We’ll start with this premise, one we believe to be indisputable: A free, independent media that focuses upon local issues is indispensable to democracy. The value of reporters delivering news about a government that can raise your property taxes or build a freeway ramp through the middle of your neighborhood is infinitely greater than a national organization reporting upon Donald Trump’s latest insult.
Obviously, The Columbian has a dog in this fight. The importance of a locally owned, locally produced media outlet has been demonstrated in coverage of the Clark County council, and debates over an affordable-housing tax in Vancouver, and discussion about an enormous casino near La Center. With no radio stations based in Clark County, and with local TV news being Portland-centric, citizens have only The Columbian as a traditional media outlet covering local issues.
All of this plays a role in the Federal Communications Commission’s recent decision to extend its media-ownership rules. After much delay, commissioners preserved restrictions upon media consolidation, specifically by preventing companies from owning newspapers and broadcast outlets in the same market. But the agency did adopt an exception allowing for cross-ownership to prevent a failing news entity from going out of business.
Unlike most media outlets, The Columbian is privately owned. Even most small newspapers these days are owned by chains or by conglomerates that often also have TV or radio stations in other markets. But in an effort to preserve diverse voices in the marketplace, we retain a vital interest in the issue.
That issue is one that highlights the importance of a broad spectrum of ownership. Consolidating media in the hands of fewer and fewer power brokers poorly serves the populace and diminishes the effectiveness of representative democracy. Look at it this way: If one company had control of all the TV stations throughout the country, that would be a bad thing, right? That singular viewpoint would influence all news coverage, leading to serious doubts about objectivity. The same is true if there were only two or 10 or 20 companies involved with media ownership.
Instead, promoting the greatest possible diversity of ownership is the best fashion with which to promote the ultimate delineation of the truth. Let us not forget one of our favorite Thomas Jefferson quotes: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Critics argue that the Federal Communications Commission has actually hampered this diversity by maintaining its previous rules and preventing big-business investment in the struggling newspaper industry. There might be some truth in this, but we would err on the side of caution, as the FCC has done, rather than opening the door for conglomerates to dominate local media in a single market.
Most important, it is essential to take note of current attacks on a free press. Trump, for example, has pledged to make it easier to sue media outlets for publishing “lies.” In Trump’s world, that means anything that is critical of him, and his rants against freedom of the press are troubling and dangerous.
In the end, the public is best served by a diversity of voices and opinions. It is best served by the kind of investigative reporting that only local media outlets can provide when it comes to local issues. And it is best served by rules that help protect those local outlets.
