More Cutbacks at the News Widget Factory

There’s a reason I paid $210 last summer to renew my subscription to the Wall Street Journal, as opposed to subscribing to my local hometown newspaper (the Orlando Sentinel) for what would have been a third or maybe even a quarter of the price. The Wall Street Journal offered (and hopefully will continue to offer) meaty, substantial coverage of national, international and business news in a straightforward and thorough manner. I saw no hint of watered-down stories or sensationalized headlines. I bought into the Wall Street Journal brand.

Most city newspapers long ago began to imitate the model of television news; short, punchy stories that offered plenty of facts and juicy soundbites, but little in the way of context or meaning, apart from a condescending cluck or shake of the head ( “Isn’t That Tragic?”). And any attempts at feature stories or investigative reporting that would lend context or meaning were marred by marketing and sales techniques that created sensational headlines, promos and pictures.

Conventional wisdom says that this is what “sells papers.” Conventional wisdom envisions a man at a newsstand who sees a sensational headline and accompanying image and who succumbs to his baser instincts and plops down seventy five cents for the privilege of reading about a grandmother gunned down gangland style.

Maybe that wisdom is true. Maybe there is a robust, vital market for sensationalist rags.

But here’s the thing: Sam Zell mentioned in a speech to Los Angeles Times staffers how important their brand was (I provide the link to the YouTube video, but watch at your own risk: it’s difficult to stomach seeing corporate suck-ups guffaw every time Mr. Zell says “fuck” or “shit”). And independent newspaper analyst John Morton reinforces that concept: “To the extent you diminish your product, I think you diminish your success, in print or online… In the long run, it’s going to be harmful to newspapers’ brand names, which is the strongest thing they’ve got.”

But according to an article in Monday’s New York Times, that’s exactly what Sam Zell is doing with his properties. By reducing staff, reducing pages, and adding more charts, graphs and “other easily digested elements that surveys show readers like” (don’t get me started on how useful surveys are), he’s further diluting the product that his brand represents, particularly, as pointed out by the article, to his most loyal and affluent readers, who are a prime target for potential advertisers.

Mr. Zell seems to view his media companies more like widget factories than anything else. Chief operating officer Randy Michaels justified staff cuts by concluding that reporters weren’t outputting enough product. It makes one wonder by what standards he would judge that. Perhaps the task of writing could be made more efficient through division of labor; Mr. Michaels might hire nine cheaper laborers, placed on an assembly line and each responsible for only one part of speech.

The result is more likely to be short, punchy wire stories, interspersed with so-called feature stories that rely on salaciousness to sell them. It’s a method that will destroy the brands of most respected big city newspapers subjected to this kind of management.

I don’t know what the newspaper business is like. I’m not looking at a balance sheet for the Tribune company. Even experts on the industry don’t seem to know of a better solution. But diluting your product isn’t the answer. “Most readers of newspapers really only consume a small fraction of what the newspaper produces,” says Allen H. Neuharth, inventor of the oh-so-colorful USA Today, in an uninformed comment on the matter. A strong newspaper offers more than just a culled summary of events, designed to be skimmed over by Everyman. It offers first rate reporting on local and regional issues. It offers a way for residents of cities across the country to connect to national and international affairs. And most important, it serves as a publication of record. Not everyone is going to read every story in a newspaper, Mr. Neuharth, of course not. But every story published will be read by someone and will be researched by someone of a future generation. It is of critical importance that facts, analysis and evaluation of the important issues of our day are recorded in a meaningful, significant way.