THE CASE AGAINST CONSOLIDATION

Many of the arguments used in support of newspaper consolidation are turned back upon it by opponents of chains and given a slightly different slant in the process. As stated "Instead of maintaining that the wealth of the combine leads to independence in its editorial expression, the opponents assert that chain papers are the slaves of the powerful coporations behind them." This lucidly shows how these corporations were manipulating and affecting the public opinion which is regularly displayed in these newspapers.
"Not only, it is claimed, does a reporter for the chain newspaper feel himself submerged in a vast and impersonal organization, but he must recognize at once that the chances of promotion are more remote than on the provincial journal. Chain opponents point out that when an editor on one paper is replaced, it is more than likely that a successor will be transferred from another paper of the same chain than that a reporter will recieve a promotion. It is a long way to the top of the chain, they say, and the few executive positions are generally beyond reach of the average reporter." The consolidaion of these newspapers have made it extremely difficult for any type of mobility within these newspaper companies. The average reporter has now found it almost impossible to move up in the ranks no matter what type of seniority they hold. This consolidation has not only affected the newspaper and the material it now distributes to the public, but it now affects the personal career of these reporters and workers of the newspaper companies. Many traditions have been now tarnished and there can no longer be the personal attitude and personal pride that came from working for an independent and isolated unit.