The most worrying aspect of The Washington Post’s decision this week to scrap bureaus or sharply reduce the number of its reporters in the Mideast, India, Ukraine, China, and Turkey is the potential impact of the cutbacks on our democracy.
Reliable information about the world, and the United States’ role in it, is essential to the functioning of a nation like ours. How else will American citizens be able to make informed decisions about our communities, states, nation, and, yes, world?
The Post will reportedly continue to focus on national security issues with journalists based in Washington and in some bureaus. And, fortunately, the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, CNN, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal still provide firsthand, broad-ranging global coverage with reporters based overseas. Beyond these American news organizations, many credible international news outlets have respected foreign correspondents, such as The Economist, Reuters, Agence France-Press, the BBC, and the Financial Times.
Still, the people who make policy and/or cast votes in Washington, D.C., are losing a leading source of information, as well as vital context, about international affairs because the paper of record in the nation’s capital will no longer provide its own coverage of key parts of the world, such as the Mideast.
The Post’s closures and reductions, however, pose a particular local problem. The paper’s readers – which include foreign diplomats and workers at nongovernmental organizations headquartered in Washington, administration officials, and elected leaders – looked to the paper for in-depth foreign reporting. Presidents and prime ministers from other nations have understood the paper’s international standing, paying visits to The Post while visiting Washington.
The Post’s cutbacks also add rocket fuel to today’s self-selection of information sources. We already see enough of that in our politics. Readers, viewers, and listeners all too frequently turn to news sources that reflect their political views. This phenomenon creates and solidifies echo chambers.
The same hardening of views could happen without a broad range of global media outlets.. Foreign policy news deserts leave citizens with only a few sources of information.
At the same time, news consumers won’t receive the kind of nuanced reporting that reporters based in a foreign bureau provide. Many of these journalists are on the ground in countries, sometimes in conflict zones, developing contacts, following events and currents, knowing the players, and understanding the culture. That takes time, but it yields insightful reporting about the fabric of a society … information that benefits the reader. The days of fancy, expense-account meals with sources have long been gone for many correspondents.
Basing reporters in a country is also vastly different from journalists parachuting into a nation during a crisis. The latter are likely to be looking for blood, figuratively or literally. They also often lack the in-country experience, knowledge, and sources that a foreign correspondent based in a country have developed. The parachuting reporter might give us headlines, but not necessarily the rich, textured coverage that comes from stories developed through multiple trusted sources.
We the people are the real losers in a shrinking of international reporting. Our information streams dry up as news organizations like The Post reduce their presence abroad. The more that happens, the more difficult it becomes for American citizens – and voters – to make informed decisions about the world, and America’s place in it.
