Print on the Precipice

Just when it seemed the bloodshed in the American media could not get any worse, several major print publications face life-or-death struggles in the year 2014: The Wall Street Journal, Time magazine and sister Time Inc. publications, the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, and Forbes magazine. There’s reason to be optimistic that Jeff Bezos will be a benevolent owner of The Washington Post, but it’s also possible he will seek to submerge it into his larger ambitions at Amazon.com. In short, there is a major reshuffling of the ownership structures of many major publications underway and we, as journalists, should pay close attention. Changes in ownership might be positive — or they might be disastrous. Consider the grievous damage that one billionaire, Sam Zell, inflicted on some of the nation’s finest newspapers, which was almost as bad as what Gannett did to dozens of other newspapers in the previous two decades.

I hear people say, “Who cares about the print media? Get with the modern era.” But I argue that serious journalism still gets done at print publications or news organizations where seasoned reporters and editors engage in contentious but ultimately valuable processes that winnow away the chaff and zero in on something approaching truth. Some of the journalism that gets done online is ephemeral and merely reacts to what print publications create, either negatively or positively, and usually along ideological lines. It’s tremendously chic at the moment to give and receive Tweets and Likes and Links, but they represent little more than a giant echo chamber.

The struggles that face major publications this year could represent a decisive blow against what remains of quality American journalism. Yes, Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters are strong, but they almost exclusively reach audiences that can afford to pay for their news. The broader body politic does not draw much benefit from their work. The overall situation has reached such a critical stage that journalists must raise their voices to express concern about the decisions that corporate and family owners are making and to warn the American people that the information they consume, like the air they breathe, could take a turn for the worse.

In brief:

  • Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation last year split off its film and television businesses from its publishing interests, most prominently the Journal. This was done at least in part because Murdoch was worried about the legal liabilities arising from the hacking scandal at his British newspapers. Insiders say those liabilities could reach into the billions of dollars. Murdoch has created a legal defense by decoupling himself from that exposure. But the Journal is in harm’s way. Like some other owners, Murdoch is saying he does not see the profit potential in print publications, so that’s another justification for abandoning them.
  • In coming months, media conglomerate Time Warner will spin off Time Inc. into a separate company that includes Time, People, Sports Illustrated, Fortune and other publications. The key decision will be how much debt to load onto the books of Time Inc. Too much debt almost certainly guarantees the failure of Time, which already has been showing signs of editorial instability. The rationale, once again, is that the print publications are not profitable enough. Part of the proposed solution is to have the editorial staffs of these magazines report directly to business executives, which is a surefire method to drive them into the muck.
  • The Tribune Company plans to separate eight newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and Baltimore Sun from the more profitable digital and television businesses. The New York Times quotes industry analysts as saying that will threaten the survival of those newspapers, which once were among the finest in the land.
  • The Forbes family is seeking to exit from Forbes magazine and forbes.com. Forbes hasn’t been at the heart of business journalism in recent years, but it is still a voice at a time when the media needs all the voices it can retain. The Forbes family obviously wants top dollar for these assets, which suggests a new buyer will taken on lots of debt and demand higher rates of return from the business, a formula that simply does not work.
  • Gannett, which destroyed so many fine newspapers such as the Louisville Courier-Journal, where I once interned, recently announced that it was going to include some content from its flagship USA Today in its regional newspapers, which smells like cost-cutting. They’ll need fewer reporters and photographers at local newspapers if the staff of USA Today is producing the “content.” Meanwhile, I see stacks of free USA Today’s available at many airports and hotels but few people reading them.

 

What’s missing in the vast majority of these cases is an attempt to create impactful journalism, the sort that demands the attention of readers, listeners and viewers. The pillagers think that quality journalism isn’t important, which is why a cereal executive was brought in at one point to mismanage The Los Angeles Times.

The most powerful tool journalists have is explaining to the owners, whether new or old, whether family or corporate, that they must include vibrant journalism in their business plans or they are doomed to failure. If they refuse, we must raise our voices and create a backlash against them among political circles and whatever vestiges remain of a civil society. I don’t think it is presumptuous to say that the future of American democracy depends on it.