Recently two highly respected journalists — one on the left and
one towards the right — tried to make a case for saving the
business that has been their bread and butter: newspapers. They
both failed.
Syndicated columnists Leonard Pitts, Jr., the liberal Pulitzer
Prize winner whose home paper is the Miami Herald, and
conservative-leaning Kathleen Parker, who writes for the
Orlando Sentinel and 325-or-so other newspapers, wrote
about the alleged indispensability of the media models they are
anchored to. Pitts called newspapers “a vital, irreducible mission.”
Parker said they were “necessary,” primarily because of their
service to their communities.
With due respect to both writers, they sound more like union
laborers trying to hang on to their buggy whip manufacturing jobs
rather than the professional persuaders that they are supposed to
be. That’s because they are wedded to a media delivery format that
is quickly going the way of the horse-drawn carriage. Somewhat
surprisingly, these two usually perceptive and insightful
commentators are completely in the dark about it.
In his column Pitts emphasized the need for newspapers in
situations like the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when many
victims lost communication with the rest of the country. When some
Mississippians showed their “amazing” gratitude for receiving
copies of the Biloxi Sun Herald, Pitts called it a
much-needed “pep talk” for newspaper employees.
“I find myself returning to that post-Katrina episode a lot
lately as people in the newspaper business try to make me feel
better about working in the newspaper business,” Pitts wrote.
He cited the uncertainty in the business, particularly
illustrated by a recent drive by the Knight Ridder (the
second-largest newspaper publisher in the country and owner of the
Herald) board of directors to explore a sale of the
company. Despite maintaining profits as high as 20 percent, Pitts
said media corporations are cutting staff and benefits at papers
because revenue is down — as is readership.
For her part, Parker bemoaned “cubicled and corporatized”
newsrooms that have come to resemble “morgues.” She blamed the
“calculator crowd” for cutbacks in response to that diminished
readership, which is coupled with lower advertising revenue.
“To those in the trenches (i.e., reporters), cutting staff is
exactly the wrong solution, more like a self-inflicted wound
trending toward suicide than a remedy,” Parker wrote. “By cutting
newsroom staffs, the corporate suits are reducing the likelihood
that papers can do what makes them necessary.”
The common theme between Pitts’s and Parker’s arguments is that
newspapers deserve to survive because, well, they’re newspapers.
According to Parker, “newspapers serve their communities in ways
that can’t be replicated by bloggers…or by anyone else. They not
only help define a given community, but also serve as both
government watchdog and information conduit. They have the
resources to investigate, to report, to inform as no other entity
can, does, or will.”
But the two columnists suffer from an entitlement mentality,
believing that their mode of information transmission is worthy of
preservation despite whether there is a demand for it. They are
basically saying the market be damned; newspapers are a necessary
public service, regardless of the costs or the public’s appetite
for them.
Consider this parallel: telephone communication would likewise
be considered a vital and important service in our current culture,
wouldn’t it? But with the development of cellular telephones,
e-mail, and instant messaging as popular alternatives, should
cutting employees associated with traditional land line service be
regarded as “a self-inflicted wound trending toward suicide”? Did
the “corporate suits” at now-dead AT&T, for example, cut staff
and keep the company from doing “what makes them necessary”?
I’m not one of those who are convinced that newspapers are dead,
but they are undergoing a necessary transformation. The ones with
smart leadership are adapting to what the public wants: fair,
compelling and succinct writing, relevant and entertaining stories,
delivered increasingly through multiple methods in an electronic
format.
Bloggers and alternative media forced the acceleration of this
change. Contrary to Parker’s claims, they are government
watchdogs, and they keep a needed eye on mainstream journalism as
well — which seems to have a difficult time policing itself. They
are doing what good competition always does: improving overall
service, filling market demands, and forcing the established
industry giant to adapt and improve themselves. Now newspapers are
hiring their own bloggers and in larger cities, they post instant
news reports on their websites.
Considering the market forces, Knight Ridder selling its
newspapers may be a good thing. Instead of having owners unhappy
with their investment, perhaps they will get one(s) with realistic
expectations about their financial returns.
Whatever happens, media consumers will gravitate to what they
want. It’s up to the industry to adapt.
