Increasingly, Longworth told me, decision-makers get their news from elite sources and too many voters don’t get any news at all.

Chicago Reader | Hot Type | The Rust Belt Reader: Could a regional newspaper improve the midwest’s prospects?

I really want to agree with the thesis here - that newspapers are obliged to give people all the news they need, not just want, because that information is important to a functioning democracy. Specifically - global news is important to local and regional papers because of the global economy.

I would like to whole heartedly agree with it - except this morning I switched over from ‘Morning Joe’ on MSNBC and instead watched BBC America for my morning news. I then listened to a 2 or 3 minute foreign report on NPR on the drive to work. Then at work, I surfed through several international news sites based on some found links in del.icio.us and Google news (mostly Tibet & Olympics related as I recall.)

So - as important as international & national news is (or should be) to the average reader - there is no shortage of it available from multiple media.

Of course - you can argue that the average reader is not going to go seek it out on NPR or the BBC. Well, hate to say it but the average reader probably was not getting it in the local newspaper either, Just because we printed it doesn’t mean people were not skipping it for Dear Abby and the comics pages. No matter what they say in the market research surveys.

Global news takes on a different priority in the post-scarcity information economy. Local newspapers were obliged to cover everything back in the day - because they were the only source for ‘everything.’ That just is not the case any more.

So - we can legitimately argue about coverage priorities - but we need to do it with the realities of 2008 not 1958 in mind.

Tags: news, coverage, media, online, global