[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1176-S1178]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRESS
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on another matter, late last week, I
had the privilege of addressing an audience at the Newseum about the
current challenges facing the free press in America.
I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record
after my remarks here.
One of the most significant challenges the press faces, of course, is
economic. Besieged by a fractured media landscape and rapidly changing
technology, newspapers have been forced to adapt or die. Some have
adapted, but many have died.
One area in which it is particularly troubling to me is in smaller
markets in midsized and smaller cities. In those areas, local
newspapers have been the glue that keeps communities informed and
stitched together. I have seen it. In cities in Upstate New York--
small- and middle-sized--big companies have left, and some of the
community banks have been bought up by major large banks. The things
that keep a community together are greatly deteriorating. Newspapers
are one of the few glues these communities have. They are vital--way
beyond the profit and loss that they might make. The external benefits
of these newspapers, as the economists would say, are large, but they
are in trouble because of all the economic issues I mentioned.
Now there is a new threat on the horizon. A few weeks ago, a hedge
fund, known as the ``destroyer of newspapers,'' announced a bid to take
over Gannett, which, in addition to USA Today, publishes a lot of
small- and medium-sized newspapers and four important papers in my
State, those being the Democrat and Chronicle in Rochester, the Press &
Sun in Binghamton, the Poughkeepsie Journal, the Journal News in
Westchester, and newspapers in Elmira and Ithaca.
This morning, on the front page of the Washington Post, there is an
article about the business practices of
[[Page S1177]]
Alden and its subsidiaries. Essentially, Alden's strategy is to buy up
newspapers, cut staff, and then sell the commercial real estate of
newsrooms and printing presses for profit. The article quotes several
experts who have said of Alden:
They are the ultimate cash flow mercenary. They want to
find cash flow and bleed it to death.
Their principle is ``no new investment and sell off what you can
while you can,'' according to analysts who have studied it.
An analysis of the newspapers owned by Alden revealed that it cut
newspaper staff at more than twice the rate of its competitors. In all
likelihood, when it sells the real estate, the vast majority of the
money does not go to revitalizing newspapers, as a newspaper itself
would do when it sells real estate; it goes elsewhere. For Alden Global
Capital, the hedge fund, the acquisition and streamlining of Gannett
papers might increase its profits a couple of percentage points, but
the loss of the Press & Sun and the Democrat and Chronicle would be
incalculable.
Let me ask the American people and every one of my colleagues here:
What is more important--having our newspapers go on, which is so
important to local communities, or having a hedge fund raise its market
profits by five points, if it is public, or by a certain amount? What
is more important? I would argue: the newspapers.
The Gannett consortium was already the result of a consolidated news
business, with one reporter working multiple beats and placing stories
in multiple newspapers. I have seen that in Upstate New York. What was
already an overburdened, undersourced operation now faces potential
annihilation by an indifferent media conglomerate that is backed by an
even more indifferent hedge fund.
What do we do about this?
I don't know how to solve the broader economic problem for
newspapers, big and small. I hope there is a solution. The only
antidote to these problems, as I have seen, is the rarer and rarer
presence of generous, civic-minded families and individuals who own
news outlets for the right reasons, not simply to maximize profits--
although profit is still important--but because they feel an obligation
to advance journalism for the greater benefit of us all. Everyone has
seen this work at flagship newspapers, but the family model has worked
in smaller markets as well, including at several papers in Upstate New
York.
So I would propose that charitably inclined institutions and
individuals should begin to think of journalism as a philanthropic
endeavor. If it becomes a worthy endeavor to buy a local newspaper and
preserve its size and independence--just as it is a worthy endeavor to
support the local hospital, school, charity--many more might consider
doing it.
As Americans, we must continue to support the First Amendment--the
freedom and viability of the press. Our democracy depends on it.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[CES Prepared Remarks--Feb. 7, 2019]
Journalists Are Not the Enemy
Good afternoon everyone. Thank you, Gene Policinski, for
that kind introduction and for your help in hosting. Thank
you to Marjorie for your work at the Globe, your work on this
event, and allowing me to cut you in line to give remarks.
Thank you also to Linda Henry for the invitation to address
you today. It's a good time to be a Henry. Much to my
chagrin, the Red Sox were champions again this year, which--
no matter how many times it has happened--will always be a
bit bemusing to us Yankee fans with 27 championships. It
stings, but Sox fans: you have a long way to go.
I didn't want to miss the opportunity to be here with you
this afternoon, because, as you all know, I have such respect
and admiration for the press. At the Al Smith Dinner a few
years back, President Obama joked that I brought the press
along with me as my ``loved ones.'' And just as I do with my
loved ones, I worry about the future of the media; the future
of journalism.
We live in a time of immense challenge: economic, global,
political. The institutions of our democracy are being tested
in ways they haven't been tested since the early days of the
Republic. If ever there were a time for a vigorous Fourth
Estate--to ferret out the facts, inform a divided nation, and
hold power to account--it's right now.
But journalism, in its moment of maximum import, is also at
its moment of maximum peril. Besieged by large economic
forces and rapidly changing technology, journalism has been
forced to adapt or die. Some have adapted; many have died. On
top of these economic forces, the media faces a relentless
campaign of de-legitimization waged by the most powerful
office in the free world.
This afternoon, I'd like to discuss both of these
challenges with you; what they mean for our country and what
we might do about them.
I want to begin by talking about the concerted effort to
destroy the credibility of most news organizations.
To do that, I have to wind back the clock a bit to the
start of the Internet era, which allowed the media universe
to splinter into a near-infinite number of outlets, some of
which do important niche reporting, but many of which are
hyper-partisan, whose sole purpose is to market news to a
specific political demographic.
It used to be in America that we had a national town hall
every night at 6 o'clock with the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening
newscasts. You watched CBS if you liked Cronkite, or NBC if
you preferred Huntley-Brinkley. But regardless of what
channel we chose, we all got the same information; everyone
started with the same common fact base that helped us relate
to one another at the water cooler.
The same went for major newspapers. As Arthur Miller
quipped, ``a good newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking
to itself.'' Our nation is no longer talking to itself--we're
not even speaking the same language.
1987 was a pivot point, when the Reagan FCC withdrew the
Fairness Doctrine. No longer were stations compelled to
report controversial issues in a manner that was honest,
equitable and balanced. The withdrawal of the Fairness
Doctrine took the leash off, allowing stations of any
political bent to report the news as they saw fit.
This was taken advantage of by folks from every dot on the
political spectrum, but figures like Rupert Murdoch, Roger
Ailes, Andrew Breitbart and Steve Bannon took perhaps the
greatest advantage. They realized they could cultivate a
network of partisan media outlets, walking right up to--and
sometimes crossing--the line of blurring fact and fiction.
Enter President Trump: stage right. Fueled by his derision
for all but the most flattering reporting, President Trump
has taken it one step further.
His goal, it seems, is to discredit the media altogether as
a check on his power, to say to the American people that
newspapers are irrelevant, ``the failing New York Times;''
that all journalists are evil, ``the enemy of the people;''
that virtually all news is false, ``fake news.''
Let's be honest here: the president tells more lies than
any president we have ever seen.
When the press tells the truth, when the press speaks truth
to power, when the press does its job: President Trump can't
handle it. He calls it fake.
When President Trump labels something ``fake news,'' it is
inevitably critical of him, and most often, true.
Perhaps the president's penchant for calling stories
``fake'' could have been ignored or viewed with appropriate
skepticism 25 years ago. But because there is an entire
ecosystem of partisan news outlets and columnists that are in
total fealty to the president, who don't value the free press
as much as their own political ideology or profit--the ``fake
news'' contagion has spread, beyond even the president's most
ardent supporters, for a number of reasons.
We live in an age during which nearly all institutions are
mistrusted. Faith in the news media, historically one of the
most trusted institutions, has declined like so many others--
the government, the Church, corporate America, schools and
universities.
But if the public, broadly speaking, loses all faith in the
media--if the public comes to believe that all news is fake--
that's the beginning of the end of America as we know it.
So I want to speak directly to the members of the media in
the audience and those who may be watching . . .
Your job is more important than ever.
It's important to rebut alternative facts with facts.
It's important to correct the president's lies.
And it is equally important that you not let the president
wear you down or throw you off course . . . to think--maybe
we should tone it down a little, maybe we can let that one
go, when in fact it should be the opposite.
Dictators throughout the course of history have learned
that the best way to consolidate power is to capture or
totally discredit the news media.
Your mission goes beyond rebutting Trump's lies, important
as that may be. Your mission is intertwined with the future
of our democracy.
President Johnson said that ``an informed mind is the
guardian genius of democracy.'' That's what good journalism
does. It informs. It establishes truth. It is like a
guardrail for the country--keeping us from swerving off the
road and over a cliff
At a time when those fundamental principles are under
attack--including the very nature of truth--keeping the media
strong, keeping the media free, keeping the media alive . . .
has never been more important.
So I salute you. You are doing a noble thing. You just have
to just stay the course, charge ahead, undaunted and
undeterred.
[[Page S1178]]
Don't flag or lose faith. The Trump presidency has
reinvigorated a level of interest in journalism not seen
since Watergate. At the CUNY Journalism school, the number of
applications last year were 40% higher than they were the
year before. So long as journalists continue to do their jobs
without fear or favor, I truly believe that the president's
assault on the free press will not succeed.
Now, the second challenge facing journalism is also
menacing, also existential: the arrival of the internet--the
Huffington Post and Buzzfeed, followed closely by Twitter,
Facebook, and social media--brought an end to the traditional
business model for newspapers. Consumers expect their news
instantaneously, and they often expect it to be free.
Subscriptions and newsstand sales fell. Craigslist became the
preferred destination for classified ads, the most reliable
revenue stream for newspapers. Facebook, Twitter, and Google
gobbled up the remaining ad revenue as venues for the
journalism of others. I submit to you that it is not an
accident that Facebook's home page is called the ``news
feed.''
Like a boat taking on water faster than it can be bailed
out: newsrooms shrunk, the industry consolidated, and many
once-revered papers simply sunk.
None of this is ``news'' as would you say--but the collapse
of the newspaper's business model is still claiming victims.
One area where it's particularly troubling to me is in
smaller markets, in mid-sized and smaller cities. The most
striking example I've seen is in upstate New York. Just a few
years ago, the major newspaper in a town of 70,000 had
fifteen full-time reporters. Now it has two.
For generations, local newspapers and television stations
have been the glue that keeps small communities informed and
stitched together. In a big city, there are many interlocking
layers of civic life: social clubs, religious groups, sports
teams, municipal organizations. But in many smaller cities
and towns, the local paper is the most robust civic
organization left in that community.
When Kodak was in Rochester, it looked out for its civic
life, its charities, its communities. But there is no more
Kodak. When the community bank headquartered in Elmira was
purchased, a national bank came in and took much less
interest in the community life of Elmira. When Walmart came
in and supplanted every clothing and hardware store all
across upstate, it eroded both the finances and social fabric
of those communities. Local newspapers are one of the few
institutions left in smaller cities and towns. Just
anecdotally, cities with strong, successful papers--like
Buffalo with the Buffalo News--tend to do better economically
and those papers help foster a strong sense of community and
connectedness.
So I have a particular concern when smaller papers and
smaller television networks are forced to downsize,
reorganize, or close.
Unfortunately, in my home state of New York, an already
bleak picture just got bleaker. Last week, a hedge fund known
as the ``destroyer of newspapers'' announced a bid to take
over Gannet, which, in addition to USA Today, publishes four
important papers in my state, all in mid-size to smaller
cities: the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, the Binghamton
Press & Sun, the Poughkeepsie Journal, and the Journal News
in the Lower Hudson Valley.
For Alden Global Capital, the hedge fund, the acquisition
and ``streamlining'' of Gannet newspapers might increase its
profits a couple of percentage points. But the loss of the
Binghamton Press & Sun and the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle
would be incalculable.
The Gannet consortium was already the result of a
consolidated news business, with one reporter working
multiple beats and placing stories in multiple newspapers.
What was already an overburdened, under-resourced operation
now faces potential annihilation by an indifferent media
conglomerate backed by an even more indifferent hedge fund.
And in my view, losing a newspaper in Rochester is even
worse than losing one in Dallas. I am left angry and
searching for answers. What do we do about this?
I don't know how to solve the broader economic problem for
newspapers big and small. Federal support is problematic
beyond NPR and PBS. The press must remain adversarial; acting
and appearing independent.
The only antidote to these problems I have seen is the
rarer and rarer presence of generous, civic-minded families
and individuals who own news outlets for the right reasons--
not simply to maximize profits, although profit is still
important, but because they feel an obligation to advance
journalism for the greater benefit of us all. Newspapers that
belong to families or trusts have been some of the few to
survive the last two decades, isolated in part from market
pressures.
Everyone has seen this work at places like the Globe, the
Times, and the Post, but the family model has worked in
smaller markets as well. The Watertown Times, for example, is
owned by the Johnson family and it does as much for the North
Country in upstate New York as any institution.
I would propose, to you and your broader audience, that
charitably-inclined institutions and individuals should begin
to think of journalism as a philanthropic endeavor. The
plight of the Fourth Estate should move the conscience of the
nation. If it became a worthy endeavor to buy a local paper
and preserve it's size and independence--just as it's a
worthy endeavor to support the local hospital, school, or
charity--many more might consider doing it.
The Guardian, for example, operates on a reader-donation
model--which funds its entire online presence. Journalism is
a public good. From philanthropists to average readers: we
should all start treating it as such.
This is just one idea. I'm sure there are better ones. God
knows I don't have the answers. But from where I stand, I see
the same problems that you all understand so well, and I am
pained for solutions.
Because, throughout history, the Fourth Estate has always
kept our government in check when it's gone astray, perhaps
more than anywhere else around the world. We rely on
newspapers to inform our citizens, shine a light on
injustice, establish the facts, and hold elected officials
like me accountable. A free and robust Fourth Estate is how
we discern democracy from autocracy and guard against the
slide from one to the other.
This is a time when many of us who have had complete faith
in the wellspring of democracy that has graced our country
genuinely worry if it will endure.
The fact that you, the free press, are there at the
bulwark--independent, strong, and fearless, in cities big and
small--gives me solace that despite our current peril, the
greatness of America will ultimately prevail.
As Americans, we must continue to support the First
Amendment; the freedom--and viability--of the press. It's
nothing short of a moral imperative.
Thank you.
Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________