If you think there’s more corruption, you’re right, and it’s happening where America has lost local newspapers.
That’s the conclusion of two professors who analyzed corruption in places with and without daily papers. They found clear evidence that there’s more corruption where papers closed.
That doesn’t bode well. Since 2005 more than a third of U.S. newspapers closed, leaving more than half of its counties with little to no local journalism.
The research also found that online outlets emerging in the wake of failed newspapers aren’t suppressing corruption like daily newspapers.
“Results indicate that newspaper closure is associated with increases in the per-capita number of corruption cases filed (7.32%), charges brought (6.80%),
and defendants indicted (6.04%),” wrote Ted Matherly, an assistant marketing professor at the University of Oklahoma, and Brad Greenwood, a professor in George Mason University’s department of information systems and operations management.
Greenwood shared the findings this week in Columbia Journalism Review but the report, “No news is bad news: The Internet, Corruption and the Decline of the Fourth Estate,” was first published in 2023.
Since then the landscape has changed. A handful of online news startups won Pulitzer Prizes over the last three years but they’re nowhere near backfilling the loss of more than 3,000 local newspapers.
Meanwhile corruption convictions increased nationally in 2023. The U.S. also fell to a new low on a global corruption index in February.
The authors describe three ways corruption may arise when dailies close.
Reduced oversight of government may affect who runs for office. Newspaper endorsements also vet candidates and are “key sources for the public to learn about elected officials.”
“When fewer resources are available to inform the public, those who are more likely to engage in corrupt acts may seek office and unseat previously vetted incumbents,” they wrote.
Investigative journalism may also “serve an auditing function on government and thereby suppress corruption.” Other research found newspaper closures may lead to reduced scrutiny of officials, “making malicious actors more likely to engage in corrupt practices.”
Losing newspapers might also have an indirect effect, making corrupt officials think there’s less risk. Law enforcement is more likely to uncover corruption but “the media typically elevates the salience of such scandals by covering them ex post, increasing public awareness of issues through an agenda-setting process.”
The authors write that government support is a potential solution. They note that this carries risks but the press has been subsidized since its inception. Interestingly, they suggest the federal government wouldn’t have to spend as much prosecuting corruption cases if it supported the press.
“If the goal of journalism is to create an informed public that is making decisions in their best interest, what we need to do is make sure that the infrastructure exists in order for that to be done, in order to facilitate true reporting on the facts on the ground,” Greenwood said in an interview. “If we don’t do that, we’re going to keep ourselves in an age of disinformation.”
Legislators favoring secrecy: Kudos to the Kent Chamber of Commerce and member Cristiaan Priebe.
During the chamber’s legislative luncheon last week, shared on YouTube by South King Media, Priebe asked attending legislators if they’ll cite “legislative privilege” to keep secrets from the public. Their answers were distressing.
Legislative leaders began citing “legislative privilege” to hide public records in 2021, after a failed attempt to exempt themselves from the state Public Records Act. A few have pledged never to invoke this dubious privilege and transparency advocates are suing to block its usage.
Priebe asked for a “simple yes or no — regardless of what happens in this litigation, will you agree to not claim legislative privilege?”
The only simple yes was from state Sen. Tina Orwall.
State Rep. Debra Entenman emphatically said no: “I think that there are times when I am speaking with my colleagues in caucus, when I am speaking with lobbyists, and I should have the right to have a frank and honest conversation that is not for the public.”
Entenman has always been free to have private conversations verbally. What’s at issue are public records, including written and digital communications.
As the Public Records Act states, “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.”
State Sen. Bob Hasegawa said, “I absolutely support Rep. Entenman’s position.” Hasegawa at one point said, “We have lives to live, we can’t spend our entire lives thumbing through every scrap of paper.”
“We don’t have enough time to even look (at) and read each piece of legislation let alone give it detailed thought and analysis before we vote,” he said. “So what we’re doing is depending on people who we hopefully trust their judgment and their advice on how to vote for things.”
That’s exactly why legislative privilege can’t be used to keep secrets: The public must be able to know who is telling Hasegawa, Entenman and others how to vote on legislation they might not even read, and what’s being communicated.
Rep. Mia Gregerson said, “I exercise legislative intent” and Rep. David Hackney said, “I can’t say that there could never be a situation where I would,” so they answered no.
Rep. Chris Stearns said, “It’s kind of a theoretical question” and he’ll “follow what the courts tell me to do.” That’s a “no” to Priebe’s question.
Sen. Claudia Kauffman didn’t answer directly but said, “Every time I get a request I fill it out completely and provide everything that there is.” Rep. Ed Obras concurred with Kauffman, saying “The public has all the tools necessary to ensure that we are being forthright and open in our dealings so the question around transparency is yes.”
It’s not clear that answers the question.
Kent’s local daily newspaper, by the way, merged with Bellevue’s Eastside Journal in 2002 and closed in 2007.
This is excerpted from the free, weekly Voices for a Free Press newsletter. Sign up to receive it at the Save the Free Press website.
