Sept. 10: What precisely did you think your job was?

Well, I used to think that my job was to report facts.

That's right. 

Facts.

As in: things that are true. Things that can be empirically verified. Facts.

For 20 years, I reported facts in my local newspaper. If I ever reported something that was not factual it was either (a) a mistake or (b) an April Fool's Day joke. Our proofreader once scolded me for playing April Fool's Day jokes on our readers. She believed that the newspaper should never report anything non-factual, even if it was an April Fool's Day joke.

-

My newspaper closed this week. The owners could no longer afford to keep it open. I was interviewed about it on a national newscast. This surprised me. I didn't know that the demise of our weekly 130-year-old newspaper would be of interest to people in Victoria, but it was.

I had a chance to talk shop with the guy who interviewed me. He said that sometimes, there is only one side to a story. He was talking about conspiracy theorists.

-

I'm not sure what my job is right now. I have some freelancing opportunities so I will likely spend the next month or so reporting facts about hockey coaches and waterslide parks, but nothing as big as what I did everyday of the week for more than two decades.

-

Somebody once told Kurt Vonnegut that there were no villains in his novels.

Are there any villains in the closure of my newspaper and the closure of newspapers across the country?

We could blame it on big tech - Facebook and Google - who have swallowed up local advertising dollars and made it harder for newspapers to make a go. I've never worked in the advertising department, but I wonder how many times I've heard "why should I pay to advertise with you guys when I can get a much better deal online?"

Why indeed?

When your kid scores the winning goal or takes centre stage during the school play, will Facebook be there to cover it?

That was a rhetorical question.

No, you're not obligated to advertise in your local newspaper, but I kinda think you should. News deserts are not good things but they are getting bigger everyday. 

Case in point:

A local politician was arrested a number of years ago, charged with child luring and sexual assault. I covered the trial for the latter charge. The politician was found guilty. His sentencing hearing was to take place last week.

After my newspaper closed.

I tried Googling the matter. Nothing. No one knows what happened to that politician. From what I know, his sentencing hearing was not covered by the media. Facebook wasn't there. Neither was Google.

-

TV networks used to run their news departments at a loss. They depended on revenue from commercial ventures - televised dramas and comedies, sporting events, etc... - to pay for the news. They did it out of a sense of social obligation. They knew that the populace would be healthier if it was informed.

This strikes me as the best model for reporting the news. I wish that every community would have a coalition of wealthy civilians who would bankroll a local newspaper, accepting that they might do so at a loss. The newspaper could accept advertising, grant money, and subscription fees to keep the paper as solvent as possible, but it had to be run as a labour of love, not as a moneymaking enterprise.

Such a revolution is needed across the country. A newspaper should be accountable only to its readers, not shareholders or the government.