By Jerry Ceppos

The bottom line isn’t the only casualty as newspapers contract  because of dramatically shrinking ad revenue and circulation. The traditional values of newspapers are at stake, too, as the financial pressures increase.

No, I don’t mean the U.S. tradition of ad-free front pages. The growing number of irritating front-page ads seems to bother journalists more than it does readers. And I don’t mean the practice of shipping circulation calls to low-rent locations thousands of miles away, which seems to bother more readers than journalists. Those aren’t real issues of values.

I mean issues such as the settlement of the dispute between San Francisco gadfly Clint Reilly on one side and the publishers of almost all of the Bay Area’s daily newspapers, MediaNews Group and the Hearst Corp., on the other. Reilly had argued that MediaNews’ purchase of the San Jose Mercury News and the Contra Costa Times last year and its flirtation with Hearst, owner of the Chronicle, damaged competition. Not an unreasonable argument, and the settlement seems to gently limit cooperation between the companies.

Fair enough, but MediaNews also agreed to appoint “a citizen….recommended by Reilly” and approved by the newspaper to the editorial boards of MediaNews’ 11 paid daily papers ringing the Bay Area—or perhaps more if the company’s free dailies are part of the deal. Reilly and MediaNews already disagree on whether Reilly himself can be named to one of the boards, which decide on the paper’s opinions and write its editorials. (The Chronicle did not make such an agreement with Reilly.)

Since when was the organization of the editorial page, the voice of the newspaper and usually the most potent opinion leader in every community, subject to negotiation as part of an anti-trust suit?

Full disclosure: I’m a former executive editor of the Mercury News and have numerous connections with just about everyone involved—except Reilly. I’ve never met him, probably because he didn’t used to hang with the journalism crowd. Of course, that could change now that he is an opinion-page mogul.

After the broad terms of the agreement became public, MediaNews quickly said that “nothing in the settlement terms deviates from normal policies already in existence.” The company went on to praise the idea of community members on editorial boards. But a lawyer for MediaNews told the Chronicle that he was unaware of any community members at the company’s Bay Area papers.

If community members are such a good idea—the idea has worked well at some papers–why not start it independent of a suit and without giving Reilly or anyone else special access?

In fact, independence is the key traditional value at stake here. Without independence, a newspaper isn’t worth much. I like the first, intensely simple line of the Wall Street Journal’s philosophy of its feisty editorial page:

“The Wall Street Journal has a long tradition of vigorous and independent editorial commentary.”

Of course, MediaNews said it welcomes “recommendations from any reader or community leader” for the brand-new public seats on its editorial boards. First time I had heard that, but an in always helps, and Reilly is the only person named in a legal document who can recommend community members.

This item was adapted from an article that is expected to run in the San Francisco Chronicle on April 29.