The ideal scenario of local ownership is simple. “A wealthy pillar of the community buys the local paper, makes quality his goal, grows the staff, and brings back readers,” wrote Chinni.

The logic behind that supposes that pillars of the community won’t be inclined to cut staff and hack costs simply to reach a maximal profit target.

Real life tends to be more complex than a dreamy knight’s tale.

What is true in the thesis: major newspapers across the US, in Los Angeles, Boston, Baltimore and Hartford, are currently faced with that situation. They could be bought out by local owners who could – or not – place their moral goals in front of their revenue sheets.

How does it work in practice? In Philadelphia, a wealthy prominent local figure, Brian Tierney, was amongst a group of investors who actually bought the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News a few months ago.

"The next great era of Philadelphia journalism begins today," Mr. Tierney had announced after the purchase.

The Inquirer’s revenue had fallen by 10% in September 2006 (compared to September 2005), circulation was down 7%, so what happened? The local owners cut 17% of the staff – 70 employees – not counting the newer announcement that 30 ad department jobs were being cut too.

Now, would the paper’s previous owner, Knight Ridder, have cut more staff? Possibly, probably.

“Last week's Philadelphia story doesn't necessarily mean local ownership is a bad idea, but it shows there is no simple solution - or no simple shield - for the troubles newspapers are facing.”

Local ownership can succeed, but only given a good owner and a whole lot of other circumstances. This is no time to vainly hope for a universal and systematic solution.

Source: Christian Science Monitor