Open Letter about the Tribune Company

[Del_B_Vista]

I commend to your attention Rinker Buck's open letter to his publisher-to-be about the Tribune business model. Passionate plea about the state of newspapering, courtesy Romenesko.

P.S. I'd also recommend Buck's book "Shane Comes Home" about the first casualty of the current Iraq war.

 

[slappy4428]

Outstanding letter and an even better close -- not that he'll get an answer..

"Why does a company that owns so many newspapers detest them so?"

 

[Chi City 81]

Outstanding letter and an even better close -- not that he'll get an answer..

"Why does a company that owns so many newspapers detest them so?"

Great letter.

Oh, he'll get an answer, slap. It will be, "You're fired."

 

[21]

Was that written to appear specifically on Poynter?

 

[Gold]

While going through newspapers of the past 10 days or so, I noticed in the LA Times that a group of 20 prominent Los Angeles citizens, including Warren Christopher, signed a letter objecting to proposed editorial reductions at the Los Angeles Times.

 

[Kid Presentable]

He used the word "elan" twice.

 

[Del_B_Vista]

Was that written to appear specifically on Poynter?

I'm sure that's one of the reasons he wrote it, but I'm sure it went to the publisher-to-be, too. I'd like to think a guy who can write like him wouldn't have much trouble finding a job if they can him for it, but I'm not so sure these days in newspapers.

 

[Starman]

Was that written to appear specifically on Poynter?

I'm sure that's one of the reasons he wrote it, but I'm sure it went to the publisher-to-be, too. I'd like to think a guy who can write like him wouldn't have much trouble finding a job if they can him for it, but I'm not so sure these days in newspapers.

Most newspapers don't have room for 50,000-word manifestos.

I agree with him every word of the way, but it was alllllllllllllllllllllll toooooooooooooooooooooooo muuuuuuuuuuccccccccchhhhhhhhh.

Plus, a waste of time -- the beancounting drones calling the shots don't give a **** about any of that stuff.

 

[STLIrish]

Quite a letter. My favorite line: "You're wasting your investment in me."
I'm sure he's not the only newspaperman who feels that way.

 

[SoCalScribe]

Too bad suits don't look at journos that way. To cost-cutting newspaper execs, a full-time employee with benefits seems to be seen as a liability, not an asset.

 

[jfs1000]

I want to believe in this noble journalism and serving the community, but as my journalism professor said -- "The reason a newspaper exists is to make money."

That is why Tribune is in it. That is what the purpose is for. If it doesn't make money, then the paper won't last. Tribune wants it to make more money. That is the world we live in. Newspapers are a business.

And on the Courant: Why should the Tribune staff be immune to what is happening industry wide? Are they somehow special?

If you look at the state of newspapers in Connecticut, it is an absolute bloodbath. Journal Register Corporation has destroyed a handful of dailes. Gannett's Norwich paper is struggling and the building is falling apart. The Manchester Journal Inquirer (family owned) hasn't given their staff a raise in over 4 years -- not cost of living or anything. The Register (JRC owned) is known to do layoffs through attrition (not replacing staff).

The only paper that works is The Day, and that is because it is owned by a trust and doesn't have ridiculous profit goals.

Just sports with the Courant spends a fortune on travel: They travel with Yanks, Red Sox, Pats, Giants, as well as all the major UConn sports.

And does Tribune still give away a yearly Christimas Bonus?

Listen, if this was a unique situation for the Tribune company, I would be a lot more sympathetic. But this is happening across the board. Why should Tribune be different?

 

[BTExpress]

And does Tribune still give away a yearly Christimas Bonus?

Still?

I've been with Tribune 23 years. Never seen a Christmas bonus.

 

[jfs1000]

And does Tribune still give away a yearly Christimas Bonus?

Still?

I've been with Tribune 23 years. Never seen a Christmas bonus.

Bad info I guess. Or maybe it was the old owners at the Courant. Regardless, my point stands.

This is happening across the field. Did everyone at Tribune not see this coming? I agree with the points and it is unfortunate, but you can't expect the newspaper to be immune from what is plauging the field.

Tribune answers to its stockholders, not the public. The employees are just an expense on a balance sheet.

By laying off a newsrom staffer, does that somehow stop people from buying the paper? Over time and with enough cuts, yes quality will suffer to the point its losing readership. But the Courant hasn't economically suffered since its last round of layoffs.

Has quality suffered? Yes. But they still charge the same price, and have the same advertising rates. I don't get to buy it for 40 cents now. The market isn't going to differentiate between the pre-layoff Courant and the post-layoff Courant.

Laying off is good business practice.

The only way to stop this is with a strong FCC. We dont' have that, and it is the public that suffers.

 

[OTD]

The only way to stop this is with a strong FCC. We dont' have that, and it is the public that suffers.

You think the FCC will do anything about layoffs at newspapers?

This is happening across the field. Did everyone at Tribune not see this coming? I agree with the points and it is unfortunate, but you can't expect the newspaper to be immune from what is plauging the field.

What Baquet and the guy from Hartford and others are trying to do is point out that layoffs haven't helped the newspaper business at all. Stocks aren't higher (particularly TRB), circulation isn't up or anything. It's a short-term goose to the stock price in some cases.

What might work is that with a better product, more people might find our content (whether on the web on on newsprint) worth paying for. And despite what that Tribune suit says, yes, sometimes more people DO mean a better paper. There's no reason to send five guys to cover a prep water polo game, but in general, the more people you have, the more thorough job you can do.

I want to believe in this noble journalism and serving the community, but as my journalism professor said -- "The reason a newspaper exists is to make money."

I'd like to meet that professor. And kick his ass.

 

[jfs1000]

The only way to stop this is with a strong FCC. We dont' have that, and it is the public that suffers.

You think the FCC will do anything about layoffs at newspapers?

This is happening across the field. Did everyone at Tribune not see this coming?  I agree with the points and it is unfortunate, but you can't expect the newspaper to be immune from what is plauging the field.

What Baquet and the guy from Hartford and others are trying to do is point out that layoffs haven't helped the newspaper business at all. Stocks aren't higher (particularly TRB), circulation isn't up or anything. It's a short-term goose to the stock price in some cases.

What might work is that with a better product, more people might find our content (whether on the web on on newsprint) worth paying for. And despite what that Tribune suit says, yes, sometimes more people DO mean a better paper. There's no reason to send five guys to cover a prep water polo game, but in general, the more people you have, the more thorough job you can do.

I want to believe in this noble journalism and serving the community, but as my journalism professor said -- "The reason a newspaper exists is to make money."

I'd like to meet that professor. And kick his ass.

On the FCC: It won't prevent layoffs, but you have to admit the huge media compaines coming into markets buying newspapers, radio stations and television outlets has had an negative impact on journalism, and standards. Having Tribune own the Courant and two television stations in a single market is not in the public good. Who questions the Courant? There isn't an alternative voice to this media giant in many places. Tribune is one of the biggest problems with the newspaper business.

The FCC shouldn't have allowed these mega companies to come in and overwhelm local owership of the media. That is not in the public interest. The synergy is killing local news in this market.

On layoff's: And you think increased and better product will suddenly bring people back to newspapers? Pie in the sky. Maybe at a local owned paper where small rises in cirulation and advertising can help increase the bottom line. But to make it worthwhile to Tribune it would have to be a significant increase at multiple papers, in multiple states.

Can you gurantee a significant circ bump? That is not a risk you take as a business. Tribune doesn't care about its Pulitzer Prize. What good is it to them if they lose money?  People who buy stock expect a return on their invetment. They want earnings. The best way to make earnings look better is to cut expense. Layoffs don't cut into revenue, so as long as the paper is getting out, what's the difference?

A garbage product?

To us, it is a big difference because we take pride in our work and believe that we are doing something for the good of our community.

Tribune, and other conglomerates, could careless. They would sell snake oil if it made money.

Tribune owns everything in the Hartford marke. If I don't like the quality, where am I supposed to go? If I want any local news, I have to buy the Courant anyway, even if it is bad. Be lucky they haven't started slashing salaries like other places.

And now onto my Professor:

His point is valid and never more true. He said the thing abut making money that after he asked the class what we thought the reason for a newspapers existence is.

You may want to kick his ass, but don't say its not true.

What motivates the owners, publishers and stockholders is a return on investment. This is a money making enterprise. All this nobility about the profession is window dressing. We believe it, but the guys who write the checks don't care.

If a paper loses money, it will eventually fold no matter how good the quality is. 


It would be wise to view what happens in the field through that prism. They don't share the same goals as ours.

We are in a business.

 

[jfs1000]

OTD:

I think we are on the same side, I am just a lot more cynical than you. The letter struck me as a bit naive. What does he expect a multinational corporation to do when it has reduced revenue? It lays off and get rids of future liabilities from its balance sheet.

Snapping the fingers, it makes itself better financially. Think about the healthcare expenses that will be saved for the company alone.  It is expensive to employ people.

That is Accounting 101. Salary is the biggest expense.

I am not on Tribune's side. I actually detest what they are doing to journalism. 

I just would like everyone to acknowledge the reality of the current situation. Our job doesn't affect the bottom line. Indeed, we are expendable. The goals of a journalist and the business man are quite different.

I wish we could write and report our way out of this situation. That is not the case, better quality won't help us. 

 

[OTD]

Your point about common ownership is valid, but it's not the FCC. It's the tone of the federal government. Ever since Reagan's presidency, (and yes, I include the Clinton era in this) mergers of all kinds have been pretty much winked-at.

Yes, I think if we give people, for want of a phrase, better journalism, circulation will increase. Right now, people in towns with newspapers that just superficially cover the news have no reason to subscribe. They can get that **** off the web. We need to provide more stuff than the AP stories on yahoo.com.

And as far as your professor goes, newspapers don't exist to make money. They must make money to exist, and their investors deserve a return. But if all you want to do is make money, this is the wrong business. Start a shopper, open a porn site on the web or become a government contractor in Iraq. That's where the money is. A newspaper should make money, but it should also serve the public interest. At least that's what they told ME in journalism school.

 

[DyePack]

A newspaper should make money, but it should also serve the public interest. At least that's what they told ME in journalism school.

You left out the goal of making pretty design. That alone keeps newspapers vibrant in our communities and results in the sale of hundreds of thousands of single editions every day. Passersby can't take their eyes off the paper, and they can't put it down once they touch it. Every dime spent on design and visuals returns hundredfold to the empire.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

As Gannett well-knows, there's nothing like a newspaper that enjoys an utter monopoly.

 

[Screwball]

Quick clarification:

Tribune's strategy in buying Times Mirror was to pitch advertisers on one-stop shopping for newspaper/TV/web in major markets. In LA, for instance, they already owned a TV station and then bought the Times.

FCC rules forbid ownership of newspaper and TV station in same market. Tribune bought Times Mirror anyway, arguing that FCC rules were outdated given explosion of news available via cable, satellite, internet, etc.

Tribune bet the rules would be changed, a bet that cost them many millions. Even under the Bush administration, they lost.