Last week newspaper publisher McClatchy Co., which owns five South Carolina newspapers, announced it is cutting 10 percent of its workforce. Columbia’s The State said cuts would affect about a dozen newsroom positions. The Sun News of Myrtle Beach said it would shed nine jobs, or about 3.6 percent of its staff. The Herald of Rock Hill said it would not eliminate any positions. The Beaufort Gazette and The Island Packet of Hilton Head have not said whether they will cut jobs.

What does this mean for readers? Chris Kromm, editor of Facing South, published by the Institute for Southern Studies, offers this analysis.

******

Reports that newspaper publisher McClatchy Co. is slashing 1,400 jobs this month — 10 percent of its national workforce — sent shockwaves through the media industry and served as a grim reminder of the precarious state of newspapers.

But McClatchy’s massive bloodletting raised a bigger question: When newspapers don’t have reporters, who’s keeping the public informed and shedding light on the state of democracy?

The cuts will be especially hard in the South, where McClatchy owns 15 newspapers. And although McClatchy insists cuts in news reporting will be less than seen at Gannett and other chains, newsrooms will definitely feel the knife.

A survey of the carnage: The Charlotte Observer will cut 123 jobs, or 11 percent of its workforce. The Miami Herald plans 250 job cuts, 17 percent of workers there. The Herald-Leader in Lexington, Ky. is dropping 17 positions. In Raleigh, N.C., the News & Observer is cutting a total of 70 jobs, 16 of them in the newsroom.

But not all will suffer equally. As the Lexington Newspaper Guild pointedly observed, McClatchy gave CEO Gary Pruitt an $800,000 bonus last year and just hired a new corporate vice president, even as the company’s stock was spiraling downward:

The Guild does not believe it is humane when employees who have put in a lifetime of service to McClatchy and KnightRidder are thrown to the curb, while McClatchy’s excessive corporate bureaucracy remains untouched.

McClatchy’s corporate mindset — so common in today’s Big Media — offers clues to the real problems facing newspapers. It’s not necessarily readership: As McClatchy admits, online readership grew 41 percent in the first quarter of 2008. The problem is an economic mismatch between declining ad revenues and shareholder demands for high profit margins on one hand, and the money needed for in-depth reporting on the other.

Continue reading →

Turnout decreases and extra expense in SC’s runoff elections make case for instant runoff voting

South Carolina voters – or at least handfuls of them – went to the polls on June 24 for runoff elections in 11 state legislative elections two weeks after the June 10 initial round. In the district number 4 democratic runoff for State House of Representatives, Paul Corden won a majority with fewer than 7,800 votes after falling short of a majority in early June with 14,968 votes. Overall, turnout declined by more than 48% in his runoff, and declined by at least 20% in nine other runoffs for state office held by Republicans and Democrats. South Carolina taxpayers likely spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on these runoffs; North Carolina’s statewide runoff the same day (one drawing turnout of less than 2% of registered voters) cost $5 million.

FairVote‘s executive director Rob Richie said, “Ensuring winners of party nominations are not opposed by a majority of primary voters is a laudable goal. But the delayed, two-round runoff used in South Carolina isn’t working. It’s time to follow the suggestion of Senators John McCain and Barack Obama and adopt instant runoff voting in South Carolina.”

With instant runoff voting, voters have the option to rank candidates in order of preference rather than select only one choice. If no candidate receives a first choice majority, the two candidates with the most votes advance to the runoff. Ballots cast for eliminated candidates are added to the totals of the runoff candidates according to which candidate is ranked next on each ballot.

Instant runoff ballots have already been used by overseas and military voters during traditional runoffs in South Carolina since 2006. FairVote’s analysis of the 2006 elections shows high comprehension of the new system. In the eight counties where both Democratic and Republican voters had runoff elections, the valid ballot rate in the runoff was fully 100% — with all of these voters returning an instant runoff ballot casting valid ballots.

More than a dozen American cities have passed instant runoff voting or stated to use it. Sen. Barack Obama was the prime sponsor of Illinois legislation in 2002 to establish it for primaries, while Sen. John McCain that year recorded a phone announcement to support instant runoff voting in Alaska. Its advantages over delayed runoffs include: 1) less money spent on running elections; 2) fewer demands for candidates on raising money; 3) higher turnout in one election.

VOTER TURNOUT IN SOUTH CAROLINA RUNOFFS, JUNE 24, 2008 *

Runoff  Winner  Percent Decline in Turnout
State Senate District 10 – REP Dee Compton 23%
State Senate District 12 – REP Lee Bright 20%
State Senate District 13 – REP Shane Martin 16%
State Senate District 23 – REP Jake Knotts -9%
State House District 79 – REP David Herndon 34%
State Senate District 81 – REP Tom Young -3%
State House District 04 – DEM Paul Corden 48%
State Senate District 17 – DEM Creighton B Coleman 25%
State House District 101 – DEM Kenneth Ken Kennedy 41%
State House District 111 – DEM Wendell G Gilliard 33%
State House District 122 – DEM Curtis Brantley 20%

*Data for runoffs is preliminary, but reflects 100% of precincts reporting.