Re: Media taking action in proposed sale

[Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com>]

On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:16:30 -0400 "Sean Smyth" <ssmyth@suscom.net>
writes:
> Dan Billings writes:
> > There is a long history of newspaper publishers being
> > involved in such campaigns, what's wrong with
> > broadcasters doing the same?
> 
> I'm not a fan of that either, since while in theory the editorial 
> board and
> the newsroom are separate bodies, one still affects the other. I 
> actually
> agree with the broadcasters' stance, as do many in the region, but 
> is it
> really fair to present one side of the argument (anti-sale) but not 
> the
> other? At least newspapers have that option, since their resources 
> are
> supposed to be devoted to coverage that is as balanced as possible.
> 
I found it telling a few years ago when the publisher of our once local
newspaper was feted for some anniversary or another occasion.  In the
coverage of the event in his own paper he took credit for Lowell's
progress in making a comeback from an abandoned mill city.  And all these
years we've been paying property tax, state tax and federal tax when all
we really had to do was buy the paper!  I've always maintained that local
publishers are only as powerful as the local politicians allow them to
be.  In a city of over 100-thousand people the local paper, according to
their own figures, has a circulation of about 50-thousand and that takes
into account all the suburbs and extended suburbs that they distribute
the paper into....like I said, the power is perceived not real. 
df