What I find dismaying is the reduction of local news coverage. Without alternative media reporting, how do citizens know what happens in their own communities? The fact is that all media, print, broadcast and on-line, rely on profits to exist. The few "free" newspapers still in Columbus rely on advertising. That's where you and I come in.
People should compare what our newspapers looked like 30 years ago versus now. More pictures and pretty graphics now, less news. More local news then. Who is better informed?
Perhaps things would not be so bleak if local radio broadcasters such as WTVN had not reduced their local news coverage. I also think local news coverage by tv stations is inadequate. People accuse the news media of being slanted and that will certainly be true if no alternatives exist.
The Dispatch used to run, as a community service, a complete death list and basic funeral info. Many people cannot afford to run a paid newspaper obituary. If the Dispatch prints a free listing of births and marriages, why not deaths? The paper used to publish all crime reports. We are now left to look up such info via the internet. This is not journalism, it is laziness.
Not only do we have less local print news coverage, media such as The Dispatch (some years back) outsource what were production jobs (editing, proofing, design and so on) elsewhere, such as India. Similar to what law firms now do with legal research and writing.
Meanwhile, what people can do is to hold local news media accountable. We can demand more local and fair news coverage. Then, there are the advertisers. If the advertisers demand better news coverage, the media will respond. Yes, we have the internet, but would you depend on Facebook or Twitter alone for your local news?