Buzz Trexler

If you’re an old-time journalist, you know that “-30-” marks the end of the story, sometimes called the “end mark.” On Friday, The Rocky Mountain News in Denver, Colo., reached its end mark.

There are a few journalists still working in this area who remember what it felt like when the last edition The Knoxville Journal hit the streets on Dec. 31, 1991, particularly if you were a current or former staff member. There was a death in the family and you mourned — and some of us continue to mourn. Because of that kindred spirit, news of “Rocky’s” demise quickly spread among East Tennessee journalists.

Rocky’s story is a familiar one in the newspaper industry in that it existed under one of 28 joint operating agreements (JOA) that were formed after the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 was signed into law by President Richard Nixon. The law allowed two newspapers under different ownerships to serve the same city to combine business operations while maintaining separate news operations. The Rocky Mountain News, owned by E.W. Scripps Co., shared such an agreement with the Denver Post, owned by Media News Group.

Three such agreements were operational among Tennessee newspapers. In addition to the JOA between the Knoxville News-Sentinel, which was and continues to be owned by E.W. Scripps, and the Knoxville Journal, then owned by Persis Corp., there were JOAs in Tennessee between:

• Nashville Tennessean, owned by Gannett, and the Nashville Banner, owned by Irby C. Simpkins Jr. and Brownlee O. Currey. The Banner saw its -30- in 1998.
• Chattanooga News-Free Press was long owned by the Roy McDonald family. In 1998, then under the nameplate of Chattanooga Free Press, the newspaper was purchased by Walter Hussman Jr., who later purchased the Chattanooga Times. The two were merged, eventually becoming the Chattanooga Times Free Press in 2001. In journalists’ terms, you could say that the Chattanooga papers underwent a “writethru,” meaning the story was given new or changed content.

Today, with the closure of the Rocky Mountain News, there are eight cities being served by two newspapers under JOAs. Fortunately, all of the 28 communities who have been served by newspapers under JOAs continue to be served by at least one daily newspaper. Nonetheless, as Taylor Batten of the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer points out, “We’re not making widgets here.” When a newspaper writes -30-, a community loses more than just another business and employer of warm bodies. When the journalists stop writing, the community loses its voice.

When a newspaper closes its doors, there is no longer a public place for the celebration of births and marriages, nor for the chronicling of a life well lived within the community when each of us comes to our own -30-. In addition, professional journalists employed by newspapers move within the community when the average citizen is working, playing, or sleeping, ensuring that information is gathered, digested, analyzed and disseminated — often that information is critical to decisions we make in daily life. When checks are no longer written to journalists, reliable news coverage ceases.

To be sure, broadcast media can be counted on for a certain amount of coverage; however, the average citizen would be surprised at how much of that coverage originates with a review of the local daily newspaper’s coverage.

As for the Internet, non-media cyberspace is filled with blogs and news aggregators; however, that space is greatly supplied with links produced by local newspapers, or filled with more opinion than news. There is also the inherent danger of amateur journalists masquerading as professionals. Neal B. Freeman was quoted somewhat prophetically in 1995 as saying, “Cybermedia will make every man his own editor, which in turn makes every writer a fool. The Internet will transmit misinformation very efficiently. We will miss the gatekeepers.”

Indeed, we make more than widgets here.

THE TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION, Article 1, Section 19:
”That the printing press shall be free to every person to examine the proceedings of the legislature; or of any branch or officer of the government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions, is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.”

Just got off of the phone with state Rep. Joe McCord, R-Maryville. He said his goal in filing the bills related to publishing gun permits was to “get the bills out front to focus on.” He noted he had not yet read today’s column.

The column was a personal attempt to show that you need not be anti-Second Amendment to believe this sort of legislation (specifically SB1126 and HB959) is poor sausage-making. Here are points to consider:

• Passage of this legislation with the criminal penalties would be a constitutional prior restraint on the press for publishing information in the public interest and which history has shown protects the public safety.
• The Tennessee Attorney General opined last year in OP 08-77 that the fine provision in similar legislation could run afoul of the Pentagon Papers prior restraint case – New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1991) per curiam.
• Last year, the press disclosed the fact that permits were being issued to convicted felons because the Safety Department lost its connection to the federal crime database and did not do full criminal background checks for a year or more.  The glitch was fixed after that news was reported.
• Later last year, the press reported that some jurisdictions were not reporting the issuance of orders of protection for alleged domestic violence which meant applicants could get permits by simply marking “No” on the carry permit application. Those reports would become illegal and subject to a fine under this legislation.  That means the press could not do its job.
• The Safety Department reported last month that 627 permits were revoked or suspended in 2008 because permit holders had felony convictions or were placed under court-imposed orders of protection.  It is not known how many of those got permits after their convictions or while under court order.
• The press could not report that someone with a history of mental disorders had received a gun carry permit if that information fell into their hands without the risk of going to jail.
• These problems are being created without any data to support arguments that having the information in the public domain represents any threat to permit holders.  Public safety has been better served having the information open as it was envisioned when the carry permit program was created.
• 218 Tennesseans have carry permits, according to the latest data from Safety.  The application form clearly states the information becomes public “upon submission,” so the threat of disclosure has not been a deterrent.
• All Tennesseans, including those with valid permits and those in law enforcement, are better served without the fear that permits are being given to the wrong people.
• The posting of the searchable database by the Memphis newspaper went unnoticed for two months until it was discovered that a motorist accused of shooting another man in a parking dispute had a permit.

State Rep. Joe McCord, R-Maryville, has a bill in the General Assembly that amounts to prior restraint and censorship. In short, it appears to be unconstitutional.

The McCord-sponsored House Bill 0959 not only closes handgun carry permit applications and renewals, but makes publishing permit information or records a Class A fine only misdemeanor.

The bill is expected to move out of the House Criminal Practice and Procedure subcommittee on Wednesday.

It would be great if lawmakers were as fond of the 1st Amendment as they are of the 2nd Amendment.

I have a call in to Rep. McCord to talk about this bill. It’s bad enough that many in the General Assembly want to close public records, but now there are those who want to make it a crime to publish relevant information; in fact, McCord’s bill is somewhat mirrored by a number of others in the House and Senate — two of which would make publishing the information a Class E felony!

Check out the other bills for yourself: HB1292, HB1514, SB1126, SB0659, SB1568, SB1625, HB0221, and SB0172.