You haven’t read much in The Eagle about what’s going on with parent Knight Ridder, which is under pressure by some shareholders to sell the company. That’s because none of us knows anything. But columnist Leonard Pitts, based at Knight Ridder’s The Miami Herald, used the uncertainty to make a potent statement about newspapers in general.
After recalling how a photographer for the Knight Ridder-owned Sun-Herald in Biloxi, Miss., handed out copies of the newspaper to Katrina victims for whom it was a precious lifeline, Pitts wrote: “Years before I ever drew a paycheck in this industry I was convinced that newspapers — and, more broadly, the news — are not a business. They are a mission — a vital, irreducible mission.”
He’s right about that. The thing is, Wall Street’s concern is not whether newspapers fulfill their mission over time but how much money newspapers make today.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Raptor on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- BobChi on Moran correct about Cuba
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
28 Comments
Journalism? A noble profession? There’s actually something more important than money? These words from a Knight-Ridder employee? Shhh…don’t let anybody there know you’re actually human, LOL.
For a very thorough and scholarly treatment on this very subject see:
“Knightfall: Knight-Ridder and how the Erosion of Newspaper Journalism is Putting Democracy at Risk” – by former Eagle Publisher – Davis Merritt.
Sounds kind of like a grandiose title/self-description, i.e., a defender of democracy, but the book had me believing it. What’s interesting is that most newspapers have been able to fulfill their public service missions and generate a reasonable 15% margin. The problem seems to come about when greater profits are demanded by holding companies and stock-holders.
Seems to be another example of service to corporations outweighing service to the public. I wonder when these priorities will get straightened out?
I, for one, would miss the paper if it folded.
Word on the street is that Google is really thinking about buying Knight-Ridder.
Has something to do with news content and doing something new with it. THey are keeping it kind of secret, but knowing Google, its going to be fantatic.
Thank you, Joe Williams.
I read the first article in the link and it does seem like uniforms have an intuitive appeal. I am wondering if more than anecdotal (”it’s better now than if was before uniforms”) types of research have been done on this subject. I will have to look into that the next time I’m at the WSU library.
Addressed to the right person, but posted on the wrong thread –SORRY!
Below is a question and reply from Jay Rosen, professor of journalism at NYU. Today he was on-line with Washingtonpost.com.
Hey Rhonda, given his answer, do you think you and your compatriots, could make a bid to purchase the Eagle? I know that Wall Street is used to 35% returns from pharmaceutical companies and 75% from microsoft, but I keep thinking that businesses doing a 10 to 15% return ought to be able to keep their doors open.
Maybe it would have to be a not-for-profit .org that is bound by law to keep its returns at 10% or under.
Food for thought, at least.
[NOTE: it was the washingtonpost.com editors who mangled the KS abreviation, not me]
Wichita, Kasn.: We hear from our local newspaper, that Knight-Ridder may be up for sale because it can’t meet its public service mission AND its mission to return profits. Is there a way that both missions can be met in today’s market-driven environment, or is such a solution a pipe dream?
Thank you.
Jay Rosen: There may be no way the public service mission can be met and the demands of Wall Street satisfied. Newspapers have been sustained at an artificially high rate of return– 20 percent or more. It’s not possible to maintain it, but Wall Street won’t hear of it. I wrote this week about an alternative– sell all 32 papers in Knight-Ridder to local owners who might operate at 10 percent margins and display a civic conscience
See the whole on-line discussion at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/11/14/DI2005111400854.html
It used to be assumed that if you provided a valuable service to your community and managed your business properly and ethically, you’d make a reasonable profit, stay in business and continue to provide it. Boy, those days are gone! Today, a reasonable profit has come to mean all you can grab, and hyping the public and screwing your competitors is the means to grab it.In the news business, this has been disastrous! Newspapers have become conglomerates where businessmen use the methods of supermarket tabloids to sell their customers whatever adds zeros to their bottom line.Information used to be a rare and valuable commodity. Now there is such a glut of data that the average consumer doesn’t know what to believe, and the people who should be sorting it out and verifying and putting it into perspective have been sold to corporate interests who couldn’t care less about what’s true and what isn’t, just what sells.News somehow has to be put back in the hands of reputable journalists in a whole new structure that isn’t beholden to anyone and isn’t prone to manipulation, where all sides of an issue are fairly presented and debated. How such a structure would be set up, I don’t know. I just know it’s necessary that we have it if we’re to remain a free nation.
Jed,You are on the money. In fact, a LOT of what is wrong in this country today is rooted in businessmen being only interested in adding zeros to their bottom line. How about outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries, for example? (Of course, many of us are a part of this problem – do you participate in a 401K plan with Wall Street investments?) But in order to reverse the trend & to keep our country free, we MUST have a free press, unencumbered by the demands of Wall Street.
Here is a link to a more detailed local strategy that Rosen is advising:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-rosen/the-main-street-strategy-_b_10953.html
If Wichita were to pursue this option, any bets who the number one local buyer might be? Can’t you just see it now? The Koch Wichita Eagle & Flint Hills Institute of Kritical Thinking . . . Excuse me, I am going to be ill.
With Koch owning Georgia Pacific, one of their companies can feed the other (the Eagle) what it spends the most money on — paper!
The only problem is the quality of information we will get might just go down the toilet. . . Just maybe . . ., or should I predict, WITHOUT DOUBT, IT WILL . . .
Another link on this fascinating subject:
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/08/18/introduction_ghost.html
Darkstar,Yeah, that’s the problem, and it’s a problem of structure. The market (stockholders) can’t seem to see past the next quarter. It takes an independent businessman to do that, and only a few of those can survive in this supersized economy (the Wal-Mart syndrome).What we need is to be informed by competent sources that don’t have a financial or political stake in what we know or don’t know. Various models have been tried for a non-profit news service, and none have been spectacularly successful, probably because they were tried by idealists, not business people.Now, with so many people hooked up to the internet, it seems a new type of news service might be possible that wouldn’t require as much initial investment to attain a large circulation as a print media would, and hopefully, a large enough number of them so as to make it impossible for a few to dominate the market. Cable news services have already taken a few steps in this direction, but we need a lot more!In the meantime, the various journalistic ethics organizations need to grow teeth and chow down on all the shady practices that are used by corporate news to promote agendas and sell advertising.
Demon Cable now wants to destroy local television, too.A House draft of the next digital tv bill would give cable companies the option to drop local stations in 2013.Right now Cox wants $70,000 a month for the three stations that aren’t on cable to get on cable…how many local stations do you think could survive that kind of robbery?
Mr.,You are quite right about the cable providers- they are the same kind of sharks corporate newspapers have become. I was speaking of cable news providers though, not the cable companies, and I think the internet is the way to go. Local sevices on line could get together to provide an AP and CNN type of national and international service to customers, with local editing. There’s space for a lot of those on line.
This is not unique to the newspaper business – value and return to shareholders drives virtually all industries these days. Media is no different, and as a publicly owned company, shouldn’t be treated any differently than other publicly owned companies.
British paper: Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1123/dailyUpdate.html
{ Al Jazeera is the most respected newscaster worldwide }
“The five-page memo – stamped “Top Secret” – records a threat by Bush to unleash “military action” against the TV station, which America accuses of being a mouthpiece for anti-US sentiments.”
Now somebody tell me this man Bush is not out of his mind.
Granted, GW Bush is the most hostile to the press president, ever — he even makes Nixon look like a sweetheart. And the idea of bombing innocent civilians is not a real good one — but at least consistent with Bush’s disdain for the press.
Having said all of the above, did it not annoy anyone else that Al Jazeera always found a way to accept by courier and then broadcast all of those bin Laden videos. Heck, I figured if Bush was really serious about catching bin Laden, he would set up a stake-out on the Al Jazeera studios and follow the couriers back to Osama, himself.
Steven
It’s called “The News”
Ed,Ok, bin Laden is newsworthy. I am sure that any network here would love to have his videos.
It’s just that it seemed Al Jazeera functioned as the Al Qaeda propoganda arm. I don’t think that justifies murdering innocent civilians. But, I recall finding how embedded the netork seemed to be with Al Qaeda annoying.
Steven
After reading American newpapers the truth seems like propaganda.
When was the last time you read anything criticizing Israel in the United States?
They murder Palestinians everyday, ever read about it?
The “slip” billions out of congress, ever read about it?
2.5 billion last week, did you read about it?
1.6 trillion since 1973 and that would pay for SS, ever read about it?
1.6 trillion is a lot of money, newsworthy?
Ed,I have read your posts and am therefore familiar with your views on Israel & zionism.
I think that these subjects are a little off-topic on this thread; which started out as a discussion of the dual role of American newspapers mission of informing the citizenry and making a profit.
I am doubting that I could ever have you come over to my viewpoint, nor me to yours.
Thanks for the above link to the Christian Science Monitor article.
Regards.
Barbara,No, it’s not unique to the press. The difference is that we expect the other industries to lie to us (it’s called public relations). When the press loses it’s credibility, we’re all in trouble, and fair game for propagandists and fearmongers. The media’s first responsibility is to it’s readers, not it’s bottom line!
Steven
Do you think someone came up to the Al Jazeera studios and said: Hi, I,m from Bin Laden and here’s a tape?
I’m sure those tapes were delivered in an untraceable way.
{ There’s 25 million on his head, and I’m sure most Arabs would not turn him in, thou some might }
We got Saddam, and a lot of good that did. Bin Laden is only the tip of Arab anger as we’ve been killing Arabs for a very long time.
We are seeing the “insurgency” grow in Iraq as we keep murdering Iraqis.
Jed & Barbara,What is unique about newspapers is that they are given a not-for-profit mission of informing the citizenry, but are told they should do it in a for-profit manner. They are being held to profit margins that are not sustainable year after year. Because television news can make good profits, it is assumed newspapers can do the same, which I don’t believe they can.
There are some inherent conflicts in holding one’s self out as a guardian of democracy and fulfilling this role as a for-profit enity.
should be “entity”
To predict where newspapers are going, interpolate from the past. In the 1950’s and 60’s, most sizable cities had at least two major newspapers, presumably a liberal and conservative paper, one a morning, the other an afternoon paper. In Wichita, the Eagle and Beacon. In Kansas City, Missouri, the morning Times and afternoon Star, actually with two staffs of reporters competing against each other.
In Kansas City, the suburbs also had sizable newspapers: the Independence Examiner, the Kansas City Kansan, the Olathe Times, Lees Summit Journal, Shawnee Journal-Herald, etc. Also the neighborhoods had smaller newspapers also with news content, editorials and advertising.
Then TV stations began cutting into the advertising market and, later, cable TV carved out more of the advertising dollar.
The problem with TV is that it doesn’t leave a record so isn’t held by its customers to accuracy and coverage. In fact, much TV and radio news comes from newspaper reporters.
The newest trend in news is two-way conversation between the reporter and reportee. The public realizes it has been spoon fed agenda-biased information with little opportunity to “talk back.”
Blogs are a fast growing phenomena that are rapidly changing the entire public conversation on issues and information. No more can an editorialist spout his line with no possibility of retort. The old 1950’s textbook on how “public opinion” is formed and disseminated will have to be re-written.
The other trend is towards a paperless society. This would seem to predict the end of newspapers as we know them in the next decade or so.
And the plague of lower profits might mean that newspaper ownership might go to the employees and community supporters. In Kansas City, the descendents of William Rockhill Nelson, founder of the Kansas City STAR, sold the newspaper to the employees back in the 1940’s or so. Years later, perhaps in the 1970’s, the employees sold the newspaper to Knight-Ridder or its predecessor. Also the Kansas City STAR did own its own paper mill in the State of Washington but I am not up to date if that is still the case.
What JWink is describing above, the move toward blogs & feedback from the public, has been called promoting a “transparent newsroom”. This change has raised concerns among journalists as noted in the following quote:”I’ve heard from several critics who worry that a more open newsroom will somehow cede control of ‘professional’ journalism to the mob. They say we’ll lose authorship of the news we produce.”
For a discussion on this topic from a former Wichita Eagle reporter, see the following:
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/