REFLECTIONS: On the Newspaper Business
Friday, 19 June 2009
[AND THE WINNER IS: If I had my way (and more money), I would send Dr. Robert Butler's book, The Longevity Revolution, to everyone who asked and to every member of Congress too.
Alas, that is not possible. The winner of the single copy I have available, the fifteenth person to send an email, is - DRUM ROLL - Alan Stewart who lives in Hong Kong. Alan, it will be on its way to you today or tomorrow. - Ronni]
[EDITORIAL NOTE: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Saul Friedman (bio) writes the bi-weekly Reflections column for Time Goes By in which he comments on news, politics and social issues from his perspective as one of the younger members of the greatest generation. He also publishes a weekly column, Gray Matters, on aging for Newsday.
I figure my 55 years as a reporter, correspondent and columnist for just three newspaper organizations qualify me to put in my two bucks on the future of the business. And I do believe, in spite of the obituaries, that newspapers, the kind you hold in your hand or spread out on the table or floor, will survive and even prosper.
Maybe I’ve told you this before, but it’s worth repeating: when television was coming of age, many newspapers so feared it that they would not accept or publish the programming schedules. Now, whether you know it or not, television, especially the news programs, depend on newspapers and newspaper reporters.
Writers and producers for CNN or MSBC or the network news shows would not know what the news is without first consulting the morning papers. And they would not know what to think without reading the major columnists. This is not to say these papers and columnists get things right. But we’ll get to that.
First, here is a systemic problem that did not exist through much of my career: The public ownership of newspapers. For example, I worked for a number of years for what was then, Knight Newspapers, which later merged with the Ridder Newspapers and became Knight-Ridder, one of the largest American chains that included The Detroit Free Press, The Charlotte Observer, The Miami Herald and the flagship >e,>Akron Beacon-Journal, among others. The Philadelphia Inquirer was added.
But when I was a Washington correspondent, the Knight papers, the Inquirer and the Ridder papers in Minnesota had been family owned. The Ridders were conservative; Walter Annenberg, who owned the Inquirer was so imperious, he banned from his paper news of one of Philadelphia’s teams. And he was a great friend of Ronald Reagan.
Jack Knight, on the other hand, was feisty and liberal-minded and my favorite publisher because he was among the first to editorialize against the Vietnam War for which he won a Pulitzer Prize. He had never forgotten the death of his son in World War II.
The point I am making is that these papers, often reflecting their owners and often not, were independent citizens. They were the personification, for good or ill, of A.J. Liebling’s observation that freedom of the press belongs to the person who owns one. Then came what a former editor of mine, Davis “Buzz” Merritt, called Knightfall, which was the title of his book.
That’s when Knight-Ridder Newspapers and most others went public, offering stock on the New York Stock Exchange. Others have followed: The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the McClatchy papers – all of which had been family owned and run.
Let me confess that I led the campaign at Knight-Ridder’s Washington bureau to get an early crack for us peons to buy the stock. And many of my colleagues and I made good money on that stock over the years.
What none of us realized is that as Merritt put it, the brand of relatively independent, reporter-editor oriented, public-service journalism would be undermined by a focus on profit margin and stock price.
One of the dozens of editors who left Knight-Ridder in disgust or buyouts told Merritt, “I became an editor because I wanted to do journalism, but now it’s about the bottom line.” That is to say, it’s about Wall Street’s bottom line. It wasn’t good enough for newspapers to be profitable, they had to increase profit margins; they could not allow earnings to drop in any quarter or the stock would drop. Wall Street analysts, said one writer, focused not on the quality of the paper or its content or the coverage of important events, but on “the quality of a newspaper company’s financial reports.”
David Simon, a former Baltimore Sun reporter, creator of HBO’s The Wire and Homicide, recently told a Senate committee hearing on the future of journalism:
“My industry butchered itself and we did so at the behest of Wall Street and the same unfettered free market logic that has proved so disastrous...The original sin of American news papering lies, indeed, in going to Wall Street in the first place. When locally-based, family-owner newspaper like the Sun were consolidated into publicly-owned newspaper chains. An essential trust between journalism and the communities served was betrayed.”
He noted angrily, that the Baltimore Sun was eliminating its afternoon edition and trimming nearly 100 editors and reporters when the paper was achieving 37 percent profits. Indeed, at Knight-Ridder and Newsday, editors were told the papers had to return at least ten percent on investment. When it didn’t, Knight Ridder was dismembered by Wall Street raiders and sold to McClatchy, which sold off its unionized papers. The House that Jack Knight built was gone and so was its talent.
When The Los Angeles Times owned The Baltimore Sun, it also owned Newsday, which had expanded into New York City. But the CEO of Times-Mirror Corp. a former cereal company executive, closed it to drive up the price of the company’s stock for the spoiled heirs of the former owners.
It worked for a while, but the Times-Mirror sold itself and its holdings to the once-family owned (Chicago) Tribune, and real estate player and publisher wannabe, Sam Zell, who sold Newsday to Cablevision, which owns Madison Square Garden and the New York Knicks. It earned $1.9 billion last year, up $200 million from the earlier year. But it continues to shrink Newsday’s content and staff rather than build it. And the once proud Sun, of H.L. Mencken, which once sent correspondents across the world, is but a shadow of a newspaper. Its staff is down from 400 to 150 and it is dying. Who suffers? Baltimore.
As one result of what’s happening to newspapers, the best and most experience reporters, editors and writers have left, or were forced into buyouts (as I was) and the recession only hastened the exodus. One day these newspapers will want the talent they lost. But my colleagues left daily journalism to retire or teach or blog.
Simon has no love for even the most successful blogs. He told the Senate committee, “The day I run into a Huffington Post reporter at a Baltimore zoning board hearing is the day I will be confident that we have actually reached some sort of balance” with online journalism. If not a newspaper, who will cover the cop shop, the schools, the courts? Who is to keep public officials honest?
I despair when I think of the great reporters and writers I’ve worked for and with who have left newspapers to teach or, in one case, raise bees. Maybe I’m being unfair, but I don’t think that some kid in his or her twenties, who is great at texting or twittering, should be my newspaper’s authority on finance, the Middle East or the wars this country is fighting.
Only a few reporters saw the reasons for Iraq war as lies. There is no short-cut to experience. Indeed, the rise of the good, aggressive blogs, websites critical of journalism like Media Matters testify to the shortcomings of mainstream, corporate journalism where newspapers worry about the bottom line more than the story and young reporters worry more about their careers.
And yet, when this recession ends we’ll see more clearly, there is no substitute for a newspaper with solid reporters and editors to watch over your town or the country or its relations with the rest of the world, where newspapers are flourishing. No online service can keep watch over a city councilman, a member of Congress or a president the way an honest, aggressive newspaper can.
In sports we look to newspapers to tell us what we saw when our favorite team won. We want to know how and why, as well as whom, what and when. Television can’t or won’t analyze or critique the new production of King Lear or the pianist we heard.
The best newspapers in each city will survive because there is no real substitute for a certain segment of the population, mostly older people - and most everyone will grow older. I read the other day that newspapers like The New Orleans Times-Picayune has a steady readership of 50.4 percent of the adult population, or 85 percent, if you include the reach of the web; The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 41.6 percent and 65 percent; Indianapolis Star, 40 percent and 77.8 percent.
We have become a nation divided between readers and watchers. The watchers prefer television and computer games and the top of the news, if any news at all. The readers are a smaller but more wealthy and influential group, people who are active in community affairs, who support the arts and help run the town. They will continue to be the core readers of newspapers for they understand their lives and their fortunes depend on the depth of knowledge only a daily newspaper is equipped to provide – if it will.
At The Elder Storytelling Place today, Frank M. Calabria: Playing Monster and Hunting Mosquitoes.
Hello Saul,
I always look forward to the days when you write your column here.
I have been a subscriber to the Philadelphia Inquirer for almost 60 years. My day does not begin until I have read the paper.
I first read the front page, then leaf through the rest of the first section until I come to the letters to the editor, the various columnists and the editorials.
Next I read the local section to catch up on my particular area and read the Obits. At my age, this is important information. I read the death notices, and if my name isn't mentioned, I get dressed.
I couldn't miss the Magazine Section with all the Movie Star gossip and reviews and advice columns.
Sports next. How did the Flyers,Eagles, Sixers or Phillies do?
All the scores and rankings are there from the Pros down to the High Schools.
Then I love the funnies. Every day there is at least one good hearty laugh in one of the comic strips. Especially Doonesbury and Pickles.
Next, the Jumble, Cryptogram and Crossword Puzzle. I Do them all.
Now, tell me,Saul, what Television program or programs could bring me all that?
Watching TV news is like reading a newspaper that is only headlines. No story, no details, just the screaming headlines.And ,they never tell you what is happening now, you always have to wait for 6 or 11..
I hope I always have my Inquirer..
Posted by: Nancy | Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:09 AM
I got a blank screen when I went to read the Elder Storytelling Place today as well as on 6/16. When I examined the link, I noticed it said 2009/05. When I changed it to 2009/06 I was able to link up. Thought you would like to know.
Posted by: Joan | Friday, 19 June 2009 at 07:16 AM
In San Diego, our paper is a shadow of itself. The many columnists are gone, the staffers are bought out, the unions are fragmented, and the new owners are not journalists. I asked a friend of mine who teaches journalism what she thought would happen to newspapers and got back silence.
Posted by: Mage Bailey | Friday, 19 June 2009 at 07:45 AM
I agree with everything Nancy says here. My friend’s feature articles for the Trenton Times have recently ended. The paper has become so skinny and sad looking. I continue to buy the paper, but miss so much of what they’ve cut. I cannot imagine my husband trying to start his day without the Star Ledger. We are not able to have it delivered to our home. He will sometimes travel to as many as 3 or 4 stores to find his paper. He does use the computer for many things, but will not for his newspaper. Thankfully, The Bucks County Courier Times, with the exception of eliminating Saturday’s edition, continues to meet our needs locally. I can’t imagine Sunday mornings yelling from one room to another something like…what paper are you reading?.. or.. here, let me have that section while you’re reading this, etc…
Posted by: Claire Jean | Friday, 19 June 2009 at 07:52 AM
Oops....I can’t imagine Sunday mornings NOT yelling from one room to another....
Posted by: Claire Jean | Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:01 AM
Beautifully stated!!!! My local newspaper grates on my last nerve because the reporters of today can't be bothered to run the spelling checker on the headlines. And they haven't a clue as to what a homophone is. It's a sad testimony to our educational system.
Posted by: Kay Dennison | Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:44 AM
I wish I could have the New York Times every day. Unfortunately, they don't deliver here where I live. The Seattle paper is not regional, mostly about the city of Seattle, and it is short on national and world news. I buy the Times when I go to the city (Bellingham), otherwise I have to depend on radio or the Internet.
I am certainly a reader, not a watcher, but I have to do a lot of my reading on-line these days, like it or not.
It's what I am doing now.
Posted by: Anne Gibert | Friday, 19 June 2009 at 10:32 AM
When the newspapers cut expenses by failing to fund the real journalists they cut their throats and cut meaningful news. Now all we get are the same stories from one paper to another copied from a syndicated source. How can we remain informed?
Posted by: Darlene | Friday, 19 June 2009 at 12:01 PM
Saul, it is my fervent wish, to one day, after years of experience, write as clearly and excellently as you do. I am a newspaper junkie, and spend hours perusing papers from everywhere. To make me happy, just bring me a newspaper from anywhere. I love the feel, the size, the stories, the ideas. I love reading your pieces.
Here's a hug from Montreal.
Posted by: doctafill | Friday, 19 June 2009 at 01:45 PM
What a wonderful, informative piece. Thank you for the education and the references, and the story.
I love reading the newspapers - although often run out of time. However, I completely agree that online news and blogging, though a great addition to the world of news, is no substitute for the reporting and information shared in the newspaper.
Posted by: Kimberly | Friday, 19 June 2009 at 03:49 PM
The Los Angeles Times has become a sad caricature of its former self after the Chicago Sun owner group took over -- infuriated me to think another major city group owned our newspaper.
What really has sickened me has been the constant turnover of Times editors and the never-ending release of newspaper staff depleting the number of news gatherers and quality writers.
I recall learning a few years ago of a Miami newspaper's owner/publisher who was accepting of "only" a 10% profit. Elsewhere newspaper publishers feeling pressed by Wall St. had to have more. Their papers were considered to be financial problems, and sometimes ceased publication. For the public good seems not to be a consideration.
Wall Street's greed for excessive profit has undermined the quality of all sorts of businesses, not just newspapers. You can be assured Health Care businesses are in that group, and we wonder what contributes to the high cost of our health care in this country when the quality ranks so low compared to many countries in the rest of the world.
One local newspaper covering a wide geographical area including and surrounding my community ceases to provide much of any news I haven't already learned elsewhere. I've thought I wasn't getting that much value from them for several years now, but maintained my home delivery subscription in hopes they could weather the news source transition and emerge a better paper. Sadly, I think I'm going to have to cancel the paper as that's not happening.
I'll keep the L.A. Times but even its future seems unclear and its content lacking. Am wavering on renewing the other major newspaper I receive. Publishing of my local family owned bi-weekly paper is now edited by the next generation, a journalism-experienced son who keeps the paper interesting and informative, so I'll continue that subscription.
I don't derive the pleasure reading news at the computer as I do with a newspaper in hand allowing me to most easily carry it with me -- anywhere.
All this is supplemented by commercial radio news and TV news mostly from PBS.
Radio was thought to not survive with the advent of television, but that proved to not be the case. Radio has its niche, but not as the primary news media for most Americans. I think newspapers, too, will survive, but as older generations are replaced by our now-younger generations, I believe newspapers will decline in number and will transition into an altered niche state.
I want to see these now unemployed newspaper journalists form viable news gathering and investigative groups to continue their fine work for the sake of our democracy. The challenge seems to be how they can be paid in a publishing forum the public -- readers such as myself -- can and will easily, readily access.
Thanks for all the intricate historical background on our newspapers evolution from someone who has been in the mix.
Posted by: joared | Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:49 PM
You have exposed the soft underbelly of capitalism, Saul. The same short-sightedness that has so hamstrung the news industry is hamstringing healthcare and various other important sectors.
Posted by: Cop Car | Friday, 19 June 2009 at 07:08 PM
So tragic that we're watching our newspapers wither away as talented, experienced journalists are being laid off across the country.
And, sadly, I agree with others who have pointed out that you can substitute many instances where the original intent of a business has been, as you said, "undermined by a focus on profit margin and stock price."
However, if "freedom of the press belongs to those who own one," I remain hopeful that the many opinions being expressed on the "free press" of the Internet will eventually have a positive result. It's a challenge to find the sites that offer worthwhile content, but we did find this one!
Posted by: Cynthia Friedlob | Friday, 19 June 2009 at 11:04 PM
A couple of years ago, I picked up from Ronni one of those internet memes that fly about about. This one was called "Media Consumption Diet". It asked us to explain what media we consumed, where we took in information, entertainment and stimulation. My answers are here. I tried to find Ronni's original answers just now, but the search function failed me.
Anyway, I think it would be interesting to start this one up again. I've seen some shifts in just two years; have others? Where do we get our information/entertainment these days? The categories were: web, music, radio, TV, communications, movies, magazines, newspapers and books.
That's a lot of input just to list! Anyway, I'm going to do this one again sometime next week on my blog and hope others will consider it. Even we elders change in this respect I think.
Posted by: janinsanfran | Saturday, 20 June 2009 at 08:47 AM
Great piece, Saul. Made me think that some journalist/historian could do a fascinating article that links the synchronicity of a city's demise with the same in its newspapers. Baltimore would be a good case study, one I watched with sadness over 30 years.
Living in New York City for almost 15 more, it's been dispiriting to watch the NY Times both shrink and try to attract a younger and younger audience--of non-readers. My hope is for an emergence of a new sort of free paper to rise out of the ashes.
Posted by: naomi dagen bloom | Sunday, 21 June 2009 at 11:28 PM