I’ve been in and out of the journalism business for 50 years. Not full time or all the time but long enough that I am a believer that Thomas Jefferson was right, better newspapers without government than government without newspapers. We live in a world of science fiction come true; a small device in the palm of our hand can access almost everything known and published.
That is, of course, the problem: We drown in an unfiltered firehosing of data that almost is impossible to drink in. Paid experts are always pushing one theory or another, some paid to play a siren song that we want to hear (cigarettes are safe, climate change is a hoax, the world is flat). Others, sometimes shouted down by the paid experts, add to the tide of data hoping we will sort it all out.
But we can’t. Few of us have the time to “do our own research,” and fewer still have the skills to sort everything out even if we gather all or a big sample of the available data sprayed on us from internet, television, radio and mailboxes (electronic and snail). Journalism has been called “the first rough draft of history.
” Though there is uncertainty around who first described journalism exactly that way, the phrase rings true. Historians have the last word, of course, but they too keep rewriting their drafts. Even so, we need help to make sense of the world and that’s what journalists try to do even if they don’t get it all right all the time.
Who can keep up? Without a framework, without help organizing, we are vulnerable to those who would rule by drowning us in their point of view, attempting to advance their agenda. Journalism at the founding of the Republic was dominated by a chorus of competing, partisan newspapers. If anyone thinks the New York Times or FOX News are partisan enterprises, they misread the history of our early papers that were founded expressly to promote a party or movement with little pretense of objectivity.
I subscribe to or read a variety of newspapers ranging from the explicitly leftist Revolutionary out of Grand Junction to the self-described “Capitalist Tool” known as the Wall Street Journal. Aspen is blessed with two newspapers and public radio that strive for something resembling mainstream (or “lame-stream”) media in admitting to their pages a variety of viewpoints ranging from rah-rah, pro-growth, everything-is-wonderful pieces to fierce defense of local character and critiques of our market-driven change and gentrification. Unfortunately, the 200-year-old financial model based on advertising revenue has failed so many outlets that many places have no newspapers and no local radio.
But for the glossy real estate inserts and cover wraps, we would probably have long since succumbed to the desertification of news. The internet might be able to sell you everything and anything more efficiently than display ads but Amazon isn’t going to expose local corruption in the sheriff’s office or city council. I’ve written for both papers and am happy to see that this one is trying to address the failure of the traditional financial model by adopting something like the one that had revived Aspen Public Radio with reader-listener contributions — independent of the Aspen Board of Realtors influence that manifested itself last year in the form of something called Aspen Deserves Better, a dark money player in local politics.
Writers are constantly advised to “write what you know.” The truth is this writer does not know much about nightlife, foodie pursuits, graduating from Aspen High, serving in elite armed forces units and so on. I am a public policy guy, a follower of elections in a way that some follow sports data, and a veteran of campaigns, internships and elected office.
I try to combine opinion with some factual research. So, if you want, you can get some fairly technical reporting here on local demographics, census data, voters claiming their residence in office buildings and the long-term consequences of growth mismanagement. All without having to sort through the unceasing pop-up ads that never let up on the ’net.
The Daily News allows this less-entertaining approach and also stands as a counterweight to the more corporate approach at my former paper where editors and writers were punished for calling out some powerful investors. Whether the issue is the airport, the entrance to Aspen or housing, having two viable outlets assures more reporting and fact-finding. The days when advertising revenue was enough to support news gathering are gone.
If we want to preserve the luxury of diverse news sources, we have to step up in ways large and small. I hope our readers, even those who disagree on today’s coverage, will step up to ensure that tomorrow’s readers will benefit from the competition we have enjoyed since a guy named Dave Danforth started wandering the street with a one-sheet broadside focusing on corruption in public office. Visit aspendailynews.
com/membership for more information..
