[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.

                          ____________________