Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

LITTWIN: Black & white & and red ink all over

By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published December 9, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More News Columns & Blogs

More stories »

If you want to understand just how bad things are in the newspaper industry, come with me for a little lesson in newsroom psychology.

As you may have heard, the Tribune Co. - owner of the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune - has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

And every reporter I've talked to - in newsrooms across the country - is devastated by the news.

I know. You're thinking to yourself: Of course everyone is devastated. This is the newspaper equivalent of the apocalypse. It comes only days after Scripps announced that the Rocky is up for sale (read: doomed). And at press time, no billionaire had stepped forward with a rescue plan. And the mayor hadn't called to offer to organize rallies in front of the Rocky building - and we're just across the street from City Hall. And, alas, there's been no word from the governor.

But you have to understand the newspaper world to grasp just what has happened here in the matter of the Tribune Co. In any other time, under any other circumstances, this would be a moment of great joy in the newsroom.

Sam Zell - the newspaper mogul who despises journalism, the real estate tycoon who once told the Tribune's Washington staff they were so much "overhead," the self-proclaimed Viagra of the industry whose "innovation" guru he brought in from the radio world didn't understand that L.A. Times reporters in Iraq were actually reporting from Iraq - has not only failed as Tribune Co. owner, but failed on a monumental scale, and with everyone watching.

In less than a year's time, Zell took the Tribune private and then took the company to bankruptcy. That has to be some kind of record.

Zell has spent his year in newspapers lecturing employees about how little they know about the business and how it takes someone with his creative mind to turn things around. Meanwhile, he has slashed the size of his newsrooms and fiddled with design changes and done virtually nothing - as in nothing - to actually address the problems facing newspapers.

Every self-respecting newspaper person that I know would enjoy seeing Zell fall.

But we don't have that luxury anymore. It isn't just that Zell has already trashed many of the newspapers he owns - and will continue to own. It's not that bankruptcy judges, looking out for stockholders, might do even worse damage to journalism.

It's not even that, on a personal note here, I worked at two Tribune Co. papers, and there's the little matter of what happens to my pensions. Zell bought the company using money borrowed from the employee stock plan - see: United - and relatively little of his own. (OK, a couple hundred million of his own, but he's got $5 billion.)

Zell bought the company for $8 billion and left it with $13 billion in debt, which had doomed him from the start. And then came the recession. Everyone knew the problem - or everyone except Zell. Zell's papers are still making money, but they can't make the debt payment.

It was hubris that did Zell in. He's always certain he's the smartest guy in the room.

But the problem is, as much as I'd like to gloat, I can't find it in me. Apparently it's hard to gloat and work on your resume at the same time.

I hate that. But I hate even more that there is so much wrong with today's financial model for newspapers - this was where Zell was absolutely right - and that no one seems to have any idea what to do about it.

Here's a roundup of recent industry bad news from the L.A. Times: The Miami Herald is up for sale, the Christian Science Monitor is all but deserting print for the Web, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Minneapolis Star-Tribune are near default, and the New York Times, meanwhile, is looking to borrow $225 million by mortgaging its new midtown Manhattan headquarters.

If you're among those who helpfully send me e-mails saying that the problem is the so-called liberal media bias and not, say, that ad revenue is falling, and that online revenue can't support a comprehensive newspaper, here's a piece of news for you:

In October, The New York Times had 764 million page views. I don't have to tell you how many that is. It's four times more than the No. 2 paper. It's more than the next eight newspapers combined.

It shows the tremendous interest there was in the presidential election - and the fact that many (764 million page views definitely qualifies as many) looked to the capital of the mainstream media for its news.

And yet,the Times is mortgaging its new building and just slashed its stock dividends. When Times editor Bill Keller was on NPR Monday morning, he was asked to write a headline about the status of his newspaper. He said, "We Will Survive."

If the issue for The Times is survival, where does that leave the industry? And at risk of sounding self-important - it's a newspaperwide weakness - who would be left to, say, cover city hall?

Some of the funniest e-mails I've gotten - funny as in funny-strange, not funny-haha - tell me that the Rocky wouldn't be missed because there's all that news on the Internet.

I wonder where they think the great majority of the news on the Internet comes from.

Since the news about the Rocky's potential sale broke, I've gotten hundreds of warm, generous e-mails from people who are worried about the newspaper and its future.

One subject line read "NO, NO, NO." Another "Tears." Another, "I Am Bereft."

And this: "Should I Be Worried?"

What do you think?

Comments

  • December 9, 2008

    7:58 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    greenleaf writes:

    What I fail to understand is why all newspapers don't charge for their online twins? I no longer subscribe to the wasteful dead tree version of newspapers because I am an environmentalist and hate being responsible for all the material and energy involved in creating it. That said, I am perfectly willing to pay for a subscription online. I need to get my news somewhere, and at a time of my own choosing. I also enjoy discussions with other bloggers. I don't want to see newspapers go under as they have been a part of my life for 50 years now.

    I already subscribe to one newspaper and several magazines online and would gladly subscribe to the Rocky were that an option. Why isn't it an option? The pulp newspaper is going the way of the Dodo, but the news must still be reported. The internet is not just the wave of the future anymore, it is the present reality that must be embraced fully if news journalism is to survive for another generation.

    Charge for internet content!

  • December 9, 2008

    8:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Marshdale writes:

    From a readers point of view and from someone who has been reading newspapers for 30 years, the biggest difference I see in papers today is compelling investigative journalism. The good old gumshoe type reporting is all but virtually disapeared from print journalism. Ethics and fact checking has seemed to disappear as well. The stories we get 90% of the time are your run of the mill action stories about drive by shootings, traffic accidents etc. In depth reporting seems to be almost virtually dead. I'm a friend of Lou Kilzer, Holger Jenson, Bill Johnson and several others at the Rocky. They told me 10 to 12 years ago that the papers were going to die. I did not know what they meant at the time but I do now. It's a shame and a tremendous threat to our Democracy/Constitutional Republic that all Americans hold so dear. I can only hope that all of the wonderful people I know at the Rocky will find a way to continue to earn a living doing what they so passionately love.

  • December 9, 2008

    8:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jfayers writes:

    At the risk of sounding insane I'd like to point out that the editing actions described in "1984" will be much easier when newspapers go completely digital. It would also make it much easier to nationalize and centralize the news industry (since television reporters seem to largely thrive on the AP for their meaningful investigative reporting).

  • December 9, 2008

    9:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    rjnova writes:

    Demise of the RMN is terribly sad. They certainly come closer to objectivity than the Post. Zell deserves what happens but a man like he takes so many good people with him. But Littwin continues to deny the undeniable. Any business model that does not change to play to the total customer base (conservative and liberal) has nowhere to turn when they lose 15% of their business. Each example cited represents a newspaper reporting only the liberal point of view and it could not happen to a nicer bunch.

    I will however take particular pleasure in not reading Littwin and Campos liberal drivel and obsequious banter over Obama when they are gone. It is the only bright spot in an otherwise sad sad situation with the RMN. I have always been a reader and appreciate the printed word over reading from a computer monitor. A miserable way to get your news. But then younger people seem to take the Internet as news media and entertainment and I find that mysterious. Must be attention deficit disorder where 30 seconds is about all the concentration they can endeavor.

    I do have a sense the RMN has drifted left in recent years whereas the RMN used to make a noticeable effort to present balanced opinion. But with most journalists coming out of colleges with the same liberal indoctrination there is little variety and no sparkle in what is published as news these days.

    I do not know the newspaper business but there seems to be less international and solid news content these days. More and perhaps too much of Littwin, Campos, Johnson, Grego and others who contribute nothing newsworthy, just drivel of no interest. And that might be at the heart of the problem. With the network news providing 24 hrs/day of news, papers are left to opinion writing and make believe newsworthy or human interest stories that become boring from the same people day after day. I have not read any good investigative journalism in years.

  • December 9, 2008

    9:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    edwardallen writes:

    Here we go again: It is all the reader's fault. If only they bought our newspapers. Why didn't they enjoy those turgid 30-day-long series on a 30-year-old traffic accident fed readers in lieu of covering the day-to-day accidents on our freeways and real crime news? Why don't they like our fluffy meaningless features that replaced the traditional coverage of courts and city hall? Didn't they get any meaning from those trend stories and top ten stories replacing real Denver business news? It is too late now. If you had paid more attention to retaining newspaper readers, you would have the advertisers breaking down your door to get their message carried in your product. Unfortunately, the story of the failure of the Rocky is not much different from the failures of retail stores: you cheapened the product, and fewer customers came to buy the sparse products you offered. So you cheapened it even more, and fewer came. And so on. It is as simple a lesson as that, and I hope you remember that lesson in whatever future role you play in this society.

  • December 9, 2008

    10:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    It's funny Littwin wants to be purchased by the people he hates, rich people.

  • December 9, 2008

    10:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    analytixman writes:

    Newspapers have become irrelevant and economically not viable for four main reasons.

    1. Ad rates are too high. As a former advertiser, I can say with conviction the rates have gone through the roof and therefore have caused many to leave the medium of newspapers.

    2. Timeliness of the news. With the advent of the internet, all of the news in the paper is outdated before the ink dries on the paper, let alone gets to your house through the network of the distribution and carriers.

    3. Newspapers have forgotten how to compete and being marketing companies for the much needed ad revenue. Selling ads are not the only services newspaper companies should be providing.

    4. Poor journalism. The Newspaper is a product, who wants to read dribble?

    I don't feel sorry for the RMN or any newspaper. Times change. Look at progressive companies like GE, they did not just stick to making old fashioned light bulbs, they have diversified and prospered. In fact, in these horrible times, GE is one of few companies paying a dividend.

    No one is to blame but the senior management of the papers. Expect more, demand more, innovate and grow or die like 8 track tapes. Bad business is just bad business. The smart and tough will make it.

    Now is the time for strength, not being sissy business people and sticking our heads in the sand.

  • December 9, 2008

    10:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ridinmom writes:

    I totally agree with greenleaf. I want to be able to read The Rocky and would pay for an online subscription. Is this a possibility?

  • December 9, 2008

    10:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    joggle writes:

    Well, there's always the British option (I guess). It would be a measure of last resort, but that last resort option seems to be fast approaching, which would be to issue a nominal tax to support them (the BBC is mostly sponsored by this tax).

    The truth is that journalism is a required national service and the local TV news doesn't cut it. Who is going to do investigative reporting if the newspapers are gone? Guys like Rush Limbaugh? Yea, right!

    I know nobody in journalism or the public would prefer to save the newspapers via some sort of tax but I'd rather have the tax (which would probably be very small) and newspapers than having no newspapers and no tax.

    In the UK I think they charge roughly $100 per year for paying for the BBC, whether you watch TV or not. I bet you could save the newspapers at a fraction of that cost (say $5 per year). (note, the reason given by the British government for charging this tax is that people are paying for a public service)

  • December 9, 2008

    11:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    conservative111 writes:

    See you later Littwin, goodbye and good riddance!!!

  • December 9, 2008

    12:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    The failing newspapers in this country are the liberal ones according to a survey by IRIS.org.
    Conservative papers are increasing circulation. Fox News is announcing today a major expansion.
    Perhaps Mr. Littwin can find for us newspaper failures on the conservative side of the industry. Here's evidence of the trend if the numbers translate over:

    Liberal Newspapers:
    Publication 2002 2006 % Loss
    NY Times 1,113,000 1,086,798 -12.35%
    LA Times 965,835 775,766 -19.7%
    Washington Post 747,066 656,297 -12.1%
    Chicago Tribune 596,667 576,132 -3.4%
    NY Daily News 714,127 693,382 -2.9%
    Houston Chronicle 551,914 508,097 -7.9%
    Newsday 578,911 413,579 -28.6%

    Centrist Newspaper:
    Publication 2002 2006 % Gain
    USA Today 2,135,321 2,269,509 6.3%

    Conservative Newspapers:
    Publication 2002 2006 % Gain
    Wall Street Journal 1,801,087 2,043,235 13.4%
    NY Post 589,897 704,011 19.3%

  • December 9, 2008

    12:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    VeryOpinionated writes:

    Like greenleaf and some other RMN bloggers, I get most of my news online. Also, I consider myself very internet savvy, since I worked in the data processing field for 33 years and have used PC's ever since IBM's first non-MAC PC.

    That said, I also get the print version because my wife doesn't use (or want to use) the internet. Also, she clips grocery store coupons. Finally, I scan the print version and occasionally try to find the online version of the article. Quite often, the only way I can find the article is to put the article's name in the search box. I guess what I'm saying is that currently, the online version of the RMN doesn't totally replace the print version.

    Feedback???

  • December 9, 2008

    12:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    P_Denver writes:

    I'm with Greenleaf . . . I would pay for an on-line subscription, for many of the same reasons.

    I would miss the page-size Sunday comics, though. Something about reading the funny paper in front of the fireplace on a snowy Sunday morning . . .

  • December 9, 2008

    5:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Don_Lopez writes:

    HopiMedicineMan has got it right: Mr. Littwin is hoping to be bailed out by one of those rich people he so despises. Rich people whose wealth President-elect Obama has promised to redistribute.

    But here’s what’s really funny—as in funny-haha—when he was a sportswriter he had no problem offering lengthy critiques about something he knows nothing of: sports. Now he seems very dismissive of advice offered by those who, in his opinion, know nothing about the newspaper industry.

    So as he stands in his ivory tower looking down (as usual) on the crowd below waving pitchforks and torches he shouldn’t be surprised that some are yelling “JUMP”.

  • December 9, 2008

    6:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    LesterGovernment writes:

    Dan, you crack me up! Your's is the most cogent (and funny!) comment on the subject. I look foreword to your next post.

  • December 9, 2008

    6:56 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dalelock writes:

    I was linked to the Wall Street Journal recently and found that I couldn't access the content without a subscription. They offered online and/or print versions between $100 - 130 yearly, so you could still get the paper copy if you chose. Not having been a WSJ reader before, I wasn't ready to take the plunge, but, like Greenleaf and the others, I might for RMN if I got everything that's in my morning porch version. If Craig's List has gutted the classifieds, offer something competitive. For the coupon clippers, provide print versions. I have family members who skip the news content for the sale ads. Being young, I think they'd love to do it on-line, and ads wouldn't necessarily have to clutter up the news pages. If the presses have to stop, retrain the operators in computer technology, and the paper carriers, too.

    If conventional newspapers are dinosaurs, adaptation or extinction is the choice. Being an older guy, I'm not keen on sitting in front of a laptop for hours, and turning pages in books and magazines carries a certain normalcy. Portability would also be a problem. But on a sunny day, that stray breeze messing up the pages of the newspaper wouldn't be missed.

    I WOULD miss the little bags for picking up dog poop, however. The price you pay for progress...

  • December 9, 2008

    8:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    malis writes:

    Greenleaf, Dalelock and others, Electronic subscription to the Rocky is available. Take a look at the menu bar at the top of this page...see "Electronic Edition?" click that and you get this:

    Get the Rocky Mountain News digitally on your computer
    or laptop first thing every morning, seven days a week, at
    home, the office, anywhere.

    The Rocky Mountain News Electronic Edition looks just
    like the Rocky Mountain News because it is the Rocky
    Mountain News-with interactive and searchable articles
    from all your favorite sections, plus photos, columnists,
    comics, graphics and ads.

    Click the appropriate button below to take a tour of the
    Rocky Mountain News Electronic Edition or to start your
    subscription today:

    |Take a Tour| - |Subscribe|

    They remove the password when it snows and delivery is delayed...I've used it and it looks pretty good on a 20" monitor in landscape mode...not quite so much on an ultraportable ThinkPad X-61.

    Most papers have the same option, charging either the same or a reduced rate...many give physical subscribers full electronic version access. Some have tried to charge for any Internet access but find there's little interest when everybody else's content is free.

    Will be interesting to see what we're all reading in 20 years (or maybe only five!)

  • December 9, 2008

    8:38 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    smith writes:

    Perhaps part of the problem was the Times choosing to build a monument to itself in Manhattan. If they would have taken the $225 million from the building fund and focused on their subscriber and advertisers wishes to begin with

    That said, I also know of a Colorado newspaper sitting in a brand new building on Civic Center Park...

  • December 9, 2008

    8:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    smith writes:

    One more: The Miami Herald is for sale, and potential buyers are more interested in its waterfront real estate than the paper itself. And this is in the distressed South Florida real estate market! Accurate news and information has never been more important or valuable to society, yet the current generation of dinosaurs could not figure out how to capitalize on it. Adios, liberal media.

  • December 9, 2008

    10:31 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    Yeah, right, the Chicago Tribune is liberal. Vincent Carroll is liberal. What are you guys smoking? Is it legal? Does Mason Tvert know where to get it?
    malis, you at least offered constructive advice. I tried the electronic Denver Post once, but it bogged down my old computer to a crawl, and drove my monitor nuts.
    That being said, I now have a much faster dual-processor-based computer with a bigger and better monitor. Maybe I'll give it another try.

  • December 9, 2008

    10:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    correction: Maybe I'll give the electronic RMN a try.

  • December 10, 2008

    11:45 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    malis writes:

    Peterpi, yup, Hopi was pretty funny, first comparing the two primarily business-delivery national papers (USAToday and WSJ), to traditional papers dependent on local home-delivery. Second, his attempt to attribute the lowered circulation to ‘liberalism’ is, well, I was going to say ‘pathetic’ but it’s not worth such a negative adjective…actually, it’s simply meaningless, not worth addressing.

    The circulation number are unsurprising…I know of no major traditional newspaper that’s increased circulation over the last few year (can anyone correct me on that? I’d like the good news).

    I travel extensively and, years ago, developed a habit of reading the local paper wherever I go. As they all went on line I extended the habit to reviewing a lot of different papers day-to-day. As a news/politics junkie, I review the Op-Ed sections of the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Rocky Mountain News, and COS Gazette daily (plus a 2-3 more from a rotating list of about 30) (from Colo Springs I subscribe to the daily Denver Post and Sunday NY Times).

    As my personal opinion only, here’s how I rate the papers I regularly review:

    FAR LEFT:
    - Atlanta Journal-Constitution
    - Minneapolis Star-Tribune
    - Seattle Post-Intelligencer

    CONVENTIONAL LEFT:
    - New York Times
    - LA Times
    - San Francisco Chronicle
    - Cleveland Plain-Dealer
    - Detroit Free Press

    CENTER LEFT (the most common position)
    - Denver Post (though it’s been moving right, especially on Unions, and Gov. Ritter)
    - Seattle Times
    - Portland Oregonian
    - Dallas Morning News
    - Cincinnati Enquirer
    - Kansas City Star
    - Miami Herald
    - Philadelphia Inquirer
    - St. Louis Post-Dispatch

    CENTER
    -Washington Post. Surprised? Fifteen years ago WaPo was Conventional Left but has been moving steadily right since then, purposefully I think.

    CENTER RIGHT
    - Chicago Tribune (home-towner Obama is the only Dem they EVER endorsed for Pres)
    - Arizona Republic
    - Houston Chronicle
    - Rocky Mountain News
    - Orange County Register (LA, owned by the same odd company as the COS Gazette. They’d be Far Right except for their leftist (libertarian) social positions)

    CONVENTIONAL RIGHT and FAR RIGHT
    - None, and that’s too bad (not counting vanity projects like the Pittsburgh Union-Tribune and Washington Times, or sensationalist tabloids like the NY Post (home of the famous “Headless Body in Topless Bar!” headline); all of which would otherwise be Far Right).

    Can anyone inform me of a Conventional Right major paper? I’d like to add it the rota.