Goodbye, globe
The lamentable impact of closing foreign bureaus
Goodbye, globe
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Today I merely want to recommend that you read this piece by Trudy Rubin, the Inquirer columnist who defies the lamentable downsizing of newspaper ambition by continuing to travel the world and opine on international news.
At a recent forum in Illinois - the topic was Pakistan - she was asked a classic question by a high school student: "If Pakistan is so dangerous, why don't we read anything about it?"
That tells you plenty. He could certainly get news about Pakistan by checking the New York Times and Washington Post websites (for now anyway, because who knows how long both papers will continue to fund bureaus there), but the broader point is that he's growing up at a time when financially beleaguered newspapers and magazines have generally retreated from posting reporters abroad.
For instance, the biggest paper in this kid's own state, the Chicago Tribune, has been closing foreign bureaus. The Baltimore Sun has closed four. The Boston Globe used to have five, now it has none. Newsday used to have six bureaus, now it has none. The Philadelphia Inquirer used to have six bureaus (including London, where I once worked), now it has none. By every measure, Americans are getting less news of the world than ever before; in one think-tank survey, the share of front-page newspaper articles devoted to foreign affairs dropped from 27 percent in 1987 to 14 percent in 2004.
Note that reference to 2004, which demonstrates that the slide did not begin with the current financial crisis. Many editors - in TV as well - have long concluded that Americans don't care much about foreign news (unless, naturally, the news affects Americans, or the folks abroad are talking about something that is happening in America), so therefore there is little urgency to provide it. The result, however, is that more Americans know increasingly less about the foreign cultures and developments that could ultimately shape their lives.
But the technological revolution has accelerated this trend. The Internet continues to suck the life out of newspapers, drawing away advertising and eyeballs, and one of the most perverse results is that, at a time when the globe seems smaller than ever, Americans will get less professional coverage than ever.
And I stress the word professional. There isn't the remotest possibility, in the foreseeable future, that the web will take up the slack and let loose a cadre of seasoned foreign correspondents. There are currently various schemes to pay slave wages to stringers, but that's no substitute for trained pros earning money commensurate with their skills and answering to rigorous pain-in-the-ass editors back home. With each incremental diminishing of the newspaper industry, there are fewer people who can report and explain the world with the nuanced complexity that the events and issues demand.
Rubin, in her column, writes: "We don't know who will provide the rich foreign coverage
we need at a time when the world is entering more dangerous times than most of us have ever known." Indeed. The critics of newspapers, on the right and left, who root for the death of the industry may discover, sooner rather than later, that there is a steep price to be paid for assuming that quality news comes free. Unless one's definition of quality is a foreign stringer who is so atwitter about his big story that he tweets about it via Twitter ("Whoa. Dude. Bathroom break").
Put simply, you get what you pay for.
Here's why I feel like Rush Limbaugh is,in fact, the de facto leader of the right-wing. When the righ-leaning poster's bring up an observation, particularly about supposed left-wing or liberal or Democrat impropriety, it appears to be spoon fed by Rush. What strike's me as insincere is that they almost never cite the source. I'd like to see: "According to Rush (or Hannity or...), there's a UAW convention in Miami and Biden's speaking and it smacks of hypocrisy given the state of the economy, GM and the outcry from the left against CEO excesses. Here's the link." ••• http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030509/content/01125106.guest.html ••• To the point, this UAW convention does smack of hypocrisy to me. However, I don't think Rush cites fact to back up his assertion that the press is banned because the VP is talking about card check. That's the biggest problem I have with Rush. He makes an inference about why the press is banned and then presents it as fact. He makes an observation about a minority facet of a gigantic problem or program and touts it as the primary aspect. It's a shame. He might be making a valid observation, but it gets lost on me (since I'm not a dittohead) because I prefer an even-keeled perspective, not a one-sided, over-the-top, reactionary opinion held up as a fact.— Phrossty- ***Many analysts agree. But among people I talk to there’s a growing sense of frustration, even panic, over Mr. Obama’s failure to match his words with deeds. The reality is that when it comes to dealing with the banks, the Obama administration is dithering. Policy is stuck in a holding pattern.*** http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion The administration is not moving fast enough to help these banks and is doing the wrong thing! It seems the wunderkind Mr. Geithner is in way over his head. He hasn't picked any deputies and is trying to do it all by himself! The govt. should just create a 'toxic bank' to buy all these troubled assets from the banks and hold them until their value bounces back! Steve Forbes has endorsed this idea and I think it would be relatively easy to start. CITI is $1 per share. Time to stop floating trial balloons and do something, besides giving multi billion dollar bailouts to company's that need to go to bankruptcy court and reorganize!— NEPhilly
- From a few blogs ago... (Rush the Hutt)... Posted by Phrossty 10:42 AM, 03/05/2009 ••• Suggesting that President Obama is wholly culpable in the market downturns since the credit freeze of Sept 200[8] is akin to blaming Nixon for Viet Nam. Villifying President Obama for Wall Street's negative reaction to his corrective measures is like blaming the parent for a child's pouting and whining for being put in timeout. I can't imagine CEO's being happy that they're compelled to live on a meager $500k/year nor Wall Street executives actually enjoying having their Ponzi schemes being exposed. AIG & Bear Stearns made bets they couldn't cover based on a premise (housing prices will NEVER fall) that simply wasn't true. They forgot the adage "what goes up, must [go] down." They lost the bet, but we get to pay (or distract one another with CRA and Frank/Dodd).— Phrossty
- Wow... that post apparently was blocked due to using the word "come."— Phrossty
- Phrossty, Rush is right in the substance of the UAW convention criticism. When you don't let media in for whatever reason, when they have covered the Pres. & VP so thoroughly, it doesn't smell right! All this after a bailout out of GM/Chrysler that was essentially an UAW bailout too! Also, you give guys like Rush and Hannity an opening to just 'imagine/make up' what is actually going on inside the meeting:)— NEPhilly
- Phrossty: Obama is partying and dancing away the nights in the white house with stevie wonder and earth wind and fire while people's retirement savings are destroyed. He doesn't care about people. He only cares about the people who helped him get elected. I know, all Bush cared about were his cronies. Fine. But this guy was going to be different remember? Some difference. The only difference I see is that he has taken the old way of doing things and made it 100 times worse.— jwad56
- jwad, 'let them eat cake' :)— NEPhilly
- Unfortunately they can't afford cake anymore.— jwad56
- ***That same bill, which was designed to keep the federal government functioning through September, contains a nearly 11 percent increase in congressional spending on Congress, itself. That translates to a nearly half-billion dollar jump over last year. And where's the money going? Well, among the highlights, 9.5 million of these urgently-needed dollars will be used toward refurbishing committee rooms in the House of Representatives. There's also cost-of-living pay raises for congressional staffers and expense accounts up to $40,000 for some lawmakers.*** Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones:) http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/05/campbell.brown.earmarks/index.html— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly, I agree. The timing and nature of the UAW convention deserve critical scrutiny. I also agree that by not allowing press, one invites wild speculation. ••• jwad56, I'm barely aware of the WH social events. I'm glad he's behaving "normally" for a POTUS. I have a dreadful recollection of Carter's impotent self-imposed hostage status. Also, as I just mentioned, to suggest the 1Q 2009 economy is President Obama's mess is farcical. Additionally, most of the damage to pensions and 401(k)'s was done in 2007-08. The results are being felt in 2009. Obama gets to clean it up, but he isn't the one who puked. There's a part of me that thinks this is typical of the USA. The wealthy oilmen party and trash the place, then they call in the black folks to mop the floors, put the chairs back and get the hall ready for the next big shindig. Between the 13 lobbyists, 5 tax cheats, and 19 month withdrawal timetable w/50,000 non-combat troops (huh?), there are some legitimate criticisms, but it's still early. We haven't even reached the half-way mark to the first 100 days. I'm willing to give him a year, but I'm an Obama supporter. I could make apologies for each of those criticisms. Despite the claims from the right-wing, he's most certainly NOT the Messiah. Stop expecting perfection.— Phrossty
- Excuse me most of the damage to 401(k) was done in 07-08? Are you living in fantasy land? He is wiping out the market. He is out to destroy the oil and gas industry, the auto industry, the health care industry and he is fostering an attitude that investors should cash out, run and hide until he is gone!— jwad56
- I know there has been some discussion in the last few days about David Brooks' column on the stimulus plan and how moderates should be very nervous. Today he writes about the calls he received from the White House after that column appeared. I like David Brooks. I think he's very fair, intelligent and full of plain common sense. It's worth checking out today's piece. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/opinion/06brooks.html— NigeltheMastiff
- Good article Nigel but it seems to me to be more pie in the sky stuff. It all sounds great. But you can't just reduce costs because you want to. The only plan I see to pay for this is to tax the "rich". It's a fallacy that they can pay for all this.— jwad56
- Nigel, I read the article too. The administration should worry less about what journalist's write and more about what to do with the banking industry! I can't believe they have nothing better to do than to demonize Rush and call David Brooks:) They care too much about what other people think of them. Start a 'bad bank' and start buying those 'toxic assets' tomorrow, that is the only way these banks will get healthy!— NEPhilly
- jwad56 - Yes, I'm living in fantasy land. I dream that the decisions made in 2000 - 2008 are the cause of the markets malaise today, particularly allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse. Despite my personal objections to the TBTF (too big to fail) ideology, it appears to have been true. The markets still haven't recovered (unfrozen) from the global panic of 16-Sep-2008. You seem to be giving President Obama an omnipotence over the 'free' market. Take Warren Buffet's advice. Be fearful when others are greedy and be greedy when others are fearful. I've never purchased stock personally, but I'm thinking about investing when the DJIA hits 5400.— Phrossty
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
