policies that are resulting in disinvestment and the loss of jobs.

Regulatory agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and Congress have caved to the immense lobby pressure brought by media's heavy hitters. The result is a media that is controlled by far too few companies — companies that are pushing for even more.

Where are the two groups most affected by these bad policies? Readers have been vocal in opposition to media consolidation. The second group has hardly been heard: journalists, the very people who suffer the most as their craft is fed to Wall Street with its insatiable and uncaring appetite.

The lack of journalistic curiosity was on display here in Chicago during the "Unity: Journalists of Color" convention. What was evident at the convention was the sense of angst about job security. Journalists worried about their future missed an empowering panel.

At the end of the last day of workshops and panels, tucked away in a the furthest corner of the Forbidden City-sized McCormick Place West Convention Center, was a panel on media consolidation.

Only a handful of journalists showed up. Had others attended they would have heard a clear, concise, empowering message from Joe Torres, the government-relations manager for Free Press and former deputy director of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ).

Torres kicked off the panel by expressing his disappointment with the meager turnout. He then explained that the input from journalists should help form media policy, because what happens in Washington, D.C., has a direct effect on newsrooms and readers.

In a subsequent interview, Torres expanded on this point, saying, "Journalists do engage in policy. We saw last year when some journalist testified before Congress that a shield law is necessary. ... How is the issue of media consolidation different?"

Torres is right. Not all journalists need to take a stand against media consolidation or support legislation that might help journalism. Obviously, reporters covering Congress or politics might take a pass. Newsrooms are filled with more than political reporters. Why shouldn't a sports reporter, features writer, local desk editor, columnist or editorial writer support Torres?

An easy way for journalists to engage is through the various professional organizations. NAHJ came out against media consolidation in 2005 and supports net neutrality.

The window for action has narrowed. Big media have plied Congress with billions of dollars to achieve consolidation. Late last year, the FCC voted to ease the cross-ownership ban. The new rule would allow a company to own a newspaper and broadcast outlet in the same market. The U.S. Senate has passed a resolution to scrap the new rule. The U.S. House of Representatives is sitting on a companion bill.

The House resolution is a perfect opportunity for journalists to be heard before politicians and lobbyist further transform newsrooms.

"If [a policy] is resulting in an actual reduction in the number of journalists doing their jobs ... why shouldn't they speak up," Torres said "Each day that passes, it is a harder argument for journalists to make."

The hurdles journalists face when venturing into policy are real. If reporters do decide to speak out at an FCC hearing, they will likely be speaking against their employers' position.

Standing up against the powerful is lonely. But it is what journalists do and is what is needed now more than ever to save American journalism.

Ryan Blethen's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is rblethen@seattletimes.com; for a podcast Q&A with the author, go to www.seattletimes.com/edcetera