[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”on” specialty=”off” _builder_version=”3.0.86″ next_background_color=”#000000″ global_module=”145″][et_pb_fullwidth_header global_parent=”145″ _builder_version=”3.0.89″ text_orientation=”center” header_fullscreen=”on” header_scroll_down=”on” image_orientation=”center” background_layout=”light” content_orientation=”center” custom_button_two=”off” button_two_icon_placement=”right” custom_button_one=”off” button_one_icon_placement=”right” title_font=”|700|||||||” subhead_text_align=”center” subhead_font=”|700|||||||” background_image=”https:\/\/hawaii.concon.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/HawaiiStateCapitol.jpg” background_color=”rgba(255, 255, 255, 0)” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover=”null” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover=”null” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_color__hover=”null” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover=”null” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover=”null” button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_color__hover=”null” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover=”null” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover=”null” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_bg_color__hover=”null” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover=”null”]<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_fullwidth_header][et_pb_fullwidth_post_title global_parent=”145″ _builder_version=”3.17.5″ categories=”off” comments=”off” featured_image=”off” disabled_on=”on|on|on” disabled=”on” \/][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ prev_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_5″][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_5″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.17.5″]<\/p>\n
Thank god that Hawaii has at least some newspaper competition. Case in point is the current debate over whether Hawaii on Nov. 6 should call a constitutional convention. You\u2019d think that Hawaii\u2019s two leading newspapers, the\u00a0Honolulu Civil Beat\u00a0<\/i>and the\u00a0Honolulu Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u00a0live in different universes.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Civil Beat v. Star-Advertiser<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n Civil Beat<\/i>\u00a0ran eight\u00a0<\/span><\/span>editorials<\/span><\/a>\u00a0over a ten-month period favoring a yes vote, while the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u00a0ran one\u2014just one day before\u00a0<\/span>early voting<\/span><\/a>\u00a0on the referendum was to begin.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Civil Beat<\/i>\u00a0ran 15\u00a0<\/span><\/span>news articles<\/span><\/a>, including ad watches, over the same ten-month period, while the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u00a0ran two news articles during the last two months and no ad watches.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Civil Beat<\/i>\u00a0conducted three scientific\u00a0<\/span><\/span>polls<\/span><\/a>\u00a0over the same ten-month period covering both the convention and potentially popular convention agenda items such as term limits and the initiative. The\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u00a0conducted none.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Civil Beat<\/i>, a nonprofit, doesn\u2019t publish\u00a0<\/span><\/span>ads<\/span><\/a>\u00a0whereas the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>, which earns most of its revenue from ads, ran six convention related ads\u2014all in opposition\u2014beginning on October 14, 2018.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Despite\u00a0Civil Beat<\/i>\u2019s strong support for a convention, it ran numerous op-eds both for and against calling a convention. In contrast, the last supportive op-ed the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>published was mine on June 14, 2018\u2014more than four months ago. It has since refused to publish any more supportive op-eds. Between September 30 and October 26, it ran five opposition op-eds along with its own opposition editorial. The first two were published on Sundays, which have the greatest readership.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In the Sunday edition on October 14, 2018\u2014eight days before early voting began\u2014it ran a reader\u00a0<\/span>poll<\/span><\/a>\u00a0on the convention question the same day as three large no opposition\u00a0<\/span>ads<\/span><\/a>\u00a0and an\u00a0<\/span>op-ed<\/span><\/a>\u00a0that echoed the messages of those ads. It was an extraordinary opposition blitz, encompassing the trifecta of the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u2019s news, ad, and editorial pages.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u00a0has provided no fact-checking news analysis of the numerous and expensive ads opposing a convention run in its own pages starting on October 14. Only opposition ads would have to be fact checked given that, as of October 26, there had been no ads supporting a convention in any mass media in Hawaii.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Given its much greater size in comparison to\u00a0Civil Beat<\/i>, the paucity of the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u2019s news coverage of the convention referendum is striking. In contrast, the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u2019s much greater\u00a0<\/span>news coverage<\/span><\/a>\u00a0of the other constitutional question on the ballot, an amendment to increase property taxes, approximately matched that of\u00a0Civil Beat<\/i>\u2019s.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0<\/span>Star-Advertiser<\/span><\/i><\/a>\u00a0is the\u00a0<\/span>14th largest daily newspaper<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in the United States ranked by daily circulation. That extraordinary feat of size for the eleventh smallest state in the U.S. ranked by population is due to arguably the highest concentration of media ownership of any state in the U.S. The\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u2019s parent company,\u00a0<\/span>Oahu Publications<\/span><\/a>, has revenue about 20 times that of\u00a0<\/span>Civil Beat<\/span><\/i><\/a>. Oahu Publications is a subsidiary of\u00a0<\/span>Black Press<\/span><\/a>, a privately held company with some\u00a0<\/span>150 newspapers<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Constitutional Implications<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n Perhaps no other newspaper company in the United States benefits more from the Federal Government\u2019s newspaper anti-trust exemption than Oahu Publications. The exemption was originally granted to preserve First Amendment values (we want to be very careful granting the government the power to regulate newspapers). But in cases of extreme market power, such as Oahu Publications, the exemption may come at a great cost to public deliberation and democracy more generally.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Oahu Publications also benefits from Hawaii State government subsidies and policies that bolster its monopoly power. The most notable subsidy it benefits from are government mandated\u00a0<\/span>legal notices<\/span><\/a>, which may constitute more than 10% of its profits. The\u00a0<\/span>laws<\/span><\/a>\u00a0mandating such subsidies do not mandate public transparency and thus accountability. But newspaper companies know the value of these subsidies and fight for them below the public radar like a lion guarding her cubs. Not only does Oahu Publications benefit from such government mandated subsidies, but the laws are written to specifically advantage it over potential competitors in winning such subsidies.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n With the development of modern information technology, this type of public notice has become highly inefficient, ineffective, and anti-democratic. It survives because of Oahu Publications\u2019 lobbying prowess over state legislators, who know the famous political maxim that it is never politically wise to \u201cpick a fight with anyone who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n More generally, the structure of Hawaii\u2019s obsolete right-to-know laws benefits local mass media publications such as Oahu Publications at the expense of civil society and democratic participation more generally. For example, any law that relies on the court of public opinion for its practical enforcement (as opposed to, say, proactive online disclosure) is inherently biased to favor established mass media and wealthy special interests at the expense of civil society. There are also many other ways, including informal ways, that government information systems have come to favor the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u00a0at the expense of potential competition, including civil society.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n These are among the issues that a Hawaii State constitutional convention could address but that the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u00a0would view as a direct threat to its bottom line. Expecting the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u00a0or the State Legislature to initiate a genuine discussion of such issues has proven politically unrealistic.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Conclusion<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n From my perspective, much of newspapers\u2019 talk about their public service mission and journalistic ethics amounts to BS. I don\u2019t doubt that many journalists sincerely believe such talk and that such public avowals probably have a salutary influence on their work. But given the crooked timber of humanity, the journalistic safeguard that is most important for a community to have is competition. If you doubt that, just compare\u00a0Civil Beat<\/i>\u2019s and the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u2019s coverage of Hawaii\u2019s constitutional convention referendum.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n LINK:\u00a0<\/span>Articles by J H Snider PhD<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Source:<\/strong> Snider, J.H.,\u00a0The War Between Civil Beat and Star-Advertiser on the Con-Con Referendum<\/a>, Hawai`i Free Press<\/em>, October 27, 2018.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_5″][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Published in Hawai\u2019i Free Press<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":" Thank god that Hawaii has at least some newspaper competition. Case in point is the current debate over whether Hawaii on Nov. 6 should call a constitutional convention. You\u2019d think that Hawaii\u2019s two leading newspapers, the\u00a0Honolulu Civil Beat\u00a0<\/i>and the\u00a0Honolulu Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u00a0live in different universes.<\/span><\/span><\/p> Civil Beat v. Star-Advertiser<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/p> Civil Beat<\/i>\u00a0ran eight\u00a0<\/span><\/span>editorials<\/span><\/a>\u00a0over a ten-month period favoring a yes vote, while the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u00a0ran one\u2014just one day before\u00a0<\/span>early voting<\/span><\/a>\u00a0on the referendum was to begin.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p> Civil Beat<\/i>\u00a0ran 15\u00a0<\/span><\/span>news articles<\/span><\/a>, including ad watches, over the same ten-month period, while the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u00a0ran two news articles during the last two months and no ad watches.<\/span><\/span><\/p> Civil Beat<\/i>\u00a0conducted three scientific\u00a0<\/span><\/span>polls<\/span><\/a>\u00a0over the same ten-month period covering both the convention and potentially popular convention agenda items such as term limits and the initiative. The\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u00a0conducted none.<\/span><\/span><\/p> Civil Beat<\/i>, a nonprofit, doesn\u2019t publish\u00a0<\/span><\/span>ads<\/span><\/a>\u00a0whereas the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>, which earns most of its revenue from ads, ran six convention related ads\u2014all in opposition\u2014beginning on October 14, 2018.<\/span><\/span><\/p> Despite\u00a0Civil Beat<\/i>\u2019s strong support for a convention, it ran numerous op-eds both for and against calling a convention. In contrast, the last supportive op-ed the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>published was mine on June 14, 2018\u2014more than four months ago. It has since refused to publish any more supportive op-eds. Between September 30 and October 26, it ran five opposition op-eds along with its own opposition editorial. The first two were published on Sundays, which have the greatest readership.<\/span><\/span><\/p> In the Sunday edition on October 14, 2018\u2014eight days before early voting began\u2014it ran a reader\u00a0<\/span>poll<\/span><\/a>\u00a0on the convention question the same day as three large no opposition\u00a0<\/span>ads<\/span><\/a>\u00a0and an\u00a0<\/span>op-ed<\/span><\/a>\u00a0that echoed the messages of those ads. It was an extraordinary opposition blitz, encompassing the trifecta of the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u2019s news, ad, and editorial pages.<\/span><\/span><\/p> The\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u00a0has provided no fact-checking news analysis of the numerous and expensive ads opposing a convention run in its own pages starting on October 14. Only opposition ads would have to be fact checked given that, as of October 26, there had been no ads supporting a convention in any mass media in Hawaii.<\/span><\/span><\/p> Given its much greater size in comparison to\u00a0Civil Beat<\/i>, the paucity of the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u2019s news coverage of the convention referendum is striking. In contrast, the\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u2019s much greater\u00a0<\/span>news coverage<\/span><\/a>\u00a0of the other constitutional question on the ballot, an amendment to increase property taxes, approximately matched that of\u00a0Civil Beat<\/i>\u2019s.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p> The\u00a0<\/span>Star-Advertiser<\/span><\/i><\/a>\u00a0is the\u00a0<\/span>14th largest daily newspaper<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in the United States ranked by daily circulation. That extraordinary feat of size for the eleventh smallest state in the U.S. ranked by population is due to arguably the highest concentration of media ownership of any state in the U.S. The\u00a0Star-Advertiser<\/i>\u2019s parent company,\u00a0<\/span>Oahu Publications<\/span><\/a>, has revenue about 20 times that of\u00a0<\/span>Civil Beat<\/span><\/i><\/a>. Oahu Publications is a subsidiary of\u00a0<\/span>Black Press<\/span><\/a>, a privately held company with some\u00a0<\/span>150 newspapers<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p> Constitutional Implications<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/p> Perhaps no other newspaper company in the United States benefits more from the Federal Government\u2019s newspaper anti-trust exemption than Oahu Publications. The exemption was originally granted to preserve First Amendment values (we want to be very careful granting the government the power to regulate newspapers). But in cases of extreme market power, such as Oahu Publications, the exemption may come at a great cost to public deliberation and democracy more generally.<\/span><\/span><\/p> Oahu Publications also benefits from Hawaii State government subsidies and policies that bolster its monopoly power. The most notable subsidy it benefits from are government mandated\u00a0<\/span>legal notices<\/span><\/a>, which may constitute more than 10% of its profits. The\u00a0<\/span>laws<\/span><\/a>\u00a0mandating such subsidies do not mandate public transparency and thus accountability. But newspaper companies know the value of these subsidies and fight for them below the public radar like a lion guarding her cubs. Not only does Oahu Publications benefit from such government mandated subsidies, but the laws are written to specifically advantage it over potential competitors in winning such subsidies.<\/span><\/span><\/p>
\n