Feb 10, 2018 4 min read

Editorial voices from newspapers across the United States:

The Providence (R.I) Journal

It’s no secret that journalism is a beleaguered field these days. The rise of the internet knocked out the traditional pillar that sustained local newspapers: classified ads. And print circulation, another key source of revenue, has fallen as many people have gone online to get their news. This has put tremendous pressure on the industry.

But the most disturbing trend for the future of the field is that digital advertising is essentially a digital duopoly: Facebook and Google command 73 percent of digital ad revenue. And that number grows just about every quarter. The upshot? Newspapers (or indeed, just about anybody else with a news website) have not been able to make up for their falling print revenue with digital advertising.

Our system of self-government requires a robust journalistic apparatus to inform citizens of what is transpiring in their name and to keep public officials in check. That’s why a group of newspapers – about 2,000 of them – called the News Media Alliance wants Congress to grant a limited antitrust exemption to the industry. That way, newspapers could come together to negotiate new agreements with the likes of Facebook and Google.

Newspapers have a vested interest in coming together to negotiate a better deal with the internet giants. Their true competitors are Facebook and Google, not the regional newspaper located thousands of miles away. And the newspapers need to extract better terms.

The only thing worse than “fake news” is “no news.” And unless newspapers are able to get their hands on more of the revenue that their work is actually producing, that could be the future we face.

The Post-Journal, Jamestown, N.Y.

In the aftermath of violent sprees, the question asked often in schools is why no one saw it coming.

Profiling children as potential killers is such a difficult task it does not even fall into the category of “inexact science.” Deciding youngsters who don’t fit in or who sometimes behave strangely are dangerous is foolish and irresponsible on many levels.

But officials in the school district that includes Italy High School, near Dallas, Texas, apparently had every reason to worry about the 16-year-old boy who shot a girl there.

(Another student) explained the boy’s behavior telegraphed trouble, beginning in the eighth grade, when he drew up a “hit list.” Then, just last year, he threw a pair of scissors at another student, then threw a computer against the wall. He was removed from school – but allowed to return.

If the girl is correct – and both school and law enforcement authorities should check on the details – someone misjudged the boy badly.

Should every problem child be kicked out of school? Of course not. But the Texas case is a reminder that violent behavior needs to be taken very, very seriously, because of the potential it may escalate into life-threatening situations.

The Herald-Dispatch, Huntington, W.Va.

A piece of legislation that invokes the Boston Tea Party and takes a slap at West Virginia cities that impose user fees has been introduced in the state’s Houses of Delegates.

House Bill 4041, called the “Taxation without Representation Act,” proposes that people who pay a user fee to a city but do not reside within its borders should be allowed to vote in that city’s municipal elections. However, it’s a bill that should be allowed to die. First, the cities that impose the fee have a reasonable justification for doing so – one that’s passed muster of the courts. Secondly, if the bill became law, it would certainly complicate establishing who is eligible to vote and who’s not in a municipal election – posing a daunting challenge for election officials.

The basis for the cities’ user fees is reasonable. Cities have built and maintained the infrastructure, the services and the mass of people that employers need to carry out their business. And for many people, even if they live outside a city, those employers located in a city offer a place to work and earn a living. Just like residents of a city, non-residents who are employed in that city use many of the same streets, bridges and services while they travel to and from the places where they work. So, it is only reasonable for those non-resident employees to pay a share of the costs of city operations.