GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

Amna Nawaz is away.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: the case against former President Donald Trump over efforts to overturn the 2020 election that culminated on January 6.

We speak with Mr. Trump's attorney.

Then: The loss of thousands of newspapers leaves many American communities without a reliable source of local information.

JOHANNA DUNAWAY, Syracuse University: One of the things local news does is reminds people that, oh, that person, they may be of the other party, but they're facing the same challenge that I'm facing.

GEOFF BENNETT: And we delve into the late Irish singer Sinead O'Connor's global impact on music, politics and activism.

(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "NewsHour."

Former President Donald Trump it is expected to appear in federal court in Washington, D.C., tomorrow to enter a plea on charges that he illegally tried to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and remain in power.

Those alleged actions, which resulted in violent riots in the halls of Congress, are the most grave accusations to date against Mr. Trump.

William Brangham starts our coverage with a recap of the historic indictment.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: "Despite having lost, the defendant was determined to remain in power."

That is page one of special counsel Jack Smith's indictment, the United States of America v. Donald Trump.

And it alleges the former president and his co-conspirators, unwilling to accept his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election, conspired and plotted to illegally hold onto power.

PROTESTER: This is our Capitol!

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The allegations laid out, including the violent riots on January 6, reveal the hallmarks of a coup.

JACK SMITH, Special Counsel: The attack on our nation's Capitol on January 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Donald Trump stands accused of four charges, of trying to defraud the country, blocking and obstructing an official proceeding on January 6, and denying people's voting rights.

Over 45 pages, the special counsel lays out the foundation for those charges as based on actions taken, not just words alone.

DONALD TRUMP, Former President of the United States: If you count the legal votes, I easily win.

If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It alleges Trump knew his claims of voter fraud and a rigged election were lies and documents repeated cases where Trump's closest allies and advisers told him so.

DONALD TRUMP: All I want to do is this.

I just want to find 11,780 votes.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It details a scheme to pressure election officials to further his bogus claims of fraud and disenfranchise millions of voters.

The indictment alleges an effort to use the Department of Justice to falsely claim it had found voting irregularities and a separate effort to encourage so-called fake electors in seven states to create the appearance of a nonexistent controversy around the election.

MIKE PENCE (R), Presidential Candidate: We condemn the violence that took place here in the strongest possible terms.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It also details the pressure put on former Vice President Mike Pence to block the formal certification of the election on January 6.

And it alleges that, when Pence resisted, and violent riots broke out in and around the Capitol, the former president and his allies redoubled their efforts to lie about the election.

According to the indictment, Donald Trump was aided by six others.

They are referenced as unnamed co-conspirators, but they are widely reported to include three of the president's former attorneys, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and Sidney Powell, former high-ranking DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, and pro-Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro.

The New York Times today reported Trump campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn is likely the sixth.

No charges have yet been brought against any of these six.

JACK SMITH: Since the attack on our Capitol, the Department of Justice has remained committed to ensuring accountability for those criminally responsible for what happened that day.

This case is brought consistent with that commitment, and our investigation of other individuals continues.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Last night, Trump lashed out on social media, accusing the special counsel of trying to interfere with his 2024 campaign.

And, today, Trump's Republican allies on the Hill and even his 2024 opponents largely came to his defense.

GOV.

RON DESANTIS (R-FL), Presidential Candidate: The reality is, a Republican -- a D.C. jury would indict a ham sandwich and convict a ham sandwich if it was a Republican ham sandwich.

I think Americans need to be able to remove cases out of D.C. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Former Vice President Mike Pence, however, described the allegations as grave.

MIKE PENCE: Sadly, the president was surrounded by a group of crackpot lawyers that kept telling him what his itching ears wanted to hear.

President Trump asked me to put him over the Constitution, but I chose the Constitution.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: While vacationing in Delaware, President Biden ignored a shouted question about the indictment.

Tomorrow, the former president will be arraigned and enter his plea in Judge Tanya Chutkan's courtroom.

Appointed by Barack Obama, she's heard multiple cases against those who rioted on January 6 and has issued tough sentences against them.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm William Brangham.

GEOFF BENNETT: With that first court appearance tomorrow, we hear tonight about how Trump's legal team is planning his defense from Trump attorney John Lauro.

We spoke a short time ago.

John Lauro, thank you for being with us.

JOHN LAURO, Attorney For Former President Donald Trump: Good to be here.

GEOFF BENNETT: You have described this indictment as an attack on free speech, on political advocacy.

How do you defend that argument, when the indictment makes clear that -- quote -- "the defendant," in this case, Donald Trump, "had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim falsely that there had been outcome-determinative fraud"?

So the indictment does not center on what Mr. Trump said or even believed.

It centers on what he did, allegedly, in trying to subvert the election.

JOHN LAURO: No, just the opposite.

It attacks his ability to advocate for a political position, which is covered under the First Amendment.

So what we saw after the 2020 election were a number of discrepancies, affidavits, sworn testimony from around the country as to irregularities in the election process.

We also saw instances where, in the middle of an election cycle, the rules changed without the state legislatures weighing in.

So, under those circumstances, President Trump was entitled to advocate for a position, whether that meant going back to the state legislatures, whether it meant engaging in court activity or fighting in court or dealing with the issue from a political standpoint.

All of that is protected speech.

This is the first time in the history of the United States where an existing administration, the Biden administration, is criminalizing and indicting and going after a political opponent who previously occupied the office of presidency and is now a political opponent.

This is an event that... (CROSSTALK) GEOFF BENNETT: Well, if I may, the Biden DOJ appointed a special counsel because of the conflict of interests.

JOHN LAURO: No, but... GEOFF BENNETT: And the special counsel does not operate within the day-to-day supervision of the Justice Department.

JOHN LAURO: No, if you look under the law... (CROSSTALK) GEOFF BENNETT: And to the point about the legislatures, the legislatures had already qualified their electors by mid-December, December 14.

JOHN LAURO: No.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, according to the indictment, Mr. Trump knew by November 14 that he had lost the election.

He was told that by hordes of Republican... (CROSSTALK) JOHN LAURO: No, that's simply not true.

GEOFF BENNETT: It's spelled out in the indictment.

But make your point.

JOHN LAURO: Well, of course, you can either believe the indictment or believe in the American system of justice, where you can fight an indictment and prove otherwise, or at least put the government to its burden of proof.

But in terms of a special counsel, the special counsel reports to Merrick Garland.

Merrick Garland has the ultimate determination as to whether or not to bring an indictment.

Merrick Garland is a member of the Biden administration.

So, this indictment is by the Biden administration, not by some special counsel who has no reporting ability to the Biden administration.

In terms of the qualification of electors, that's a very, very significant issue, because what you had were the electors initially qualified, and then changes in the system.

And what President Trump asked for at the very end was, Mike Pence, pause the voting and allow this issue to go back to the states, so that the state legislatures could ultimately decide on the qualification of the electors.

That was a constitutional pathway that was provided for and identified by a constitutional scholar.

And Mr. Trump followed that advice, which he was entitled to do.

GEOFF BENNETT: The former vice president today said that Donald Trump was advised by a team of crackpot attorneys -- that was the phrase that he used -- and he said it wasn't just about pausing the vote, that it was about rejecting votes, and that would have sent the entire system into chaos.

We know from the indictment that the former Vice President Mike Pence emerges as a major figure.

He provided, as is spelled out in the indictment, contemporaneous notes that provide the underpinnings of so much of the evidence here.

How will you contend with his -- with that evidence, and potentially with his testimony?

Will you accuse him of lying?

JOHN LAURO: Well, first of all, I have to see the testimony in its totality.

But the bottom line is that Mr. Pence was also surrounded by lawyers.

President Trump was surrounded by lawyers.

Some of those lawyers had some disagreement about a constitutional pathway.

But there's no doubt whatsoever that Mr. Trump was advised by a very reputable scholar who gave him a pathway with respect to the constitutional options that he had.

And Trump selected one of those options.

GEOFF BENNETT: You're talking about John Eastman, who is an unnamed co-conspirator in the case.

JOHN LAURO: And the one option -- the one option was option D, which was to simply pause the vote, ultimately.

And, if you remember, in the Ellipse speech, that's exactly what President Trump asked for.

Now, there may have been other options discussed before that, but the ultimate option that was asked is to pause the vote.

And you have really what we often have in the United States, which is a constitutional debate about issues, but those constitutional debates are never criminalized, except in the Biden administration.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, let's return, if we can, to this issue of free speech, because the special counsel, as he's laid out this indictment, is saying that Donald Trump could have said, "I won the election, it was rigged, there was fraud, Joe Biden did not win," that, if he had stopped there, that would have been within the realm of what was legal.

But, allegedly, he did not stop there.

It's alleged that he conspired, three major conspiracies.

How do you refute that?

JOHN LAURO: Well, first of all, an indictment is a -- is a charge where it's returned by a grand jury, and we're not allowed to present our case.

So, it's a one-sided presentation.

You can take the indictment as gospel, which you may want to.

But the bottom line is, that's not how the system works.

We're entitled to our day in court.

We're entitled to challenge the evidence.

We're entitled to present our side of the story, which is, Mr. Trump, absolutely, unconditionally believed that he won the election.

He took steps to advocate for that position.

And that's all protected speech.

Let me say, this sort of situation has never occurred in the history of the United States, where a presidential election has been criminalized because of the free speech rights exercised by a sitting president.

GEOFF BENNETT: Do you believe that you can get a fair trial with this judge, who was randomly assigned, an Obama appointee, Tanya Chutkan?

JOHN LAURO: We expect to get a fair proceeding.

The problem is, in the District of Columbia, as you know, it's a heavily weighted Democratic city.

I think it voted something like 95 percent for Mr. Biden.

So we're taking a close look at changing venue.

We'd like to see a more diverse, a more balanced, a less biased jury pool.

And, certainly, that's going to be an issue we're going to race with the judge right away.

GEOFF BENNETT: You have suggested that Mr. Trump will try to seek a later date for this trial.

How late?

JOHN LAURO: Well, we need to see all the evidence.

The special counsel, the Biden administration has been investigating this for over three-and-a-half years.

And to force any defendant, any American citizen to trial in a railroaded sort of way is really antithetical to our system of justice.

So, the defense is entitled to see the evidence, to look at discovery, to subpoena documents and witnesses.

And this is a massive case.

This trial could last six, eight, nine months.

We don't know.

But, at a minimum, every -- every defense team is entitled to look at the evidence.

And we expect to do that.

We will have a better idea of when we can be ready once we look at that evidence.

The Biden administration assigned 60 lawyers and investigators to this case.

We don't -- we don't have a team of that magnitude.

And it's going to take some time to look through the evidence.

GEOFF BENNETT: On that point, Mr. Trump is facing three indictments now in three different jurisdictions, potentially four, depending on what happens in Fulton County, Georgia, later this month.

It's a demanding workload.

It's an insanely busy schedule.

How is your team going to manage all of that, his legal team?

How will you choreograph that?

JOHN LAURO: Well, we're certainly up to the challenge.

But the bottom line is that all of these lawsuits just detract from what the American people want to hear about, which are the really important issues facing the country, rather than relitigating the 2020 campaign, which this indictment does.

So it's a terrible distraction.

It's being brought in the middle of an election cycle by a political opponent.

And the American people can make their own judgment as to whether or not that's right.

This case could be brought the day after Election Day.

And yet we have a hurry-up offense to bring it almost immediately after very damaging statements were made about President Biden and a scandal which is enveloping his presidency right now.

So, we're in uncharted constitutional territory.

We have never seen anything like this.

But Mr. -- Mr. Trump, President Trump, is entitled to his day in court, like every other American, and he's going to get a very vigorous defense, consistent with professional ethics, and it's a defense that's going to be successful.

GEOFF BENNETT: There's another significant figure who's described in this indictment beyond the former Vice President Mike Pence.

That's former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who's not characterized as a co-conspirator in this indictment.

And that suggests to some that he has cooperated with the special counsel, Jack Smith.

How do you see it?

Do you think Mark Meadows cooperated?

JOHN LAURO: Well, cooperation is an interesting word.

It often means that you go in and talk to a prosecutor.

And that's sometimes termed cooperation.

But in the course of talking to a prosecutor, you can say many, many favorable things about the defense.

So, we would welcome all the information from Mr. Meadows, and we're going to take a look at that.

But simply because someone is -- quote -- "cooperating" doesn't mean that they're simply mouthing the words of a prosecutorial narrative.

I need to be very clear.

This is simply an indictment, which is an allegation.It doesn't mean that the government has this level of proof.

And we're going to get our day in court.

We're going to attack every single sentence in that affidavit, and we're going to prevail at the end of the trial.

GEOFF BENNETT: You think the special counsel would include things in this indictment that he could not prove?

JOHN LAURO: Well, let me put it this way.

I have been practicing law for 40 years, OK, and as a prosecutor and a defense lawyer, and there are certainly things in every single indictment that never get proven.

And, believe it or not, after trial, defendants get acquitted.

And, in this case, President Trump will get acquitted.

GEOFF BENNETT: Is there any universe in which your client, the former president, would accept a plea deal?

JOHN LAURO: No, absolutely not.

In 2016, he ran as a as a presidential candidate that wouldn't quit, that would fight for the rights of the American people.

He is -- he is doing that in connection with this case.

I'm not just representing the president of the United States in this case.

I'm representing every American that wants to speak freely, that wants to raise his voice or her voice, that wants to advocate for a political position.

And this is an instance where, unfortunately, that kind of free speech is under attack.

It's under attack in universities.

It's under attack in school boards.

It's under attack on social media.

This is the ultimate form of censorship.

If you don't go along with what the government believes happened in 2020, you're going to get indicted and prosecuted, and that's just plain wrong.

GEOFF BENNETT: John Lauro is an attorney for the former President Donald Trump.

Thanks for your time this evening.

We appreciate it.

JOHN LAURO: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Many of the details in yesterday's indictment were first revealed last year as part of the House January 6 Committee's probe of the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Joining us now is the former lead investigator for that committee, Tim Heaphy.

Tim, thanks for being back with us on the "NewsHour."

And I want to start with your assessment of Mr. Lauro, John Lauro's assertion that indictment is an attack on Donald Trump's free speech, his free speech rights.

TIMOTHY HEAPHY, Former January 6 Committee Lead Investigator: Yes, there's a big difference between speech and conduct.

We do -- the Constitution does protect Americans' right to free speech, even if that speech is hateful, even if that speech is false.

If Donald Trump had just stood up and said "the election was stolen," alone, that would not be criminal.

What's alleged here, though, is conduct, not speech, as your questions, Geoff, got to.

He is alleged to have lied to the American people as part of a multipart, intentional plan to prevent the joint session.

It wasn't just the speech.

It was what the speech was designed to do.

It was the generation of the fake elector certificates, the possible personnel change at Justice, the pressure on Mike Pence.

The key thing to remember about that speech is that it was not informed by evidence.

The allegations that he made about voter fraud were repetitively debunked, rebutted, and told directly to the president.

That makes them lies.

And, therefore, it demonstrates specific content that those lies motivate action.

So, look, I agree with Mr. Lauro that, in America, every defendant is presumed innocent and gets his day in court.

I'm looking forward to the vigorous adjudication of this.

But the special counsel certainly anticipated this and has evidence of conduct, not speech.

That's why this indictment was brought.

GEOFF BENNETT: We also heard John Lauro say that the government had three years to bring this case, to investigate, and now they want to rush this to trial.

That's what he said.

He's not the only one who feels that way.

There are Trump critics, there are Democrats who actually agree with him for different reasons.

What do you make of the timeline of this case?

TIMOTHY HEAPHY: Yes, look, I think the Department of Justice at the beginning was focused on what I have called kind of the blue-collar aspect of January 6, the rioters themselves who were there at the Capitol committing acts of violence.

I think it took them a long time to get to the white-collar part of the case, the impetus, the political coup, this multipart plan that has now been alleged in the indictment.

I don't know what went on within the Department of Justice that informed that prioritization.

I do think that the facts that the select committee was able to uncover that came largely from Trump administration officials, Republicans who wanted the president to win, but did the right thing when they were in a moment of principle, their willingness to come forward and talk to the select committee and our then revelation of those facts to America, unquestionably, was motivating.

Because, again, facts are what matters, not lawyers, but facts.

And the facts here are compelling.

When the Department of Justice became aware of those facts, they were moved to act.

GEOFF BENNETT: As we mentioned, you were the lead investigator for the House January 6 Committee, and that committees work product in many ways created a road map for the January 6 -- the -- rather, the special counsel January 6 investigation.

When you read that indictment, what strikes you as intensely familiar and what also strikes you as new, as painting a fuller picture of all that transpired leading up to the insurrection?

TIMOTHY HEAPHY: Yes, the vast majority of it is familiar.

When I read it, it sounded very, very similar to Vice Chair Cheney's opening statement at our first hearing, the committee's first hearing, last year.

That was the hearing at which she said, this was an intentional, multipart plan to disrupt the joint session.

And she checked off pressure on state officials, efforts to change personnel at Justice, pressure on the vice president, and ultimately launching a violent mob at the Capitol.

That's precisely what this indictment lays out.

So the facts here have not been hidden.

They have not been a mystery.

There's really not much new in the indictment, other than a few direct communications between Vice President Pence and President Trump.

We didn't have an opportunity to get that from the vice president.

We knew, essentially, that the vice president had conveyed his position to the president, but the color and the specific words, that's new.

I think Pat Cipollone has provided some new direct information that he did not provide us because of a claim of executive privilege.

So there's some new vignettes in the indictment, but the core conduct was described in detail over the course of the select committee process.

GEOFF BENNETT: We have got about a minute left, and I want to ask you more about the testimony by the former vice president.

How did what he shared in witness testimony and what he shared via contemporaneous notes, how did that really propel the special counsel investigation, beyond what your committee was able to do?

TIMOTHY HEAPHY: Yes, I don't know that it propelled it.

I think it just corroborated and provided more direct evidence of fact about which we had indirect evidence.

So, we interviewed Marc Short, who was the vice president's chief of staff.

And I remember very specifically asking Mr. Short, did the vice president convey to President Trump his position about the limitations on his authority at the joint session?

Marc Short said, yes, many times.

So we were aware that was the position the vice president took and that it was conveyed to the president.

We now have Mike Pence himself talking about the words that were used.

That's important.

That's more reliable direct evidence than the secondhand account that we got.

GEOFF BENNETT: Tim Heaphy, thanks, as always, for your insights.

We appreciate it.

TIMOTHY HEAPHY: Thanks for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: To the day's other news.

A federal jury recommended the death penalty for Robert Bowers, the gunman who killed 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

Bowers opened fire at the Tree of Life Synagogue in 2018.

It was the deadliest antisemitic attack in U.S. history.

And prosecutors said today the courts tried to deliver justice.

ERIC G. OLSHAN, District Attorney, Western Pennsylvania: While today's verdict may mean many things to people, it cannot change what happened on October 27, 2018.

It cannot bring back any of the 11 victims.

No verdict can set things right or restore what was lost that morning.

GEOFF BENNETT: The presiding judge will hear from victims' families tomorrow before formally imposing the death sentence.

New findings on July's extreme heat point to a new link to manmade global warming.

The science nonprofit Climate Central says it was hotter than normal for 80 percent of the world's population at least one day during the month.

It says climate change was responsible.

Hardest hit were some two billion people in tropical and desert regions, who endured extreme heat daily.

The findings are based on a study of 4,700 cities.

In China, Beijing and the surrounding region are awash in severe flooding after days of the heaviest rain in 140 years.

A typhoon dumped 29 inches on the city said Saturday.

The flooding is blamed for 21 deaths, and rescue efforts are continuing, with the military delivering aid by helicopter.

Outside, the city roads are washed out and crops destroyed.

LIU JIWEN, China Resident (through translator): This has affected our family.

People where I'm from grow corn, and they were all hit by the disaster.

This is a total failure of harvest.

There's nothing we can do.

It's a natural disaster.

GEOFF BENNETT: Meantime, another typhoon battered Okinawa and another -- Japanese islands today and headed for China.

And, in South Korea, an ongoing heat wave pushed a weather warning to its highest level, with at least 22 people killed there so far.

The U.S. State Department says the American Embassy in Niger will stay open, despite the military coup there, but officials would not confirm reports that the U.S. will evacuate most embassy staffers and their families.

The first French evacuation flights landed in Paris today.

And, in Niger's capital, French soldiers registered evacuees as they formed long lines.

In Ukraine, Russian attack drones badly damaged a vital port today in another blow to grain shipments.

The Port of Izmail sits on the Danube River in the Odesa region along the border with Romania.

It's part of a key route for the grain trade.

After the attack, crews worked to douse major fires.

It's the latest such attacks since Russia ended a deal allowing grain traffic through the Black Sea.

Pope Francis has arrived in Portugal and rebuked the nation's Roman Catholic clergy after a damning report on sexual abuse of minors.

The pope said the church must purify itself and listen to victims.

He arrived earlier at the presidential palace in Lisbon to attend the first Catholic World Youth Day since the pandemic.

It's his first major trip since intestinal surgery back in June.

And Wall Street had its worst day in months a day after Fitch cut the U.S. government's credit rating.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 348 points, or 1 percent, to close at 35282.

The Nasdaq fell 2 percent.

The S&P 500 slipped 1.4 percent.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": Judy Woodruff explores the connection between the decline in local newspapers and the nation's political divides; and a look at the lasting influence of the late Irish singer-songwriter Sinead O'Connor.

Over the past few decades, more than 2,000 newspapers across the country have closed, leaving many communities without a reliable source of local information.

Researchers say this crisis in journalism driven by changes in technology is fueling the country's political divisions.

Judy Woodruff recently visited one community in North Texas as part of her ongoing series America at a Crossroads.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Tucked away in the Texas Panhandle in an isolated pocket of the country long dominated by ranching, drilling and the railroad is the city of Canadian, population 2,300.

But since March of this year, a longtime fixture of this community, something residents say had bound them together through good times and bad, has been missing.

JOHN JULIAN, Canadian Water Well: It's just got a -- kind of a hole in it, a vacancy right now.

WENDIE COOK, Canadian, Texas, City Council: I just don't know who's going to be sharing all of the champions and the good news in our community.

STEVE RADER, Rancher: It's almost like a death in the family.

We don't talk about it a lot.

We just go, oh, I can't believe we don't have it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Earlier this year, the city's weekly newspaper, The Canadian Record, stopped printing.

These days, its bracket sits empty.

But, for decades, Laurie Brown would put up a flag outside her office each Thursday to let the town know that the newest edition was available.

The Record was a family affair that became her life's work, and in its pages, Brown documented the city council, school and hospital board meetings, the impacts of droughts and wildfires, the babies born, football games won, and residents lost.

She lobbied for the construction of a new assisted living center, Mesa View, and for the installation of a blinking stop sign at a three-way highway intersection that had seen too many fatal accidents.

LAURIE BROWN, The Canadian Record: I tell people we have sometimes helped good things happen, and we often stopped bad things from happening.

And it's not because we're so powerful.

It's because information is powerful.

And we're making sure the community, the people who care about these things, know about them.

We had probably five or six pages of classifieds.

They're pretty much down to one, one-and-a-half now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yet, after so many years of holding the paper together, as classified ad purchases dwindled and reporters left and were not replaced, earlier this year, Brown made the difficult decision to suspend publication.

LAURIE BROWN: We were already working on sort of a shoestring.

And I just didn't see how I could do it.

I needed a break.

And it was the hardest decision I have ever made.

And I still lie awake at night wondering whether it was a good decision or not.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What's happened to The Record here in Canadian is not unique.

Across the country, over the past two decades, more than 2,200 weekly newspapers have closed down.

And tens of thousands of reporters have been laid off.

And researchers say that not only has profound effects on the practice of journalism, but also on the country's civic health.

JOHANNA DUNAWAY, Syracuse University: Local news is something that reminds people of what they have in common, both their challenges and their shared identities, their shared culture, their shared community.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Johanna Dunaway is a professor and research director at Syracuse University's Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship.

She says the broad decline of local newspapers nationally, driven largely by plummeting revenue, as advertising moved online, has contributed to the rising polarization now seen across the country.

JOHANNA DUNAWAY: I mean, national news, for all of its many benefits, it tends to frame politics in America through the lens of the major conflicts between the two parties, right?

And for those Americans or those citizens who are only watching the national news, they often only get this sort of game-frame style coverage, that it's almost like sports reporting with Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other.

WOMAN: Facing a growing showdown with Republicans over America's ability to pay off its debt, President Biden speaking to union members in Maryland.

WOMAN: McCarthy is putting the blame on President Biden here.

JEANINE PIRRO, FOX News Anchor: Desperate Joe Biden dusting off his MAGA boogeyman talking points.

WOMAN: We're both old enough to remember when Republicans were going after Democrats for defund the police.

JOHANNA DUNAWAY: One of the things local news does is reminds people that, oh, that person, they may be of the other party, but they're facing the same challenge that I'm facing.

LAURIE BROWN: We have always reported the news that is the most important to the people who live here.

JUDY WOODRUFF: In 2017, documentary filmmaker Heather Courtney began following Laurie Brown as she covered this largely rural conservative community that voted overwhelming for President Trump in 2016 and again in 2020.

LAURIE BROWN: What happens if nobody is doing this?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Highlighting her complex relationship with her fellow Canadians, who relied on Brown and her reporting, even as they often disagreed with her editorials.

LAURIE BROWN: They didn't want me to report that Biden had won that election.

And, by God, the Electoral College has voted, and Joe Biden is going to be our president, and I'm going to make sure it is in the goddamn newspaper.

HEATHER COURTNEY, Director and Producer, "For the Record": I mean, she says in the film that her politics don't match the politics of this town.

But, at the same time, the people here are very still very much supportive of the paper, and they will go and they will talk to Laurie about whatever they might disagree about in her editorial.

And I think that that's something that has broken down in most places around the country.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Steve Rader is a rancher who lives 18 miles outside of Canadian in the adjoining county.

Hi there.

STEVE RADER, Rancher: There's Rose.

And this is... JUDY WOODRUFF: For him, The Record was a lifeline to the community and to his past, and its loss has been especially hard.

STEVE RADER: Our paper spoiled us.

They did so much work.

And it was so colorful and beautiful, and they celebrated our successes and our tough times.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It feels personal.

STEVE RADER: Oh, yes, yes.

Yes, that paper was a part of our life.

People from hundreds of miles away came and supported our community.

JUDY WOODRUFF: In 2017, a wildfire burned more than 300,000 acres, including 12 sections of grass on Rader's ranch, four trailers, equipment, and 85 cattle.

STEVE RADER: But if the paper hadn't told about it, nobody would have known.

And people responded.

People we didn't even know from all over the country sent us hay and feed.

And a lady from New Mexico sent us 10 cows to replace the ones that had died.

And the paper, not that we were whining or needing attention, but it brought it to the forefront and documented what happened.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Laurie, the editor, would put her own opinions as editor in the paper.

Did you always agree with what she was writing?

STEVE RADER: No.

No.

But she always made me think.

I hate to say it, Judy, but her family opposed the Vietnam War in the '70s, and they received a lot of flak over that.

And, looking back, I think they were totally right.

We need to have other opinions.

That's our strength of America.

Thank God for that.

WENDIE COOK: I don't want to live in a place that has echo chambers everywhere, where everyone thinks the same.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Wendie Cook is the executive director of the Citadelle Art Museum, a collection housed in a former Baptist church downtown.

She moved here from Dallas years ago with her husband, who grew up in Canadian.

In addition to the museum, she works as an interior designer, and, for the past six years, has served on the City Council.

Without the paper, she worries that a level of accountability in local government will be lost.

WENDIE COOK: I have a concern about who is telling the critical pieces of information.

The city is facing a bond election.

Who is giving the factual information about how that bond election is going to fund?

Right now, without The Canadian Record, I fear that our voter information is coming from our stuffed mailboxes, from candidates or from PACs, who, by their very nature, are providing biased material for our community.

JOHN JULIAN: Well, right now, if there's a name pops up on a ballot for one of the elections, and you do not know them, you really don't have no means of finding out, who are they?

Where did they come from?

Are they married?

Do they have kids?

JUDY WOODRUFF: John Julian operates a water well construction business in town, and he agrees with Wendie Cook.

JOHN JULIAN: It kind of leaves me in a 50-50, flip a coin, do I vote yes, or do I vote no for them, if you don't know.

And I don't like to be in that position.

If I'm going to make a vote, I want it to be an informed, educated vote.

JOHANNA DUNAWAY: People don't feel comfortable voting when they know virtually nothing about any of the people running for office.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Johanna Dunaway of Syracuse University says that, in addition to the loss of shared identity, when a local news source closes, there are potentially a number of other impacts, including more corruption and irresponsible spending, more straight ticket voting, less competitive elections, and lower turnout.

JOHANNA DUNAWAY: And then it's just more of a cycle, right?

The legislators or city council people or mayoral office folks realize this, and so then why would they cater to those -- the people who aren't going to turn out and vote for them?

So then they're only turning out -- they're only sort of behaving in lockstep with the preferences of the people who do vote.

And those are the citizens who tend to have very strong partisan preferences and tend to have the most extreme policy preferences.

And so then you get more polarizing behavior on the part of both the voters and those holding office.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think that our country can stay strong, that our democracy can stay strong well into the future with, frankly, hollowed-out local journalism?

JOHANNA DUNAWAY: I worry that it can't, because I worry that we are more susceptible to this kind of tribal attitude and behavior that, sometimes, political elites at the national level on both sides, they try to use that to sort of -- for their own strategic advantage for elections or for what have you.

It's usually short-term.

And they are not doing it with evil intent.

They are doing it so they can stay in office and make good policy.

But when the news is only sort of reminding us of those claims being made by both sides at the national level, I think it makes the problem worse.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Back in Canadian, Laurie Brown continues to post occasional stories and updates on The Canadian Record's Web site and Facebook page, which has grown since the paper stopped publishing.

But it is a shell of what the paper was.

LAURIE BROWN: We are still sort of checking that pulse, I think, trying to decide what's the best way to communicate.

That said, it's not a great revenue model.

And I have got people working here who aren't getting paychecks right now.

So, I'm not getting a paycheck.

JUDY WOODRUFF: No paycheck.

That's not sustainable, is it?

LAURIE BROWN: Not sustainable.

It's just we're -- I have good people who work with me, and they care as much about this newspaper as I do and this community.

I mean, look at this.

Look at this.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes, look at -- look at her face.

LAURIE BROWN: You're writing stories about people's lives that they will remember forever.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes.

Brown says she hopes to find a new owner of the paper, someone to continue her family's legacy, telling the important stories of this place and its people.

LAURIE BROWN: Information is the key to our democracy, facts, truth, good information.

And, also, just that conversation that we, I think, enable, it's essential.

And so I worry all the time about it.

I want deeply to continue the life of The Canadian Record.

I just am not sure how to do it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: In a coming story, we will look at moves to help address the crisis in local news and whether they can fill the gap.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Judy Woodruff in Canadian, Texas.

GEOFF BENNETT: Irish singer-songwriter Sinead O'Connor's death last week at the age of 56 came as a shock to fans worldwide.

In the days since, an outpouring of love from fans and fellow artists has painted a fuller picture of O'Connor's legacy on music-and on Irish culture and politics.

Jeffrey Brown looks at O'Connor's impact for our arts and culture series, Canvas.

JEFFREY BROWN: She was known for her powerful voice and outspoken stances.

And it began with the music.

(MUSIC) JEFFREY BROWN: Sinead O'Connor's 1990 rendition of Prince's "Nothing Compares 2 U" became a number one hit.

And the album it appeared on, "I Do Not Want What I Haven't Got," won the 1991 Grammy Award for best alternative music performance.

O'Connor boycotted that awards ceremony, criticizing its commercialism.

But that was nothing compared to the uproar in 1992 after she ripped up a photo of Pope John Paul II... SINEAD O'CONNOR, Musician: Fight the real enemy.

JEFFREY BROWN: ... during her appearance on "Saturday Night Live" to criticize child abuse in the church.

In 2018, O'Connor publicly announced her conversion to Islam.

Since her death, fellow musicians have paid tribute to O'Connor through her music.

Alanis Morissette sang the 1987 song "Mandinka" with the Foo Fighters over the weekend.

And Brandi Carlile sang "Nothing Compares 2 U" at a Pink concert.

Meanwhile, O'Connor continues to mourned in her home country of Ireland, where the mayor of Dublin said he hopes to stage a tribute concert soon.

And joining me now is Una Mullally.

She's a columnist for The Irish Times in Dublin.

Thanks for joining us.

So, the reaction, especially in Ireland, clearly goes beyond the music.

How do you explain what you have seen since Sinead O'Connor's death?

UNA MULLALLY, The Irish Times: It's quite hard to explain what's been happening in Ireland.

The loss is being felt really profoundly.

For people in Ireland, I think Sinead O'Connor goes beyond music.

As you say, she's more of a cultural figure.

She looms very large in the Irish psyche, in terms of her activism, her politics, her actions.

And so the loss is being felt really profoundly.

It's almost as though it's a large political figure or even a spiritual figure who's been lost.

So, there have been vigils and gatherings.

And people are extraordinarily upset.

I don't think I could really think of another person that this has happened with, in my lifetime anyway.

JEFFREY BROWN: You have written that, in Ireland, she was a revolutionary figure.

She was also a very controversial figure.

What did you mean by revolutionary?

UNA MULLALLY: I think, because of the context that she came from, and particularly in the 1980s and 1990s in Ireland, when the moral authority of the Catholic Church was still quite strong, she really preempted an awful lot of that collapse with her actions on "Saturday Night Live" and with her constant attempts to highlight issues of child abuse and childhood trauma.

She equated the entire social psyche of Ireland to that of an abused child and was trying to somehow remedy that through asking to be listened to, to speaking out against these various spiritual ills, and also through her music.

So, in that way, she inspired an awful lot of people as well, who didn't necessarily have the bravery -- have the bravery in quite an oppressive society to speak out against various authorities and not be afraid to get in trouble.

And she repeatedly questioned this lever of shame that is constantly pulled in Irish society and sought to unseat that or at least make it disjointed.

So, that -- those kinds of actions were and remain revolutionary.

And an awful lot has changed that in Irish society that has really vindicated her.

JEFFREY BROWN: And that outcry that hit, the controversy, did she ever get past it?

Did people, the ones who were upset with her, did they forgive her?

UNA MULLALLY: I'm not sure she was asking for their forgiveness.

I think she was asking for more of a seismic shift in our society.

Her career continued very successfully in Ireland and Europe.

Her albums were lauded.

Her tours were always sold out.

She was very highly regarded.

Her memoir in 2021 was a bestseller here.

There was a documentary out about her last year that packed cinemas.

So, the -- that kind of torpedoing of her career really only occurred in America for different cultural reasons, with regards to America being a more puritanical place, I guess, and more -- has a tendency to kind of go the full length with controversies and really silence people in that way.

The Irish context was quite different, because she was speaking to so many people who ultimately supported her point of view.

JEFFREY BROWN: What about the music, and especially her voice?

I mean, what -- when you think about it, what so captured you and so many others?

UNA MULLALLY: I think there's so many different things about her voice and her music.

I mean, her voice is singular.

Anita Baker once described it as cavernous.

And I think that's a really good description.

She sung in her own accent at a time when a lot of Irish rock and pop acts gravitated towards this mid-Atlantic twang.

And there was an awful lot about Ireland and specifically about Dublin in her songs.

And so she was capturing not just the emotional landscape, but the literal landscape in her music as well.

And that voice is undeniable.

So, she had that.

And -- but what she was channeling was something really authentic.

And I think it's her creative integrity that really remains.

JEFFREY BROWN: I understand you met and you interviewed her a number of -- several times.

What was she like in that context?

And did you see changes over the years?

UNA MULLALLY: I have always found her to be extraordinarily sweet, a very down-to-earth, chilled-out, very cool, very, very funny person, massive sense of humor, but also fragile.

And she was very vocal about her own struggles with mental health because of the context that she came from, because of the things she experienced throughout her life and indeed throughout her career.

JEFFREY BROWN: You have written about now there being a deep collective grief, you called it, in Ireland.

How would you assess her legacy?

What do you think it will be?

UNA MULLALLY: I think that's something people are struggling with, because I think that there's a tendency to isolate cultural figures and icons as if they're people from afar.

I think what people are kind of trying to grapple with is, how do we diffuse her stance and the things she stood for within ourselves?

And she didn't just demand to be heard, but to be listened to.

And I think that there's an awful lot that artists in particular, but also women, also the LGBTQ+ community, all of the people who felt like they didn't necessarily fit in or were living in opposition to society, how can you actually create your own pathway, and how can you kind of get support for that and not be ostracized or criticized?

And I think people are thinking quite deeply about those lessons that she gave, particularly because of how Ireland has changed so much.

JEFFREY BROWN: The life and legacy of Sinead O'Connor.

Una Mullally of The Irish Times, thank you very much.

UNA MULLALLY: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Brandon Kazen-Maddox is an artist, filmmaker, acrobat, and an advocate for deaf artists on the stage, screen, and beyond.

Tonight, Kazen-Maddox shares their Brief But Spectacular take on blending the worlds of art, ASL, and accessibility.

BRANDON KAZEN-MADDOX, Artist: I am a grandchild of deaf adults, or a GODA, which means that my first language is ASL, sign language.

I was raised in a family of deaf and signing people.

For me, my hands are storytellers, and my words are just along for the ride.

So, that means that I primarily think in ASL, in sign language.

And I make sure that my hands follow what - - the concepts and images and memories and feelings that my heart and that my mind are expressing.

Growing up, my family would always eat around the dinner table.

There was such an amazing mixture of communication.

And I grew up watching all of that and participating in it.

My grandparents would express themselves in sign language.

If we brought friends and other relatives to the table, we wanted to make sure that they understood the conversation also.

I bring that into my work as an artist.

And the reason why I talk and sign is because I want everyone to understand everything I'm saying.

When I was about 16, I was driving with my grandma.

And, in the deaf community, we have -- we turn on the dome light at night because we have to be able to see each other sign.

When I first saw in the rearview mirror the red and blue lights, I immediately was very afraid.

I had to make sure to keep myself and my grandma safe at that moment.

And sign language is not always something that people are accustomed to.

So, the cultural facilitation and linguistic facilitation was pivotal at that moment.

I'm a co-founder of a company called Up Until Now Collective.

We develop and produce new multidisciplinary work that focuses on intimacy, empathy, and connection, and centers our work on stories that have been traditionally left out of our mainstream narrative.

Our mission is to challenge the status quo and build new structures for creating art.

When someone who signs or a deaf person or someone in a wheelchair has everything that they need to be on stage and shine, that's my goal with the work that I do.

My name is Brandon Kazen-Maddox, and this is my Brief But Spectacular take on melding the worlds of art, ASL and accessibility.

GEOFF BENNETT: And you can watch more Brief But Spectacular videos online at PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief.

And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

Thanks for joining us.