Category: Journalism

I didn’t see it in the Star-Ledger‘s announcement of the end of its print edition, but later I learned that it will also discontinue its editorial board and the columns of Tom Moran and Paul Mulshine. I don’t know if it was just the economics of not wanting to pay for locally produced opinion content or if management determined that many people do not subscribe because the newspaper is too liberal. Not that I agreed with all, or indeed most, of the Star-Ledger‘s editorial positions, but I will miss the labeled editorials for several reasons:

• The labelled opinion pieces often provide factual details that are not actually reported in the “news” articles.
• Opinion is more likely to get included in what is supposed to be news. (I’ve complained about this several times before, for example here.) Look at the choice of covering the end of the presidential campaign. If the Star-Ledger was your only source of news you can be excused for believing that Harris had all the enthusiasm.
• Any non-local opinion sources will not give sufficient coverage to local issues. Local policies will be unexamined.
• The “other side” might just be right; it’s healthy to know its arguments.

Jay Bohn

November 11, 2024

Copyright 2024 by Jay Bohn.

At the end of last year the two newspapers to which I subscribe, the Star-Ledger and the Express-Times, eliminated their Saturday print editions. When that change was announced I posted Elimination of Saturday Print Edition the Beginning of the End for Star-Ledger Newspaper, in which I said: “I believe that [the elimination of the Saturday print edition] marks the point where it became inevitable that local news for most of us, such as it is, will be available only on-line.”

Today, just over a year later, I have been proved right. Both the Star-Ledger and the Express-Times announced yesterday that they will be ending their print editions entirely on February 2, 2025. The carnage includes a number of affiliated papers.

Both publications promise to reallocate resources to strengthen their core newsrooms which, if true, is the only good to come out of this development.

Look, I’m no Luddite. I get lots of news on-line, but I believe that the daily newspaper is the archetype. The publishers must decide once per day what stories make the grade, and they are permanently fixed. Once published the words cannot be unpublished. I like to think that this means great care is taken, certainly more than in an on-line edition. (I often wonder if the online editors actually even proofread what gets posted.) Other concerns apply to on-line articles, as I suggested recently.

It’s also that I find it easier to read a newspaper. A physical paper is actually more portable that a computer or tablet and to read a virtual newspaper on a phone is just way too much scrolling.

I also wonder what the elimination of print newspapers will mean for legal notices that are required to be published. With the elimination of the Star-Ledger and the Express-Times, a substantial percentage of municipalities will have lost their only local daily newspaper. See my prior posts The Purpose of Legal Advertising is to Inform the Public, Not to Support Newspapers and Some Reasons Why Public Notices Should be in the Newspaper.

Jay Bohn

October 31, 2024

Copyright 2024 by Jay Bohn.

Last year in a post entitled “Mixed Bag in Media Review,” I criticized a Newsweek article about a case before the U.S. Supreme Court as factually accurate but misleading because it lacked crucial context and because the headline’s choice of wording implied that there was some chance that the Court would take the case. I said, “[P]rofessional journalists should have a bit more working knowledge of how our court system works.”

Two recent Newsweek articles, by two different writers, continue to reflect a disappointing lack of familiarity and imply a lot more significance to routine actions.

In “Donald Trump Lawyer Botches Court Filing in Mar-a-Lago Case,” the author recounts an error that was made when the notice of appearance for Emil Bove, one of the attorneys representing former President Donald Trump in the Government’s appeal of Judge Aileen Cannon’s dismissal of the charges against him in the classified document case. Back in olden times when I became a lawyer filing with a court consisted of the physical delivery of a “wet-ink” signed document to the court clerk. Now most filing is accomplished electronically.¹ Document filers, mostly attorneys, have their own individual accounts with login ID, password, and potentially other security. In the context of this article, the court’s procedure required that the notice of appearance be filed using the account of the specific attorney, but Mr. Bove’s notice was filed using someone else’s account. Mr. Bove promptly corrected the deficiency upon notice from the court.

So, there was a minor procedural misstep unrelated to the merits of the case which was quickly corrected. I would not describe it as “botching” a court filing and am left with the impression that the author of the headline (who may not be the author of the article) did so in order to embarrass the attorney, presumably because of the author’s disdain for his client.

The other recent article, “Supreme Court Justices Refuse to Reconsider Their Decisions,” accurately reports that a recent list of Supreme Court orders disposed of many cases in which the disappointed party asked the Court to reconsider its denial of his/her/its petition for certiorari and that the grant of a petition for rehearing is extremely rare. While a request for reconsideration may be understandable (few litigants are willing to admit that their case is finally, irretrievably lost), in most cases the arguments for reconsideration either were, or could have been, asserted in the petition in the first place. They are seeking the proverbial “second bite at the apple.”

Ultimately, I believe that the facts that these articles report are simply not newsworthy, and the articles would never merit space in a print publication. But the lower cost of on-line publication coupled with the constant need for new content arising from the twenty-four-hour news cycle (and the constant desire for clicks to generate ad revenue) incentivizes “click-bait” headlines.

Jay Bohn

July 25, 2024

1. In federal courts the system is called “electronic court filing,” or “ECF.” ↩︎

There’s no doubt that print newspapers are in a world of hurt. Years ago they were doing well. Many cities had multiple, competing newspapers. Then consolidation set in, partially fueled by competition from other media (then radio and television, today the internet). The newspapers that remain are facing declining advertising revenues and subscriber bases, so they increase their prices (and/or reduce their publication schedule) leading to more subscriber losses, a continuing cycle. (Anybody else reminded of the United States Postal Service?)

I can only ascribe to desperation that someone thinks it’s a good idea to charge a premium for the Thanksgiving edition of the newspaper. True, Sunday editions are charged at a higher rate, but these typical had more or expanded content sections than weekday papers did. Also, Sunday papers used to have many advertising supplements, that could include enough coupon savings to justify the extra cost. But here’s a newsflash: Sunday advertising has all but disappeared. Advertisers (whose rates have presumably also increased) have decided to spend their advertising dollars elsewhere (or not at all) and rely upon their own websites. Thanksgiving of course used to have quite a few advertising supplements; now the “quite a” has disappeared, leaving just “few.”¹ True, there were special content sections, but it looked like much of it was recycled from last Thanksgiving.

Jay Bohn

November 27, 2023

1. I get two newspapers on Thursdays, one had five, the other three; most of the ads were two to four pages). ↩︎

Last month the Star-Ledger announced that December 30, 2023, would mark the last Saturday print edition of the newspaper. (Its sister publication, the Express-Times made a similar announcement.) In the perhaps not so distant future when the obituary for this print newspaper is written this event will mark a turning point.

To be sure, the economic and social forces that seem inexorably to be leading to this result started long ago and the loss of one day a week’s print newspaper is more effect than cause,¹ but I believe that it marks the point where it became inevitable that local news for most of us, such as it is, will be available only on-line.

One must not forget that newspapers, as important to democracy and even noble as they want to believe they are, are also, at bottom, profit-seeking businesses. Businesses seek ever to grow larger and operate more efficiently. I see newspaper consolidation, both within the same market and then on a regional basis, as a significant factor in their current problems.

Imagine, in those halcyon days of yore, that many communities were served by multiple local newspapers, giving their customers all of the benefits flowing from competition, great service at low prices. Then imagine either the closing of the economically weaker newspaper or its acquisition by the stronger: the Newark Star-Eagle and the Newark Ledger combine to form the Newark Star-Ledger.

But the newspaper’s circulation is not limited to a single city. Its subscribers may include suburban residents who commute to work in the city or are just civically engaged. The newspaper may serve these customers by providing news coverage of events in their towns. To the extent that other newspapers already serve the local suburban market, they fail or are bought up. Then imagine that the newspaper sees the marketing advantage in omitting the geographic descriptor.² The Newark Star-Ledger becomes the Star-Ledger.

This intra- and inter-municipal consolidation broadens the audience served, but also results in less focused local coverage. Reporters cease to attend local government meetings. Citizens lose access to information on what their local governments are doing on a day-to-day basis. Customers drop off.

Other media then take some of the remaining customers. The internet is a major factor today, but it started with radio and television. They lack the ability to provide the extensive, comprehensive news coverage I would like to see. A few minutes at the top of the hour, or a half-hour at dinner time (further reduced by commercials and including not just “real news,” but also sports, weather, and fluff, just can’t replace the newspaper.

In some way, the internet does not suffer these limitations, and it is not a foregone conclusion that it cannot serve as a worthy substitute, but it has yet to prove to be the case. Websites can be very splashy, but they need content. Their owners can pay reporters or seek volunteers. A few volunteers may be motivated and dedicated, but this is not a realistic business model. So, they have to pay reporters, which just recreates the problem in another medium.³

Jay Bohn

October 19, 2023

1. It is part of a cycle where service-cutting and price increases meant to deal with the loss of subscribers only drives more people away, just like the postal service. ↩︎
2. In this imagined past the reason for this is not dissatisfaction with anything about Newark, just the concern that the inclusion of one location’s name will run counter to the message that the publication is equally useful to suburban residents: “It’s not my local paper, I don’t live in Newark.” Many newspapers have eliminated reference to a specific community in their name. ↩︎
3. I will admit that it seems likely to me that the cost of distributing news via a website is likely to be less than having to buy paper and ink, run a printing press and distribute physical newspapers, but I doubt that this difference is going to solve all the problems. ↩︎