Why can one still buy newspapers during lockdown?

Question

In the middle of the Covid-19 lockdown, at least in France and in Italy newsagents are in the list of first-necessity stores that remain open. "To go buy a newspaper" is a legitimate reason to leave one's house.

I wonder about the motivations of this decision: buying a newspaper is not essential by any definition of the term. Television, radio and internet are largely sufficient to cover the need for information of the general population.

Is there a reasonable political explanation for this? At first sight, it seems that the only one is the ties and the balance of power between politicians and news outlets / medias.

Answer 1

At least in Italy, this appears to be in part a response to pressure from newspapers and their readers. On March 11th, the director of la Repubblica newspaper Carlo Verdelli published (in Italian) an article asking for newsagents to be included in the list of essential services, saying that "The list is missing a service that is more fundamental now than ever before, that of information". He went on to state that "If [newsagents] were not included in the list, it would cause irreparable damage, not only for newspapers, but most importantly for the citizenry." (my translation)

This is an important point, as a study undertaken by the Pew Research Center in 2017 found that while TV and online media dominate, 31% of Italians and 23% of French adults get their news from print media at least daily. This group is likely to be composed of older citizens who will be most affected if they contract the virus, and although this puts them at more risk if they leave their houses to buy a newspaper, it is of higher importance to keep at-risk groups informed.

In addition, another Pew Research Center study found that newspapers were especially important for coverage of local news that would not otherwise be reported in alternative media - although the study was limited to the US, this is another potential factor that could have influenced the decision.

It seems that France and Italy have decided that informing the populace is especially important in this time of crisis, and that this outweighs the threat public health and the potential spread of disease that the inclusion of newsagents as an essential service poses.

Answer 2

Newspapers are the way a lot of people get their information, especially older people. During a crisis it's especially important that people can access news and government guidance. And if they're already going out for groceries, the extra risk in picking up a newspaper from a kiosk is fairly limited. People are also allowed to get cigarettes after all (French version of the quarantines, at least).

Personally? While I don't mind radio news, I can't stand TV news. Regardless of the quality or not of the news outlet, I learn a lot less from watching a necessarily superficial 60 second video clip than I do from reading for 60 seconds.

Answer 3

In many places all over the world, rulers tend to abuse quarantine in order to restrict one freedom or another and/or give their "friends" some business advantage. At least here, in Bulgaria, this is exactly the case.

OTOH, freedom of the press is considered a fundamental and essential tool for protecting other freedoms and rights. That's why administration in more or less democratic societies is reluctant to openly restrict printing and distribution even if common sense dictates otherwise.

Answer 4

On top of all the valid reasons that have already been mentioned, it's important to understand that this level of micromanagement is not the way the French government (at least) is approaching things so far. The government has defined things like information or food as basic needs and allows all businesses in this category to keep operating. For example, there has been no decision to open supermarkets while closing bakeries, cheese shops or fish mongers. And there are anecdotal reports of people making a trip to the pharmacy and buying some cosmetics products just to keep busy.

Furthermore, note that many commentators are criticizing these measures for being too lax, giving too much weight to economic consequences over health concerns and relying too much on calls to the public to limit movements rather than harsh coercive measures. In France, the list of businesses that are currently allowed to stay open include auto parts shops, computer and phone shops, temp agencies, banks and insurance agents, laundry services and of course everything that is not open to the public including construction, manufacturing and deliveries of all kind. There are calls to pause all that but at this point, economic activity is not restricted to absolute necessities.

Conversely, as late as Thursday or Friday, bookstore owners were complaining about lasting damage because online retailers could still operate and were asking for an exception to the restrictions (as is the case in Belgium). I would be surprised if this happens but the minister of the Economy and Finance would not immediately rule it out.

Incidentally, online or even TV news is in a large part based on newspapers stories that are copied and commented all over the place. It might eventually come to that but it's difficult to tell newspapers “you're going to continue to offer contents for free but we will just deprive you on one of your revenue streams and favor your competitors in other media”. Here again, it's legally and politically easier to make the decision at a more general level and at this point, information is deemed important enough. Along the same line, many tobacconists also sell newspapers. It's extremely difficult to imagine closing these shops.

Finally, while the national rules are couched in very general terms, local authorities are allowed to take additional measures. For example, municipalities have closed parks or specific landmarks and at least one mayor specifically banned going out to buy just one baguette or newspaper (you are supposed to make more substantial purchases and stay at home in between).