I had an interesting conversation on Twitter, Sunday night, with WPRI’s Ted Nesi and WPRO’s Matt Allen.  It branched off in a few directions, so it’s a bit difficult to provide a link to the comprehensive thing.  Here’s the end of one thread.

The two of them had been lamenting the out-of-state corporate decision that led the Providence Journal effectively to end its extensive city-and-town coverage, and I chimed in to ask if there’s evidence that there’s an adequate market for local news to support it.  In the end, we all agreed that local news is valuable and should be seen as an investment even if it’s not profitable in its own right.

For that to work, though, it has to be subsidized somehow, by somebody who sees its value.  Some other source of revenue has to pay for the local coverage, which has its value in both civic responsibility and the long-term credibility and audience building of the overall product.

Where my contrarian nature kicks in is that I have a hard time faulting an out-of-state corporation for having different priorities.  It’s easy to export the blame, but why should a corporation that made an investment become the scapegoat?  Local people and organizations that don’t support the paper financially are to blame for not creating a sufficient market, as are those who’ve made locals’ budgets so tight.  The local interest that sold the paper to the national entity is to blame for handing it off beyond the borders of people who feel some civic responsibility for the state.

And there’s blame within the paper.  I’d argue that the bias — especially in headlines and page layout — has put off a lot of people who now see the Providence Journal as a constituent part of what’s driving Rhode Island into the ground.  (I offer that by way of reporting what I’ve heard people say.)

The reporters’ union has to take some responsibility, too.  If (as I think is very likely) they are largely the reason Rhode Island pays so much for “reporters and correspondents,” then they’ve made it more difficult for local interests to keep ownership in the state, and they make it less likely that outside corporate interests will invest in local news.  After all, that requires hiring journalists.

I mean, if you (with your group of interested backers) had invested in a newspaper in a place where the locals treat the news business with indifference or like an entitlement and the journalists insist on being the highest paid in the country (especially adjusted for cost of living, which has an effect on cost of doing business, too), would you take the risk of investing in expanded offerings, or would you just try to maximize profits?  Whichever you choose, can you really blame people choose the other?