Retiring USA Today Editor laments loss of watchdog role

The writing is on the wall. During an interesting Q&A with Poynter, Richard Curtis, the founding visual editor of USA Today, expressed his concern with the faltering newspaper industry and its inability to continue serving its role as a watchdog over government. 

From the Q&A:

What do you think is next for USA Today?

Curtis: As much investment as I have in this institution and in its people, I want it to succeed wildly. Ultimately, I think it will be the last paper standing. I think there are dire times ahead for newspapers, in general.

I love reading local newspapers. But I think their economic model is not sustainable. And I don't think that bodes well for newspapers or for democracy.

I think without a healthy, unencumbered newspaper model to provide a watchdog role over public officials especially -- it does not speak well for the future of the country. I think we have to do everything within our power to guard against that happening.

However, the business models haven't been developed that are going to make that watchdog journalism sustainable, except on a national level.

Having worked for a national news organization all of these years, I can tell you that it's almost impossible to shine that spotlight into the dark corners of local government from that perspective.

... I don't think the answer is the Internet, I'll be honest with you. I think it's part of the solution, but it's not the solution, for many, many reasons.

I don't think the business model is there for the Internet -- despite people saying that the growth in online advertising is doing so well. They're charging pennies for it. And pennies will not sustain the kind of rigorous journalism that's necessary, unless journalists are willing to work for free.

Curtis' point that local newspapers especially lack the ability to employ watchdog journalism with current staffing levels is a good one. Although the nation's largest newspapers have sustained newsroom staffing to allow for months-long investigations to continue (most notably the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and the Washington Post, all of which have generally avoided major layoffs to their newsrooms) community newspapers, which write for a majority of the nation's newspaper readers, have not. 

Depending on the location and the owner of a given community publication, newsroom staffing has been cut by 20-50 percent in recent years. The result has been a serious reduction in watchdog reporting and a disintegration of journalism's First Amendment duty. I've personally seen and heard the horror stories of overworked city editors telling reporters they are no longer expected to do investigative journalism because they can't afford the overtime and their 40 hours each week must be used to pump out two to three daily stories in order to "feed the beast". 

In many cases, understaffed community newspapers have one reporter covering the city council, the county commissioners and the state legislature all at the same time. How much corruption can be uncovered when a reporter is carrying that load? I know of some community newsrooms that ask four to five reporters to pump out more than 40 stories each week. Anybody who can do simple math can see how in-depth, investigative journalism is nearly impossible to do under that load. 

Although government and corporate corruption occurs at the highest levels of our nation's existence, it also is rampant at the community level. The city council member or small-town mayor accepting a bribe or directing city contracts to his brother's construction firm happens and needs to be exposed. Unfortunately, the hard-working and talented journalists at the Times, the Post and the Journal don't have the reach to cover those important stories.