Who assassinated print journalism?

I was reviewing stats on social media and I think it is safe to say that social media has killed effective print journalism.

Unfortunately, it didn't replace it. And that's the damned tragedy of it all.

Social media stripped a lot of revenues away from print journalism but did not take on the responsibility of a free press, that being to keep a steely eye on government, big business and anything else our system cannot or will not correct on its own.

Before anyone gets started on the whole mainstream media rant, I have the same concerns as everyone else. It is biased. But this is exactly the direction toward which social media and a welcoming public drove it. Plus, television and radio almost never did the stuff print journalists used to do on a daily basis.

Print journalists were seldom motivated by getting it first. We were always the ones who had more space and time to poke around, dig up the dirt, find the extra interview, get ahold of the buried government paperwork, interview the whackos.

The days of Sinclair Lewis and Woodward and Bernstein are, regrettably, dead.

Yes, there are still 60 Minutes and such but they are becoming so few and far between it is no wonder why in my lifetime the Ten Percent has become The Five Percent and is now just The One Percent.

Yes, we are all saving a few bucks on classified ads and subscription fees but in doing so we have strangled almost every independent voice in the media. A handful of companies control most of the media these days and the problem with that is those companies do not care about journalism, they care about cash.

I'm a capitalist but we used to have either independent, locally owned papers or at least regional papers that were treated like independents. Publishers used to come out of the newsroom. Now they come out of the Sales Department. We used to have the proverbial "Tall, Thick Wall" between the Editorial and Sales departments. For the first 15 years of my career, we didn't even know who worked over there. Now, the offices are open and there is almost no distinction between editorial, sales, or distribution, for that matter.

I was asked recently to critique the newspapers where we moved to four years ago: Montana. The daily newspapers here are all owned by national media companies and, not surprisingly, they all look and read about the same way. The Missoulian in the university town of Missoula, is owned by Lee Enterprises, one of the country's massive seething media companies.

According to Lee's website, Lee Enterprises is a leading provider of local news, information and advertising in primarily midsize markets, with 46 daily newspapers and a joint interest in two others, along with rapidly growing digital products and nearly 300 specialty publications in 21 states.

While Lee is proud of that, it terrifies old-school journalists who know better. The daily edition of the Missoulian typically two or three byline news stories that are basically rewritten press releases by kiddies who think because they can operate an iPhone, they are geniuses and everybody over 30 is a moron. The rest of the news section is filled with AP stories and pictures, weather and such. Basically, stuff we've already know for a day with no attempt to add to that original information base.

Hagadone owns the Daily Inter Lake and seven weekly newspapers in Western Montana. They have lost so much circulation in this decade that two weeklies are digital only and the daily is a shadow of itself from the days of being locally owned. Like The Missoulian, the daily offering is a two to four local bylines, a bunch of day-old news fillers, some national sports and varsity sports. That's it. I'm a hard-core newspaper reader and if and when I read one of these, it is brief and disappointing.

While there are countless examples of disappointing coverage, I pointed out a specific story as an example. The DIL (a fitting acronym) covered some big government program to build so-called affordable housing (i.e. future slums). It was the typical ribbon cutting with local elected officials, interloping contractors, regional and/or state elected officials. The story read like a chamber of commerce feature or a press release. There was no attempt by the reporter to ask a question about traffic, parking, impact on housing costs, the effect on privately owned property, or how much money was spent so one owner can supply housing for dozens of families instead of having dozens of families living in their own homes. There were no questions about utilities or economic resources or anything else that readers might care about.

I do not "go after" anyone or anything. I do have the maturity and interest to ask questions any taxpayer, neighbor or parent would ask. That's hard to do when you are under 30, single, childless, broke and in a hurry to leave town.

The rural county in which I live could really use an unflinching source of news. Our county of just 30,000 people actually has two weekly newspapers yet neither one can or will cover anything remotely controversial because of the fear of advertiser boycotts or lost readership.

Those who laugh at this or say, "no one reads print anymore," with a slimey grin exposes a great deal about themselves and our society. Social media didn't make Americans stupid, vapid, hateful, courageous morons. Social media exposed them.

The One Percent has very effectively brainwashed the very public it is taking advantage of by sacrificing one of only two things keeping us safe and free: Arms and the Press.

With the Press now dead, how long will it be before arms are all we have left?

As for fake news or biased news? Americans either don't know any better or don't want to. It is often said we get the government we deserve. I would add, we get the media we deserve.

---