When local news dies, so does democracy | Chuck Plunkett

Transcriber: Ivana Korom Reviewer: Krystian Aparta

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Lo Hsien Huang

I've been a journalist for more than 23 years,

我當記者已經超過二十三年，

at the "Arkansas Democrat-Gazette,"

我待過《阿肯色州民主公報》、 《匹茲堡論壇報》，

the "Pittsburgh Tribune Review"

and most recently, "The Denver Post."

最近則是在《丹佛郵報》。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

When I started at "The Denver Post" in 2003,

2003 年我開始為 《丹佛郵報》工作時，

it was among the country's 10 largest newspapers,

該報是全國十大報紙之一，

with an impressive subscriber base

訂戶數量可觀，

and nearly 300 journalists.

旗下有近三百名記者。

At the time, I was in my 30s.

當時，我三十幾歲。

Any ambitious journalist that age

在那個年紀又有野心的記者

aspires to work for one of the big national papers,

都嚮往要為全國 最大的報紙之一工作，

like "The New York Times" or "The Wall Street Journal."

比如《紐約時報》 或《華爾街日報》。

But I was simply blown away

但是我待在《丹佛郵報》的前幾週

by my first few weeks at "The Denver Post,"

就讓我大開眼界，

and I thought, "This is going to be my paper.

我那時心想：「這就是我想要的。」

I can make a career right here."

「我能在這裡建立職涯。」

Well, seven years passed,

七年過去了，

we were sold to a hedge fund,

我們被賣給避險基金公司，

Alden Global Capital.

奧爾登全球資本。

Within a few years --

幾年內——

(Laughs)

（笑）

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Some of you know this story.

在座有些人知道這個故事。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Within a few years,

幾年內，

buyouts ordered by past and present owners

過去業主和現在業主所下的併購令

would reduce the newsroom by nearly half.

把新聞編輯部的人砍了一半。

And I understood.

我能了解。

The rule of thumb used to be that 80 percent of a newspaper's revenue

以前的經驗法則是， 報紙有八成的營收

came from pricy print ads and classifieds.

來自昂貴的平面廣告和分類廣告。

With emerging giants like Google and Facebook and Craigslist,

隨著新興巨擘如 Google、 臉書、克雷格列表出現，

those advertizing dollars were evaporating.

那些來自廣告的收入都蒸發了。

The entire industry was undergoing a massive shift from print to digital.

整個產業都面臨重大轉型， 從平面轉成數位形式。

Alden's orders were to be digital first.

奧爾登的指示是先數位化。

Take advantage of blogs, video and social media.

利用部落格、影片，和社群媒體。

They said that one day,

他們說，將來有一天，

the money we made online would make up for the money we lost in print.

我們從網路上賺來的錢

就可以彌補我們在平面上的損失。

But that day never came.

但那天始終沒有到來。

In 2013, we won a Pulitzer Prize

2013 年，我們因為 報導奧羅拉槍擊事件

for covering the Aurora theater shooting.

得到了一座普立茲獎。

Alden ordered that more journalists be cut.

奧爾登下令要裁掉更多記者。

Again,

又一次，

and again,

再一次，

and again,

再一次，

and again.

再一次。

We were forced to say goodbye to talented, hardworking journalists

我們被迫揮別很有才華 又很努力的記者，

we considered not just friends

我們不只把他們視為朋友，

but family.

也視為家人。

Those of us left behind were stretched impossibly thin,

我們這些留下來的人， 像快被拉斷的橡皮筋，

covering multiple beats and writing rushed articles.

要負責多個領域， 文章都是趕出來的。

Inside a windowless meeting room in March of 2018,

2018 年三月， 在沒有窗戶的會議室中，

we learned that 30 more would have to go.

我們得知又要裁掉三十多個人。

This paper that once had 300 journalists

這個報社曾經有三百個記者，

would now have 70.

現在只剩下七十個。

And it didn't make sense.

那並不合理。

Here, we'd won multiple Pulitzer Prizes.

我們得到不只一座普立茲獎。

We shifted our focus from print to digital,

我們把焦點從平面轉移到數位，

we hit ambitious targets

我們達到了很有野心的目標，

and email from the brass talked up the Post's profit margins,

上級寄出的電子郵件 大肆宣揚郵報的淨利率，

which industry experts pegged at nearly 20 percent.

產業專家估計有 20%。

So if our company was so successful and so profitable,

如果我們的公司 如此成功，獲利這麼高，

why was our newsroom getting so much smaller and smaller?

為什麼新聞編輯室不斷被裁員？

I knew that what was happening in Colorado was happening around the country.

我知道在科羅拉多發生的狀況 也在全國各地發生。

Since 2004,

從 2004 年起，

nearly 1,800 newsrooms have closed.

就有近一千八百間 新聞編輯室關門。

You've heard of food deserts.

各位都聽過「食物沙漠」。

These are news deserts.

這則是「新聞沙漠」。

They are communities, often entire counties,

新聞沙漠指的是 幾乎沒有或完全沒有

with little to zero news coverage whatsoever.

新聞報導的社區，通常是整個郡。

Making matters worse,

更糟糕的是，

many papers have become ghost ships,

許多報紙變成了幽靈船，

pretending to sail with a newsroom

以新聞編輯室之名假裝航行，

but really just wrapping ads around filler copy.

實際上只是用些複製來的 填充內容來賣廣告。

More and more newsrooms are being sold off to companies like Alden.

越來越多新聞編輯室 被賣給奧爾登這類公司。

And in that meeting,

在那會議中，

their intentions couldn't have been clearer.

他們的意圖再清楚不過。

Harvest what you can,

能用的盡量用，

throw away what's left.

剩下的就丟掉。

So, working in secret with a team of eight writers,

所以，我們和八名作家 組成的一個團隊秘密合作，

we prepared a special Sunday Perspective section

準備了特別的週日觀點版，

on the importance of local news.

談論地方新聞的重要性。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The Denver rebellion launched like a missile,

丹佛反抗軍像射出的飛彈，

and went off like a hydrogen bomb.

像氫彈般爆炸。

[In An Extraordinary Act Of Defiance,

〔丹佛郵報做出不凡的反抗之舉， 強烈要求其業主把報社賣掉〕

Denver Post Urges Its Owner To Sell The Paper]

['Denver Post' Editorial Board Publicly Calls Out Paper's Owner]

〔丹佛郵報的編委會 公開呼籲報社業主〕

[On The Denver Post, vultures and superheroes]

〔談丹佛郵報、 乘人之危者及超級英雄〕

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲及歡呼聲）

Clearly, we weren't alone in our outrage.

很顯然，憤怒的不只有我們。

But as expected, I was forced to resign.

但是意料之中，我被迫辭職。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And a year later, nothing's changed.

一年後，什麼都沒有改變。

"The Denver Post" is but a few lone journalists

「丹佛郵報」只剩下 一些讓人欽佩的孤獨記者

doing their admirable best in this husk of a once-great paper.

待在這個曾經很輝煌的報社 僅存的外殼下盡力而為。

Now, at least some of you are thinking to yourself,

至少在座應該有些人在想：

"So what?"

「所以呢？」對吧？

Right?

So what?

所以呢？就讓垂死的產業安息吧。

Let this dying industry die.

And I kind of get that.

我可以理解這個想法。

For one thing, the local news has been in decline for so long

一則，地方新聞 長年以來一直在走下坡，

that many of you may not even remember

在座很多人可能甚至不記得

what it's like to have a great local paper.

有一份很棒的地方報紙 是怎樣的感覺。

Maybe you've seen "Spotlight" or "The Paper,"

也許各位曾經看過《驚爆焦點》 或《媒體先鋒》這類電影，

movies that romanticize what journalism used to be.

它們把過去的新聞業 描寫得很浪漫。

Well, I'm not here to be romantic or nostalgic.

我來這裡不是要耍浪漫或懷舊。

I'm here to warn you that when local news dies,

我來這裡是要警告各位， 當地方新聞消失，

so does our democracy.

我們的民主也會消失。

And that should concern you --

那應該會影響到各位——

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲及歡呼聲）

And that should concern you,

那應該會影響到各位， 不論各位是否有訂閱。

regardless of whether you subscribe.

Here's why.

原因如下：

A democracy is a government of the people.

民主是人民做主的政府。

People are the ultimate source of power and authority.

人民是權力和權威最根本的來源。

A great local newsroom acts like a mirror.

好的地方新聞編輯室 應當扮演一面鏡子。

Its journalists see the community and reflect it back.

其記者要去觀看社區 並將之反映出來。

That information is empowering.

那些資訊讓民眾能自立自主。

Seeing, knowing, understanding --

看見、知道、了解——

this is how good decisions are made.

好的決策就是這麼來的。

When you have a great local paper,

如果有很好的地方報紙，

you have journalists sitting in on every city council meeting.

在每一場市議會的會議上 都會有記者出席。

Listening in to state house and senate hearings.

他們會去聽州議會 和參議院的公聽會。

Those important but, let's face it,

那些委員會公聽會都很重要，

現實是，它們有時也無聊得要命。

sometimes devastatingly boring committee hearings.

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Journalists discover the flaws and ill-conceived measures

記者會揭發出瑕疵 及計畫不周的議案，

and those bills fail, because the public was well-informed.

那些法案就無法通過， 因為大眾完全知情。

Readers go to the polls

讀者會去投票，

and they know the pros and cons behind every ballot measure,

他們知道贊成和反對 每個選票議案背後的理由，

because journalists did the heavy lifting for them.

因為記者為他們做了 很多辛苦的功課。

Even better,

還有更棒的，

researchers have found that reading a local paper

研究者發現，閱讀地方報紙

can mobilize 13 percent of nonvoters to vote.

能夠驅使 13% 不投票的人去投票。

Thirteen percent.

13%。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

That's the number that can change the outcome of many elections.

那樣的數字足以改變 許多選舉的結果。

When you don't have a great local paper,

如果沒有很好的地方報紙，

voters are left stranded at the polls,

在投票時，選民會無依無靠，

confused,

感到困惑，

trying to make their best guess based on a paragraph of legalese.

只能根據某一段法律措辭 來做出最佳猜測。

Flawed measures pass.

有瑕疵的議案能通過。

Well-conceived but highly technical measures fail.

設想周道但非常專業的議案 反而無法通過。

Voters become more partisan.

投票變成只是選黨。

Recently in Colorado, our governor's race

最近，在科羅拉多， 我們的州長競選

had more candidates than anyone can remember.

候選人人數是大家 記憶中最多的一次。

In years past,

在過去幾年中，

journalists would have thoroughly vetted,

記者會做完整的調查、審查、

scrutinized, fact-checked, profiled, debated

詳細檢查事實、 做側寫、進行辯論，

every contender in the local paper.

刊在地方報紙上， 每個候選人都不放過。

"The Denver Post" did its best.

這方面《丹佛郵報》盡力做到最好。

But in the place of past levels of rigorous reporting and research,

但是過去這種程度的嚴謹 報導和研究已經不復存在，

the public is increasingly left to interpret

現在的狀況漸漸變成大眾被迫要

dog-and-pony-show stump speeches and clever campaign ads

自行詮釋作秀式的政治演說 以及聰明的競選廣告。

for themselves.

With advertizing costing what it does,

因為廣告要花錢，

electability comes down to money.

能否當選就變成由錢來決定。

So by the end of the primaries,

初選結束後，

the only candidates left standing were the wealthiest

留下的候選人都是最富有

and best-funded.

和資金最雄厚的。

Many experienced and praise-worthy candidates

許多有歷練、值得讚賞的候選人

never got oxygen,

無法存活，

because when local news declines,

因為，當地方新聞式微，

even big-ticket races become pay-to-play.

就連高價的選戰也會 變成付錢就能參一腳。

Is it any surprise that our new governor

我們的新州長是價值 超過三億美金的候選人，

was the candidate worth more than 300 million dollars?

這會讓人感到意外嗎？

Or that billionaire businessmen like Donald Trump and Howard Schultz

像唐納‧川普及霍華‧舒茲 這類億萬富翁的商人

能站上政治舞台， 會讓人感到意外嗎？

can seize the political stage?

I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind

我不認為我們的國父 在談論自由公平的選舉時，

when they talked about free and fair elections.

心中想的是這樣的選舉。

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲及歡呼聲）

Now this is exactly why we can't just rely on the big national papers,

這正是為什麼我們不能

只仰賴大型的全國報紙，

like "The Journal" and "The Times" and "The Post."

如《華爾街日報》、 《紐約時報》及《華盛頓郵報》

Those are tremendous papers,

那些都是很棒的報紙，

and we need them now, my God, more than ever before.

而且我們現在也比以往更需要它們。

But there is no world in which they could cover

但它們絕對不可能報導

every election in every county in the country.

全國每個郡的每一場選舉。

No.

不可能。

The newsroom best equipped to cover your local election

最有能力去報導 地方選舉的新聞編輯室，

ought to be your local newsroom.

就該是當地的地方新聞編輯室。

If you're lucky and still have one.

如果當地有幸還有 地方新聞編輯室的話。

When election day is over,

選舉日過後，

a great local paper is still there, waiting like a watchdog.

好的地方報紙仍然會 在那裡像監督人一樣守著。

When they're being watched,

有他們在看著，

politicians have less power,

政治人物的權力就不會那麼大，

police do right by the public,

警方會公正對待大眾，

even massive corporations are on their best behavior.

就連大企業也會表現出最好的舉止。

This mechanism that for generations has helped inform and guide us

數世代以來，這個機制都一直

協助提供資訊給我們、引導我們，

no longer functions the way it used to.

現在它卻不再像以前那樣運作了。

You know intimately what the poisoned national discourse feels like,

各位都切身知道有毒的 國族論述是怎樣的，

what a mockery of reasoned debate it has become.

知道它已經變成了 對理性辯論的嘲諷。

This is what happens when local newsrooms shutter

當地方新聞編輯室關門，

and communities across the country go unwatched and unseen.

全國各地的社區沒有人監視， 就會發生這種狀況。

Until we recognize that the decline of local news

除非我們能意識到地方新聞的式微

has serious consequences for our society,

對於我們的社會有著很嚴重的後果，

this situation will not improve.

要不然這個情況不可能會改善。

A properly staffed local newsroom isn't profitable,

正常營運的地方新聞編輯室無法獲利，

and in this age of Google and Facebook,

而且在 Google 和臉書的時代，

it's not going to be.

它也沒機會獲利。

If newspapers are vital to our democracy,

如果報紙對我們的民主如此重要，

then we should fund them like they're vital to our democracy.

我們就應該提供相應的資助。

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲及歡呼聲）

We cannot stand by and let our watchdogs be put down.

我們不能冷眼旁觀， 讓我們的監督人被壓制。

We can't let more communities vanish into darkness.

我們不能讓更多社區 消失在黑暗中。

It is time to debate a public funding option

在第四權消失之前，

該是考量群眾募資選項的時候了，

before the fourth estate disappears,

and with it, our grand democratic experiment.

否則，我們偉大的 民主實驗也會隨之消失。

We need much more than a rebellion.

光有反抗軍並不夠，還差很遠。

It is time for a revolution.

該是革命的時候了。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲及歡呼聲）