.jpg)
This isn't a blog about the profession that's helped me pay the bills. It's quite the opposite -- a blog to my passions, the ones I've nurtured before and after my day jobs, be they newspaper reporter, NPR station reporter or adjunct prof at my alma mater.
But it's not really an accident that I became a journalist, even if I was reluctant at first (and now earn my money in additional other ways like teaching). I grew up in a house where The New York Times was delivered every day to our doorstep -- and woe if it wasn't there on time, because my father would throw a fit! He liked to take the paper with him to the government lab where he worked so he could peruse the headlines over lunch, in the era long before smartphones (obviously).
When he returned home in the evening, he would remove the newspaper from his briefcase so that after dinner -- after my poor mother had slaved over the meal, and then cleaned up the kitchen, with little help from her wayward fourth daughter -- she could sit in her rocking chair in the living room to read the news while she smoked a cigarette (or two).
I can remember talking to her in that very spot about news articles and historical moments connected to the Watergate era, the Holocaust, the Revolutionary War and many other topics (she was a history buff).
My parents were so Catholic, it was painful! I once made the mistake of suggesting I might become a Protestant, and with a tone of voice that could freeze mighty rivers, my father replied icily, "You can do that but it's not the true path."
Yet the words my parents quoted the most issued not from the Holy Bible but rather the not-so-holy New York Times (which my mother insisted was anti-Catholic, if not simply anticlerical, though it did nothing to slow down her news consumption and I don't think she was right).
When I reported my one and only news feature story for The New York Times, my father clipped the article from the Business section and taped it up on the wall of his den in New Jersey ('one and only,' only because they've rejected subsequent pitches -- I'm always available for The Gray Lady when she needs me). I suspect he didn't really think I was a journalist until that moment.
My aunts and uncles on my father's side have also always read the newspaper. Some of them are also masters of the NYT crossword! (Such smart people from Bayonne, NJ!)
In other words, it's not news until The New York Times says so; that's the world I grew up in. And if The Times reports it, it's news, you should know about it and that's that. And yes, I still believe this!
I've raised Leo to read the newspaper as well (as I mentioned in a personal essay that I published -- pinch me! -- with The New York Times, he and I used to begin our days when he was a toddler by looking for photos of Pres. Obama in the newspaper). We now send the dog out to get the paper every morning, and over breakfast, Leo at least looks at the headlines. He also has had a subscription to The Week Junior for several years.
I know he will get his news from multiple sources -- he already listens to podcasts and adores "The Daily Show" (not only for the sexual references and frat-like tone, though that helps.)
All of this to say, I am apoplectic about a recent report from Harvard's venerable journalism institute, Nieman Lab, about a study conducted by the Pew Research Center on the news consumption habits of Americans now.
As Pew puts it, Americans have a "complicated relationship" with news, with many surveyed saying they let news "find them," because of course, these days, we are bombarded with information via social media.
But as Nieman summarizes it in its headline, most Americans don't pay for news and don't think they need to. Of the people surveyed, an astonishing 83 percent said they do not spend money to receive news (through subscriptions, memberships or donations, according to Pew).
RED ALERT
RED ALERT
RED ALERT
In a Democracy, we must know what's happening. We must know what the government is up to. And we need people who are paid to pay attention to what's happening and what the government is up to.
It's not like producing a widget -- a reporter may have to spend hours upon hours talking to people or attending meetings or traveling far and wide to gather information in person before he or she is ready to publish an actual story. It could take days or even months.
And yes, a journalist may have to speak to people who do not want their names published in order to find out what's really happening.
We know from Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, and of course the wicked Epstein file scandal that the government sometimes takes steps to hide information.
I've tried to avoid asking people to spend money on my behalf -- even with my Edith Bruck translation, I gave my author copies to the people closest to me because I didn't want to burden them by asking them to buy the book (now I'm just bugging them to write a review on Amazon).
But I'm asking you as an American to support a news organization. Not necessarily CNN, my news organization, but any news organization that provides solid, original reporting.
It could even be a Substack -- Roger Sollenberger is doing solid reporting on the Epstein files.
Journalism has to be a paid activity that people seek out for work and we news consumers have to pay for it. The advertising model for newspapers has collapsed. The work that good newspapers do, however, still needs to be underwritten, supported, discussed and cherished.
When you turn on CNN to see what's happening in Iran, the people explaining and delivering the news earn a good salary so that they can tell you the latest developments. They cannot do a good job if they are not paid enough to do so -- if they have to take on second jobs or can only publish their work on a personal website after being laid off or if they cut corners because they are not paid enough to do careful reporting.
Other organizations worth your time and patronage:
The Philadelphia Inquirer
The Guardian
