This Week:

Quote of the Week

Website of the Week

Profits Up, Taxes Down: Declining Corporate Taxes

Many Agree: “The First Amendment Goes Too Far”
Running the Numbers on “The Education President”
“The State of The News Media 2004”

Greetings,

Unbeknownst to many people, there are organizations and individuals in this country working night and day to shed light on many of the issues that are most important to us. Some of these organizations are called “Think Tanks.” Their work is particularly easy to find, since they often have press offices whose job it is to tell people about the things they are discovering and researching. The work may be easy to find, but that doesn’t mean it gets reported in the daily papers. This week I report three easily-accessible reports that came out in the past month that received little or no coverage in the nation’s media: a brief report on corporate taxes, a survey about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and some education funding numbers. I could have done several more.

The Website of the Week” this week is a report on the various costs of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, some pieces of which have been reported, but never so comprehensively or in such a unified manner.

My longest piece this week is about a recent report on the “State of the News Media 2004.” It’s a 500-page report, and I don’t recommend that everyone read the whole thing, fer heaven’s sake. Still, it’s a serious study, and I think the highlights are worth reporting. This is actually another easily-accessible report that was not covered by the nation’s media, except in a very few cases, and in most of those cases it was distorted. The “Quote” of the Week this week – from an entirely different source – sets the tone for this report.

Welcome to all the new readers this week! I enjoyed meeting many of you last weekend, and I look forward to hearing your comments and questions as we go along from week to week. I wish I could tell you what to expect from Nygaard Notes, but I don’t even know what to expect every week. For instance, this week’s issue of the Notes is a double issue, which is the last thing I expected, even as recently as yesterday. But, it just kept writing itself, and I ended up sort of liking what happened. I hope you do, too. Usually the Notes is only about 2,000 words. You’ll see. Welcome, anyway, to whatever this is!

Until next week,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

In the New York Times (“All The News That’s Fit To Print”) of June 14, 2004, under the headline, “After the Peaks Of Journalism, Budget Realities,” we read:

“Late last month, John S. Carroll, the editor of The Los Angeles Times, traveled to New York for a luncheon to celebrate the five Pulitzer Prizes that his paper won this year, one of the high points of his nearly 40-year journalistic career. Ten days later... Jack Fuller, the president of Tribune Publishing...announced that, because of a shortfall in the newspaper's advertising revenue in recent months, he had ordered The Times to cut its budget... The prospect of making cuts in the newsroom, so soon after scaling such journalistic heights, has been a stark reminder to The Times of a fact that is central to Tribune's philosophy: Wall Street rarely averts its gaze from the profit margins and other financial bellwethers of media companies.”

Wait, that’s not the “Quote” of the Week! I save that status for the following words from the article, uttered by John Janedis, a research analyst who covers the newspaper industry for Banc of America Securities:

“'Although journalism is important, at the end of the day, investors care more about the number of newspapers you sell and the ad rate increases you get, rather than the number of Pulitzer Prizes.”

Website of the Week

Only two newspapers (the Boston Globe and the St. Petersburg Times) have bothered to mention a study which I think is the most comprehensive look done by anyone in this country (so far) at the overall costs of this infamous war and occupation. This study was co-produced by the Institute for Policy Studies and Foreign Policy In Focus, and titled “Paying the Price: The Mounting Costs of the Iraq War.”

While the focus of “costs” reports in the Mainstream Corporate For-Profit Agenda-Setting Bound Media have been almost invariably on the “costs” to the United States, the IPS/FPIF report looks more broadly. The report has three sections: “Costs to the United States,” “Costs to Iraq,” and “Costs to the World.” They speak of Human Costs, Security Costs, Economic Costs, Social Costs, Human Rights Costs, Sovereignty Costs, and lots more. The full report is 68 pages long, a little intimidating. But there’s a one-page “Just the Numbers” summary available that, in my opinion, should be handed out at every peace demonstration from now until the elections (at least). Go look for yourself at http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/costsofwar/.

Profits Up, Taxes Down: Declining Corporate Taxes

A think tank called the Economic Policy Institute puts out all sorts of useful reports all the time, including little bite-sized, easy-to-report “Economic Snapshots” on issues of the day. Since the continuing push for tax cuts is at the center of the election campaign of George W. Bush, the July 14th “snapshot” entitled “Falling Corporate Tax Revenues Push Budget Deficits Even Higher,” arguably should have been of interest to the nation’s media. But it was reported nowhere in the country. It’s so short that I’ll quote almost the entire thing (without the charts and graphs that accompany it):

“The effect of cuts [in the individual income tax] on the deterioration of the federal budget outlook has been a prominent controversy in economic policy. Less noticed has been the erosion of proceeds from the corporate income tax. Tax bills pending in Congress are projected to further deplete revenues and raise budget deficits.

“As a share of profits, the postwar average of federal, state, and local corporate income tax revenues is 37%. In the late 1940s, it was as high as 55%. After some leveling off between 1969 and 1981, the corporate income tax share of profits has stayed well below 37%. After 2000, it dropped by more than a third, from 32% to 20%.

“After-tax profits as a share of Gross Domestic Product. . .have more than doubled since 1980 from 4% to 9% (the highest level on record, going back to 1929).

“If the federal corporate income tax were expanded to take up the difference between current levels and the postwar average for federal, state, and local governments, revenues for calendar year 2003 would have increased by almost $190 billion and cut the deficit by half.”

You can read this snapshot for yourself, along with some great stuff that you may not know about the minimum wage, the imminent loss of overtime wages for some six million U.S. workers, the economic argument for increased investment in education, the rise in family work hours in this country, and much more, on the EPI website at http://www.epinet.org/.

Many Agree: “The First Amendment Goes Too Far”

Three weeks ago a place called The First Amendment Center (FAC), in collaboration with American Journalism Review magazine, released the results of a major survey on United Statesians’ attitudes towards the First Amendment. Entitled “State of the First Amendment 2004,” the survey found that “Freedom is making a comeback – of sorts.” (Those are the words of FAC director Gene Policinski.)

While I am skeptical about the importance of surveys (see Nygaard Notes #260), I think this survey is important, as it gauges the public support – or lack of support – for the numerous curtailments of our First Amendment rights that have been and are being proposed in this country. This important survey was mentioned in only a few papers around the country, and in none of the agenda-setting ones (New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc). The only paper to do a real report on the substance of the survey, in fact, was the Seattle Times, running it, appropriately enough, on the Fourth of July.

Here’s maybe the most important point: The FAC survey shows that 22 percent of United Statesians agreed in the year 2000 with the statement, “The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.” That’s scary enough – I mean, one out of five! – but in 2002 (just after September 11, 2001, y’know), an astounding 49 percent agreed that we had too much freedom. The latest numbers in the survey show that the number who think the First Amendment “goes too far” has dropped back down to 30 percent. That still strikes me as high, but not high enough, perhaps, to persuade your elected official to vote for something like the USA-PATRIOT Act, as they did in the days of national panic following the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. A good argument for not passing laws when we’re in a panic, no?

The survey also asked “Overall, do you think Americans have too much, too little, or just the right amount of access to information about the federal government's war on terrorism?” I doubt that most people even know what that nebulous “war” is but, even in 2002, four out of ten thought we had “too little” access to information about it, and the number has now gone up to a full 50 percent. Maybe people in this country are calming down a little.

There are still plenty of frightening things revealed by the survey. Fifty-one percent agree that “As part of its war on terrorism, the government should be allowed to monitor certain religious groups even if that means infringing upon the religious freedom of those groups’ members.” The survey didn’t specify, but I doubt that the phrase “certain religious groups” brought anything but Muslims to mind for most USers. That’s scary.

For those who wish to stand in defense of the freedoms spelled out in the First Amendment, this survey of your fellow citizens would be useful to know about. Since it likely wasn’t reported in your area, you might want to look for yourself. The survey, along with useful commentaries, is available on the web at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=13577

Running the Numbers on “The Education President”

George W. Bush came into office hoping to be known as “The Education President.” OK. On June 22nd the fine group the National Priorities Project (NPP) released a study called “Federal Education Funding Falls Short,” which takes a look at federal education spending under the Bush Administration and its impact on each state in the union. This report was completely ignored by the nation’s corporate newspapers.

Although only 2 pages long, the NPP’s “National Factsheet” tells quite a story about Bush priorities: Pell Grants, which provide federal aid to low-income students at college and university level, is underfunded by $3.7 billion; Special education is under-funded by $11.4 billion; The No Child Left Behind Act, primarily impacting K-12 education, is underfunded by $9.4 billion (perhaps not the biggest problem with that particular law); adult and vocational education is slated for a cut of 24% in the upcoming budget. And so on.

NPP includes in their report a fact sheet for each state. So, when you see that “Each state has anywhere from 4,000 to half a million children living in poverty who are eligible but unenrolled in the Head Start program,” you can go check and see where your state stands in that realm. In my own state of Minnesota, for example, 31,000 kids eligible for Head Start remain unenrolled.

This is the kind of information that people who are concerned about education should know. Too bad it wasn’t reported anywhere. Find the report – including information about your state – on the NPP website at http://www.natprior.org/

“The State of The News Media 2004”e

Journalists are a reflective bunch, so it didn’t surprise me when, on March 14th, the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) released a report called “The State of The News Media 2004.” This report, put out by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism – at or near the heart of the mainstream journalism establishment – had some very interesting things to say, a few of which I will now pass on to you. As you read, watch for the following words and phrases: “making money;” “pressures on revenues and profits;” “cutting back in the newsroom;” “the kind of profits that underwrite newsgathering;” “financial pressures;” “cost efficient;” “profitability remains robust.”

The next 900 words or so are direct quotations from the report “The State of The News Media 2004.” Following is a brief comment from me.

From the Overview

“Journalism is in the midst of an epochal transformation, as momentous probably as the invention of the telegraph or television.

“After spending time at the White House, the New Yorker writer Ken Auletta concluded that senior staff members there saw the news media as just another special interest group whose agenda was making money, not serving the public. . .

“Quality news and information are more available than ever before, but in greater amounts so are the trivial, the one-sided and the false. Some people will likely become better informed than they once could have been as they drill down to original sources. Other consumers may become steeped in the sensational and diverting. Still others may move toward an older form of media consumption – a journalism of affirmation – in which they seek news largely to confirm their preconceived view of the world.

“The journalists' role as intermediary, editor, verifier and synthesizer is weakening, and citizens do have more power to be proactive with the news. But most people will likely do so only episodically. And the proliferation of the false and misleading makes the demand for the journalist as referee, watchdog and interpreter all the greater.”

Eight Major Trends

1. “A growing number of news outlets are chasing relatively static or even shrinking audiences for news. One result of this is that most sectors of the news media are losing audience. That audience decline, in turn, is putting pressures on revenues and profits, which leads to a cascade of other implications. The only sectors seeing general audience growth today are online, ethnic and alternative media.

2. “Most sectors of the media are cutting back in the newsroom, both in terms of staff and in the time they have to gather and report the news. While there are exceptions, in general journalists face real pressures trying to maintain quality.

3. “In many parts of the news media, we are increasingly getting the raw elements of news as the end product. This is particularly true in the newer, 24-hour media. In cable and online, there is a tendency toward a jumbled, chaotic, partial quality in some reports, without much synthesis or even the ordering of the information.

5. “Without investing in building new audiences, the long-term outlook for many traditional news outlets seems problematic. Many traditional media are maintaining their profitability by focusing on costs, including cutting back in their newsrooms. Our study shows general increases in journalist workload, declines in numbers of reporters, shrinking space in newscasts to make more room for ads and promotions, and in various ways that are measurable, thinning the product.

7. “If online proves to be a less useful medium for subscription fees or advertising, will it provide as strong an economic foundation for newsgathering as television and newspapers have? If not, the move to the Web may lead to a general decline in the scope and quality of American journalism, not because the medium isn't suited for news, but because it isn't suited to the kind of profits that underwrite newsgathering.

8. “Those who would manipulate the press and public appear to be gaining leverage over the journalists who cover them. Several factors point in this direction. One is simple supply and demand. As more outlets compete for their information, it becomes a seller's market for information. Another is workload. The content analysis of the 24-hour-news outlets suggests that their stories contain fewer sources.”

“The New Diversity Is in Lighter Fare”

“The proliferation of new outlets and the increasingly instantaneous nature of newsgathering are creating three basic trends in the content of American journalism.

“First, the content is more diverse. Network news, news magazines, and newspaper front pages carry a wider range of topics. But a good deal of the new diversity is in lighter fare – lifestyle, entertainment, consumer news – rather than news about diverse communities or populations.

“Second, as more outlets split up the audience and create more competition, financial pressures have led cable and broadcast to devote more of their news holes to branding efforts such as promotions and teases, and more commercials.

“Third, to vie for audience in a more crowded 24-hour news environment, there is more pressure to run with stories more quickly - to get, as mentioned above, newsgathering in the raw, and to cover ad nauseam a few big blockbuster stories since it is cost efficient.”

Audience

“According to February 2003 numbers from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 83 percent of Americans get most of their news from television, 42 percent from newspapers, 19 percent from radio, and 15 percent from the Internet.”

Economics

“For all the trouble with audiences, the economics of journalism in general are remarkably strong.

“In the older media sectors, profitability remains robust. Newspapers made around a 20 percent profit in 2003. Local television news stations make roughly double that. Radio news, too, is a significant contributor to the bottom line for its owners, representing about 11 percent of the revenues of major radio companies.

“How can revenues be up for these media where audiences are down? In an era of fragmentation, these media continue to stand out as among the few places where advertisers can still attract a crowd. It may not be as big a crowd as it once was, but attracting any crowd has become harder.”

OK, that’s the end of the quotations from the report. Now I have two comments about those quotations.

Nygaard’s Comments

First, despite the subject matter, this grand report on the news media was barely covered in the nation’s news media. Only 8 newspapers in this country even mentioned it, and most of them focused almost entirely on the attitudes of “consumers,” which was but a small part of the more than 500-page study. The Washington Post did run a story on the report on March 21st, but apparently only for the purpose of ridiculing it. (The headline: “The News, Dear Readers, Is Not as Bad as You Say It Is.”) Tellingly, only three of the eight stories included the word “profit” anywhere in their report on the state of the media. And two of those mentions were in two stories from the same paper, the Seattle Times.

That’s really remarkable, since the corrosive influence of the search for – no, the compelling demand for – profit by the nation’s “news” organizations is perhaps the central point of “The State of The News Media 2004.” Which leads to my other comment.

This report was written primarily by actual journalists, as opposed to executives. I hope you can tell from the above quotations that these journalists – embedded though they are in the media industry – for the most part really do want to practice journalism. That is, their primary interest is in gathering and reporting news, as opposed to increasing shareholder wealth for their parent corporations. Yet, the increasing of shareholder wealth is why they are there. And, more and more, as this report I think shows, they know it.

The conclusion I want to suggest is that there are plenty of talented, skilled journalists working today who are ready and willing to perform the essential task of providing information about the world to the citizens of that world who want to understand it. The problem is that the very structure of the news “industry” in a capitalist culture works against the practice of journalism. That is, when profit and journalism come in conflict in our current system, profit will and must always win. So, is the solution to have different journalists? No. The solution is to have a different economic model, one that places citizenship above profit, and frees journalists to do their jobs.

I can’t imagine anyone would want to read this entire report, since it’s so obsessively long and often tedious. (The parts in this article are the best parts, I think.) But, if you like this sort of thing, you can find it on the web at http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org .