Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

No Business Like News Business

By John McManus, Grade the News. Posted February 3, 2006.


The speech Tony Ridder should've given to bidders for America’s second-largest newspaper company.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that executives at Knight Ridder Inc. have laid before potential purchasers a rosy scenario for boosting profits another 20 percent by cutting more journalists and news pages. Here's the talk Tony Ridder should have given his fellow moguls:

Now that I'm 65, I've come to believe that there's more to life than earning more money than you can possibly spend. (My neighbor, Larry Ellison, may disagree.) So I'm going to level with you.

You're familiar with the trends in newspapers -- falling circulation and ad revenue, increasing paper and fuel costs. But you may not be familiar with just how different a business news is from anything else you've run.

If your goal is to make as much money as you possibly can, take a pass on news.

Morgan Stanley estimates that Knight Ridder newspapers spend $350 million a year they don't have to. But the consultants don't understand journalism. That "surplus" spending is what it takes to produce the kind of journalism that has made America strong and rich. It's the reason Knight Ridder has won 84 Pulitzers over the years and Gannett -- which cuts $350 million worth of corners -- has won 45.

Here's what separates news from other businesses you've run. In every business but journalism, the customer is always right. The firm that best satisfies the customer wins the day. But journalism's codes of ethics require news media to disappoint their most important customers -- advertisers. You all know that advertisers provide more than 80 percent of our revenues. You may not know that most retailers want the news tailored to the ad -- to create interest in what's for sale. But news media that take the advertiser's point of view, and not the public's, violate ethical standards. If you uphold those standards, I guarantee that will lose you some advertising dollars.

Not only that, advertisers seek readers with good customer potential. They'll pay more for young people who are establishing homes and buying lots of stuff than for older folks at the end of their buying years.

If you want as many ad dollars as possible, you'll ignore the less affluent and older people in the community. But journalism has an obligation to serve everyone, not just the upscale.

Journalists are also required sometimes to disappoint their other essential customers -- readers. We've pledged in our codes of ethics to tell people what they need to know in order to be effective citizens. Yet on any given day, we could attract a larger audience with stories that merely amuse our readers.

Hell, we'll even disappoint your investors: Often, what readers need to know is hidden by the powerful. Exposing corruption costs much more -- in staff size, expertise and time -- than rewriting press releases and the police blotter.

I don't know if you read any newspapers other than the Wall Street Journal. But last week our San Jose Mercury News provided a terrific example of why journalism isn't a great business. We assigned one of our best-paid reporters, Fredric Tulsky, to do almost nothing else for three years but study the criminal court system in Santa Clara County. Mr. Tulsky tells me his series cost the paper $400,000.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Knight Ridder Delimma
Posted by: focus on Feb 4, 2006 9:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every day I find myself turning away from sloppy news reporting as I search diligently for decent and more indepth reporting. I cannot find it on NPR nor or CNN or CNN Newsradio that now claims to be "The most trusted name in news". Cable News and yes, even the revered CSPAN are suspect. I gave up on the NY Times over a year ago because of Judith Miller and other overt bias towards or aquience to government propaganda.


Your analysis of the public eventually turning against propaganda has me worried. I suppose it will happen, but I believe the social cost will be very high. I agree that the agenda of keeping us entertained will work for awhile and that any person who is living on junk food will eventually get sick and either die or fight to live. I hope sloppy news reporting (propaganda outposts) will eventually wither and die because of lack interest and the reporters themselves gain or regain some sense of press integrity. By that time, starving and broken-willed masses might begin to fight to stay alive by finding outlets that deliver what we need to know.

Knight Ridder may go the way of other trustworthy news outlets. After all, that may be part of the larger agenda. We as a society will lose. Knight Ridder also will lose in the end and all the money in the world that its new owners hoard won't save them and their progeny inside their gated communities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just the facts, ma'am
Posted by: anothername on Feb 5, 2006 5:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Executives of companies have said they find young hirees incapable of looking at the long term. Many high school graduates have said they want to understand the interconnection of politics. A strong news media matters to the bottom line of corporate America. Unfortunately, executive bonuses are tied to short time action.

(It is not uncommon for executives to develop a list of objectives for the coming year and have their bonus based on the completion of those tasks. Thus, an executive starts a recycling program, but no one cares about it afterwards and recycling stops. Similar things happen in news media.)

The "human interest" side of reporting has caused much of the decay in journalism and reporting. I have complained about this to deans of journalism schools and to news outlets. When I was growing up, the lede included who, what, where, why, when and the most important facts and reasons of a story were in the top part of the article. In recent years, I have called publishers to complain when I had to read three-fourths of the way through articles just to find out what the article was about.

Here is an example from today's Women's E-News. The title is "Women coffee growers find new freedom in Peru." This is the first paragraph: "Her hands move methodically down the branch, raking the red coffee cherries into the basket around her neck. She moves to the next branch, demonstrating the work of harvesting coffee. Watching her dexterity and strength, one would never guess that Rosa Cantalina Sanchez is 66 years old."

At the end of the sixth paragraph comes the point of the article: "The fair trade co-ops have traditionally been a man's world supported by women's sweat, but in Peru things are changing for Sanchez and hundreds of women like her: They are demanding their own profit from their labor."

Similarly, polls of readers show they connect with human interest stories, but one person's tragedy is not news. The same tragedy befalling millions of people is news, particularly if it is caused wi-fi transmissions (being precautionary here using wi-fi as an example, but you could easily substitute artificial estrogens, nuclear waste, genetically-modified food, and so forth). Yet, the news media has bought into the entertainment side of media, going 4-color, cutting the length of articles, and forgetting about the news part of the story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Knight-Ridder is Trustworthy We Are In Big Trouble!
Posted by: dlf on Feb 5, 2006 5:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've told this story before but, I guess I have to tell it again. In 1985 there was a big immigration raid at Santa Anita Racetrack in Arcadia, California (where I was a groom). I came to the attention of one of the reporters for the local Knight-Ridder paper (can't remember the name). After a lengthy lunchtime interview the writer thanked me for giving him such insight into the problem of illegal immigration at the track. B.J. Ridder was a prominent horsemen at the time. He had a large private stable, which mostly employed Hispanics and a few Whites. My interview was never run by the paper. And that was the beginning of the "Americans don't want to do this work" and "Racing would collapse if we couldn't hire illegals" chant. As someone who saw Americans coming for those jobs everyday in 1985, I knew that wasn't true, but that isn't the message Knight-Ridder wanted spread then, and I'd be willing to bet they still aren't spreading it now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]