I've been a journalist for more than 23 years,
我从事记者这个行业已经超过23年了，
at the "Arkansas Democrat-Gazette," the "Pittsburgh Tribune Review" and most recently, "The Denver Post."
我曾工作过的报社有《阿肯色民主公报》、《匹兹堡论坛报》，之后我最近在《丹佛邮报》工作。
When I started at "The Denver Post" in 2003,
2003年我最开始在《丹佛邮报》工作时，
it was among the country's 10 largest newspapers, with an impressive subscriber base and nearly 300 journalists.
那时它是全国规模最大的十家报社之一，有着极其可观的订阅人数和近300名记者。
At the time, I was in my 30s.
当年我30多岁。
Any ambitious journalist that age aspires to work for one of the big national papers,
和任何一位差不多年纪且踌躇满志的记者一样，有志于能在国家规模的大报社工作，
like "The New York Times" or "The Wall Street Journal."
像是《纽约时报》或是《华尔街日报》。
But I was simply blown away by my first few weeks at "The Denver Post,"
但我在《丹佛邮报》最开始工作的几周就被他们深深震撼到了，
and I thought, "This is going to be my paper. I can make a career right here."
我当时就想：这个报社太适合我了，我定能在这儿成就一番事业。
Well, seven years passed, we were sold to a hedge fund, Alden Global Capital.
七年过去了，我们被卖给了一家对冲基金，奥尔登全球资本。
Within a few years... Some of you know this story.
就这几年...在座有些人都知道这个故事。
Within a few years, buyouts ordered by past and present owners would reduce the newsroom by nearly half.
几年间，由于现今和曾经的股权拥有者收购，导致新闻编辑部的规模近乎减半。
And I understood. The rule of thumb used to be that 80 percent of a newspaper's revenue came from pricy print ads and classifieds.
我也能理解。凭经验估计，一家报社80%的收入都是来源于昂贵的印刷广告和分类广告。
With emerging giants like Google and Facebook and Craigslist, those advertizing dollars were evaporating.
随着像是谷歌、脸书和克雷格列表之类的科技巨头的出现，那些广告收入就像是蒸发了一样。
The entire industry was undergoing a massive shift from print to digital.
整个行业都面临着从纸质印刷到电子报刊的巨大转变。
Alden's orders were to be digital first. Take advantage of blogs, video and social media.
奥尔登资本的指令是把电子化放第一位。他们充分利用博客、视频和社交媒体。
They said that one day, the money we made online would make up for the money we lost in print. But that day never came.
他们说有一天，我们在线上赚到的利润会弥补我们在纸刊上的损失。但那一天从未到来。
In 2013, we won a Pulitzer Prize for covering the Aurora theater shooting.
在2013年，我们因报道了奥罗拉剧院枪击案而获得了普利策奖。
Alden ordered that more journalists be cut. Again, and again, and again, and again.
但那年，奥尔登资本却依旧辞退了更多的记者。一次，接一次，又一次，再一次。
We were forced to say goodbye to talented, hardworking journalists we considered not just friends but family.
我们被迫和许多勤奋又有才华的记者说再见，我们不仅把他们当朋友，还把他们当作家人。
Those of us left behind were stretched impossibly thin, covering multiple beats and writing rushed articles.
而我们这些剩下的人由于人数缩减，得去报道多个事件，不断赶稿子，也为此感到身心俱疲。
Inside a windowless meeting room in March of 2018, we learned that 30 more would have to go.
2018年3月，在一间没有窗的会议室中，我们得知还会有30名记者被裁。
This paper that once had 300 journalists would now have 70.
这个报社曾今有300名记者，如今却只剩下70名。
And it didn't make sense. Here, we'd won multiple Pulitzer Prizes.
这一点也说不通。后来，我们又多次获得了普利策奖。
We shifted our focus from print to digital,
我们将重心从纸质刊物转移至了电子期刊，
we hit ambitious targets and email from the brass talked up the Post's profit margins,
我们完成了有野心的目标，来自报社上层的邮件称赞了邮报的利润率，
which industry experts pegged at nearly 20 percent.
业界专家估计该数字在20%左右。
So if our company was so successful and so profitable, why was our newsroom getting so much smaller and smaller?
那么，既然我们公司这么成功，利润又如此可观，为什么我们编辑部的人依旧越来越少呢？
I knew that what was happening in Colorado was happening around the country.
我清楚，在科罗拉多州发生的事情也正在全国发生着。
Since 2004, nearly 1,800 newsrooms have closed.
自2004年起，近1800家新闻编辑部被关闭。
You've heard of food deserts. These are news deserts.
大家都听说过食物荒漠吧。这些就是新闻荒漠。
They are communities, often entire counties, with little to zero news coverage whatsoever.
有些社区，通常甚至是整个郡，只有很少，或是没有任何的新闻报道。
Making matters worse, many papers have become ghost ships,
更糟的是，很多报纸就像是幽灵船一样，
pretending to sail with a newsroom but really just wrapping ads around filler copy.
假装自己有个新闻编辑部，而实际上只不过在用广告包裹着无意义的拷贝文章。
More and more newsrooms are being sold off to companies like Alden.
后来，越来越多的新闻编辑部被卖给了像奥尔登资本一样的公司。
And in that meeting, their intentions couldn't have been clearer.
那一次会议中，他们的意图不能更加明显了。
Harvest what you can, throw away what's left.
尽可能收获你能从中获利的，扔掉剩下的。
So, working in secret with a team of eight writers,
所以，我和其他8个专栏作者偷偷地
we prepared a special Sunday Perspective section on the importance of local news.
准备了一个特殊的“周日观点”板块，内容是地方新闻的重要性。
The Denver rebellion launched like a missile, and went off like a hydrogen bomb.
丹佛的这场抗议活动开始时像是一颗导弹，却引起了氢弹一样的效果。
Clearly, we weren't alone in our outrage. But as expected, I was forced to resign.
很显然，并不只有我们对现状愤怒不满。不过，不出意外，我被迫辞职了。
And a year later, nothing's changed.
一年过后，一切如旧。
"The Denver Post" is but a few lone journalists doing their admirable best in this husk of a once-great paper.
《丹佛邮报》的记者仍然寥寥无几，在这个曾辉煌过的报社空壳下尽己所能地工作。
Now, at least some of you are thinking to yourself, "So what?" Right?
现在，你们中有些人肯定在想“那又怎样？”对不对？
So what? Let this dying industry die. And I kind of get that.
那又怎样？让这个垂死的行业消失吧。我也理解你们为什么会这么想。
For one thing, the local news has been in decline for so long
一方面，地方新闻业在走下坡路也不是一天两天了，
that many of you may not even remember what it's like to have a great local paper.
你们很多人甚至都不记得有一个高质量的地方报刊是什么样的了。
Maybe you've seen "Spotlight" or "The Paper," movies that romanticize what journalism used to be.
你可能听说过《聚焦》或是《媒体先锋》，这两部浪漫化旧时新闻业的电影。

Well, I'm not here to be romantic or nostalgic.
但我不是来这儿耽于浪漫或是怀旧的。
I'm here to warn you that when local news dies, so does our democracy.
我来这儿是为了警告大家：当地方新闻消失之时，我们的民主也将不复存在。
And that should concern you... And that should concern you, regardless of whether you subscribe.
这是你们应该担心的情况...不管你是否订阅报纸，你们都应对此感到担忧。
Here's why. A democracy is a government of the people.
原因如下。民主是人民的政府。
People are the ultimate source of power and authority.
人民是权力的最基本的来源。
A great local newsroom acts like a mirror. Its journalists see the community and reflect it back.
一个好的地方新闻编剧部充当着镜子的角色。记者观察并反映社区中的情况。
That information is empowering. Seeing, knowing, understanding -- this is how good decisions are made.
这样的信息能赋予人力量。看见、了解、理解--这样才能制定出好的决策。
When you have a great local paper, you have journalists sitting in on every city council meeting.
如果你有一个很棒的本地报社，你就会有记者坐在那里，参与每一个市议会。
Listening in to state house and senate hearings.
参与州议会和参议院听证会。
Those important but, let's face it, sometimes devastatingly boring committee hearings.
那些重要的，但说实话有时也是无聊到令人绝望的委员会听证会。
Journalists discover the flaws and ill-conceived measures and those bills fail, because the public was well-informed.
记者们能发现不完善且考虑不周的举措，之后当民众掌握了足够多的信息，那些议案就不会被通过。
Readers go to the polls and they know the pros and cons behind every ballot measure,
报刊读者到投票站去选举时就已经了解每张选票背后的利弊了，
because journalists did the heavy lifting for them.
因为记者们已经替他们整理好了这些繁琐的信息。
Even better, researchers have found that reading a local paper can mobilize 13 percent of nonvoters to vote. Thirteen percent.
更好的是，研究者们发现阅读本地报纸能鼓动13%不参加选举投票的人去投票。13%。
That's the number that can change the outcome of many elections.
这可是一个能改变很多选举结果的数字。
When you don't have a great local paper, voters are left stranded at the polls, confused,
如果你没有一个好的地方报社，投票人就会在投票站前面不知所措，满脸困惑，
trying to make their best guess based on a paragraph of legalese. Flawed measures pass.
只能根据大段的法律术语去做出他们最佳的猜测。有缺陷的法案就是这样被通过的。
Well-conceived but highly technical measures fail. Voters become more partisan.
而考虑周全但措辞过于专业的法案却没能被通过。投票人们更容易盲目且坚定地支持某些政客或观点。
Recently in Colorado, our governor's race had more candidates than anyone can remember.
最近在科罗拉多州，我们州长一职的竞选，参与竞选者的数量是史无前例的。
In years past, journalists would have thoroughly vetted, scrutinized, fact-checked, profiled, debated every contender in the local paper.
在往些年，记者们会通过地方报纸对每位竞选人进行仔细审查、核查事实信息、概述竞选人情况，并进行辩论。
"The Denver Post" did its best.
《丹佛邮报》就在竭尽所能做到最好。
But in the place of past levels of rigorous reporting and research,
但没有了以往的那种细致报道与调查，
the public is increasingly left to interpret dog-and-pony-show stump speeches and clever campaign ads for themselves.
公众逐渐被迫去尝试自己解读那些外表炫丽、内容空洞的政治演讲和智能的竞选广告。
With advertizing costing what it does, electability comes down to money.
而政治宣传的高昂费用导致了竞选最终只取决于竞选人的财力大小。
So by the end of the primaries, the only candidates left standing were the wealthiest and best-funded.
于是到了初选结束时，台上剩下的都是那些最富有且拥有最大资金支持的竞选者。
Many experienced and praise-worthy candidates never got oxygen,
很多富有经验、值得称赞的竞选者却失去了继续角逐的机会，
because when local news declines, even big-ticket races become pay-to-play.
因为当地方新闻业走向衰退时，就算是这样的竞选活动也变成了谁有钱，谁入场。
Is it any surprise that our new governor was the candidate worth more than 300 million dollars?
这些事实会让你们感到意外吗，比如，我们的新州长身价超过3亿美元？
Or that billionaire businessmen like Donald Trump and Howard Schultz can seize the political stage?
或是亿万富翁唐纳德·特朗普和霍华德·舒尔茨能占据政治舞台？
I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they talked about free and fair elections.
我并不认为我们的国父会认为这些是自由公平的选举。
Now this is exactly why we can't just rely on the big national papers, like "The Journal" and "The Times" and "The Post."
这就是我们不能仅仅依靠大型国家级报刊的原因，像是《华尔街日报》、《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》。
Those are tremendous papers, and we need them now, my God, more than ever before.
那些都是规模极大的报纸，我的天啊，我们现在比以往更需要它们。
But there is no world in which they could cover every election in every county in the country. No.
但它们绝没有可能涵盖国家内每个郡县的选举新闻。不可能。
The newsroom best equipped to cover your local election ought to be your local newsroom.
最具备条件来报道当地选举情况的应该是地方性的新闻编辑部。
If you're lucky and still have one.
如果你足够幸运还有这么一个报社的话。
When election day is over, a great local paper is still there, waiting like a watchdog.
当选举结束后，一个好的地方报刊还依然在那儿充当着监察者的角色。
When they're being watched, politicians have less power, police do right by the public,
当有人在监察时，政客的权利就被削弱了，警察会公正的对待大众，
even massive corporations are on their best behavior.
哪怕是大型企业也能遵纪守法，做到最好。
This mechanism that for generations has helped inform and guide us no longer functions the way it used to.
这种曾给我们提供信息并指引了我们数代人的机制，现如今不再像以前那样发挥作用了。
You know intimately what the poisoned national discourse feels like, what a mockery of reasoned debate it has become.
你们比谁都清楚有害政治演讲的坏处，真是对理性辩论的讽刺啊。
This is what happens when local newsrooms shutter and communities across the country go unwatched and unseen.
这就是当地方新闻走向衰微，举国社区未受到监察时会发生的情况。
Until we recognize that the decline of local news has serious consequences for our society, this situation will not improve.
这种情况不会好转，除非我们能意识到地方新闻业的衰微及其对我们的社会具有非常严重的影响。
A properly staffed local newsroom isn't profitable, and in this age of Google and Facebook, it's not going to be.
一个人员齐备的地方新闻编辑部是无法盈利的，尤其在这个谷歌与脸书的时代，永远不可能。
If newspapers are vital to our democracy, then we should fund them like they're vital to our democracy.
但若是新闻业对我们的民主如此重要，那么我们就应该提供与之重要性相称的资金。
We cannot stand by and let our watchdogs be put down. We can't let more communities vanish into darkness.
我们不能冷眼旁观，看着我们的监察者被打倒。我们不能让更多的社区消失在黑暗中。
It is time to debate a public funding option before the fourth estate disappears, and with it, our grand democratic experiment.
是时候在我们的第四权消失之前，在我们伟大的民主实验消失之前，讨论出一个公共筹资的方案了。
We need much more than a rebellion. It is time for a revolution. Thank you.
我们所需的不止是一次抗议。我们需要一场革命。谢谢大家。