Pew Research Center: the dramatic decline in state capitol reporting


There was a time when our sad small town newspaper, the Arizona Daily Star, was once a great small town newspaper — back in the days before it was purchased by Lee Enterprises.

News-guyAt one time, so long ago I cannot remember now, the Star had a Washington, D.C. based reporter. It had a state capitol based reporter until just a few years ago. The last one was douchebag Danny Scarpinato who got paid to write GOP press releases disguised as political reporting for the Star. After a brief stint at The Yellow Sheet Report (what were they thinking?) he eventually wound up at the RNCC where he now specializes in losing congressional campaigns.

State capitol reporting in the Star is either from the AP or from Howard Fisher.

Howard Fischer, a former Star employee, started his own Capitol Media Services years ago. For most small market newspapers in Arizona, Howie is the only source of state capitol reporting — he has a near monopoly, which gives Howie an outsized influence over how political news is perceived by Arizonans. It is not good that one man possesses this much control over the news.

The Arizona Republic still maintains a Washington, D.C. based reporter, and of course, has state capitol reporters because it is conveniently located in the capitol city.

The Arizona Capitol Times, a subscription service by capitol lobbyists for capitol lobbyists, and their reporting frequently reflects this bias, nevertheless does good reporting on the state capitol.

So who is watching the reprobates and ne’er-do-wells of the Arizona legislature and other government officials in Arizona? Largely Howard Fischer and a handful of reporters from the Arizona Republic and Arizona Capitol Times, and the occasional Phoenix T.V. news reporter (Brahm Resnik is exeptional).

A Pew study this week demonstrates the dramatic decline in state capitol reporting. Reid Wilson at the Washington Post reports, The precipitous decline of state political coverage:

Since 2003, the number of full-time reporters covering state legislatures for daily newspapers has declined 35 percent, according to a new study published Thursday by the Pew Research Center. Less than one third of the 801 daily newspapers in the U.S. send a reporter — full-time or part-time — to state capitol buildings, Pew found, citing data from the Alliance of Audited Media.

Among all states, there is an average of one reporter covering state legislatures for every 373,777 people, Pew said. In California, the ratio of reporters to population is one per every 866,371 people.

There is a paradox in the reality of American politics: The more local an office, the more of an impact it has on any given person’s daily life. Yet the more local an election, the lower the voter interest. Presidential elections drive turnout. State legislators, who decide funding levels for local transportation projects or school districts and who have more influence on the average person’s life than the president of the United States, do not. Now, there is less coverage of those legislators than ever before.

* * *

That, in turn, has given politicians, lobbyists and public relations professionals the opportunity to step into the vacuum. Whether via newsletters, YouTube, Facebook or other social media outlets, politicians are increasingly generating their own news, and interest groups are spinning their own stories.

“That led to a growth, in my mind, of more lobbyists and more public relations people controlling the news through social media,” Love said. “It’s just been a sad decline in coverage in terms of being the watchdog of government.”

The decline coincides with falling advertising revenue for newspapers challenged by the growing power of the Internet. The rapidly changing industry has meant cutbacks, more reliance on part-time reporters, young journalists working their first jobs for low pay, and even students: 14 percent of all statehouse reporters are still in school, the Pew survey found.

Pew based many of its numbers on American Journalism Review studies dating back to 1998. The most recent AJR survey, from 2009, found 355 newspaper staff reporters covering state capitals, down from 524 in 2003. In the six intervening years, the number of reporters covering capitals in 44 states declined, while just two — Rhode Island and Oregon — grew.

* * *

Newspapers aren’t the only media outlets increasingly turning a blind eye to state capitals. Only 130 of the 918 local television stations in the country — just 14 percent — have a reporter, full time or part time, assigned to state politics. Just 124 reporters cover state houses for radio stations, only 68 of whom are full-time.

In place of their own full-time staffers, media outlets also rely more heavily on the Associated Press or other wire services. The AP has at least one full-time statehouse reporter in every state; overall, wire service reporters make up 9 percent of state capitol press corps. But even those numbers have shrunk: Brian Carovillano, AP’s managing editor for U.S. news, told Pew that his agency “got a little bit smaller after 2008.”

Non-traditional outlets have filled some of the void.  . . . Around the country, 33 of these non-traditional outlets advocate a specific ideological point of view. Almost half of those outlets are owned by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity – SourceWatch, a nonprofit based in Alexandria, Va. [“For the most part, the people in charge of these would-be watchdog operations are political hacks out to subvert journalism in their quest to grab and keep power using whatever means they have to do so. . . . At the forefront of an effort to blur the distinction between statehouse reporting and political advocacy is the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity,” Gibbons wrote in the Nieman Reports publication of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard.]  Another Pew study found Franklin Center Web sites were four times more likely to present stories with a conservative theme than a liberal theme. Others, like NC Policy Watch in North Carolina, present the news from a liberal perspective.

Western states tend to have fewer reporters than Northeastern, Southern or Midwestern states, the report found. [Pew says Arizona has 13 full-time state capitol reporters.]

Screenshot from 2014-07-12 14:57:12

Source: Pew Research Center Get the data

 California and Texas maintain the most robust press corps; there are 43 full-time reporters in Sacramento, and 53 in Austin.

The budgetary pressures felt by the papers trickle down to reporters. Many state capital reporters are entry-level, with low starting salaries and bad benefit packages.

“The industry changed. We went through this really difficult time, where particularly newspapers are having a hard time with ad revenue, particularly during the recession,” Love said. “It’s not the kind of profession people feel secure in and feel like going into.”

This is a sad irony: we supposedly live in the “information age,” yet because traditional news outlets no longer do news gathering, that information comes from fewer and fewer experienced reporters, and may come from propaganda shops like the Franklin Center, or lobbyists and PR firms.

Previous articleSummer vacation is over? It sucks to be a kid today
Next articleCartoon of The Week
AZ BlueMeanie
The Blue Meanie is an Arizona citizen who wishes, for professional reasons, to remain anonymous when blogging about politics. Armed with a deep knowledge of the law, politics and public policy, as well as pen filled with all the colors stolen from Pepperland, the Blue Meanie’s mission is to pursue and prosecute the hypocrites, liars, and fools of politics and the media – which, in practical terms, is nearly all of them. Don’t even try to unmask him or he’ll seal you in a music-proof bubble and rendition you to Pepperland for a good face-stomping. Read blog posts by the infamous and prolific AZ Blue Meanie here.


  1. “Of course, that insecurity would explain all the endless charts, graphs, legal citations, etc., that bore so many people.”

    Yes, data and evidence is boring, used to cover up insecurity of the weak liberal mind. Blind dogma and propaganda is much more important.

    • The reason I find his charts, etc., so boring is because he carefully picks out those that support his argument and ignores ( or never even seeks) those that don’t. You can almost always find contadictory data if you bother to look. Such citations tend to boor people and I seriously doubt you will ever find someone whose mind was changed by a legal citation or a chart.

      • PS – Regarding dogma and propoganda: Don’t forget that I am here reading the postings and looking for opposing views that are worthy of further thought and analysis. I have found several that are thought provoking. Of course, I have found many more that ill informed and are frightened to contemplate anything different from what they currently believe. Believe me, dogma and propoganda are alive and well on this Blog. BUT it is much better than most liberal sites.

          • Well, I care, for one. And I don’t recall ever claiming ownership of the blog; are you?

            But profanity? That is normally the last bastion of a weak mind. I thought better of you, Patricia…

  2. Two things. First, what decline in state capitol reporting in AZ started happening decades ago, most likely. Second, I highly recommend the book, 935 Lies: The Future of Truth and the Decline of America’s Moral Integrity.

    Investigative journalist Charles Lewis (founder of the Center for Public Integrity) does an excellent job of setting forth the events that started the decline of truthtelling (investigative) journalism and some very tangible economic issues that have impacted the situation.

  3. (The news)”…may come from propaganda shops like the Franklin Center, or lobbyists and PR firms.”

    I noticed in your summation above you only mentioned the conservative “propanganda” mills and completely missed the liberal propanganda mill named the NC Policy Watch in North Carolina which was mentioned only a few paragraphs earlier. I don’t know if it is a weak memory or the usual hypocrisy and blather of a leftist, but you do this on a regular basis.

    There is only ONE truth, and that is yours, correct? Why are you so frightened of a different opinion? Does it scare you to think that something – just some little thing – that you believe in might be wrong? Or is that beyond your comprehension? The world is a big place and it is just possible you are wrong about something. Of course, that insecurity would explain all the endless charts, graphs, legal citations, etc., that bore so many people.

Comments are closed.