A "plan" for the future

Big changes are needed in order to save journalism from the ravages of the internet.

That's the message presented by Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown, in this piece for the Washington Post. The pair have come up with five ways to save newspapers.

Some of their suggestions are well-intentioned, like a call to strengthen copyright law to prevent abuse from digital outlets. Unfortunately their focus is on search engines - and rather than accept the loss of placement that would result from being delisted by Google and others, they argue that media owners shouldn't have to lose their Web visibility, and search engines should instead pay them for the privilege of having media products in their search results, whether Google likes it or not.

Publishers should not have to choose between protecting their copyrights and shunning the search-engine databases that map the Internet. Journalism therefore needs a bright line imposed by statute: that the taking of entire Web pages by search engines, which is what powers their search functions, is not fair use but infringement.

This is obviously a losing proposition.

Another argument is to reduce business taxes on media companies and give tax incentives to buying advertising - but not, they note, with companies like Craiglist.

Congress could provide incentives for placing ads with content creators (not with Craigslist) and allowances for immediate write-offs (rather than capitalization) for all expenses related to news production.

While reducing taxes will certainly help media companies, it doesn't address why media outlets deserve a tax break in the first place? If the goal is to promote the public good, why not support proposed legislation like the Newspaper Revitalization Act, as recommended by Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, and allow a way for media outlets to qualify for nonprofit status?

They answer that question not once, but twice. That's how many times they suggest relaxing the rules for media ownership and promoting antitrust exemptions for media conglomerates.

Whether you like the idea or not, it's worth noting that Baker Hostetler is no stranger to media ownership and antitrust law. The firm has represented most of the national media chains, including MediaNews, for a variety of issues and litigation.

Antitrust exemptions and increased consolidation may be the key to saving our industry, but it would be heartening to hear someone without a vested interest say it, instead of another expensive Washington lawyer.

Hiring in San Gabe

Amid the layoffs and cutbacks, MediaNews is still hiring - at least in West Covina.

The San Gabriel Valley Tribune is looking for a Metro Reporter, according to this listing at JournalismJobs.com

The San Gabriel Valley Newspaper Group seeks a Metro reporter who can produce enterprise stories in addition to strong daily coverage. Candidates should be comfortable covering city hall, but also able to provide incisive analysis of regional issues – from the exploits of local politicians to emerging trends. Candidates should have experience writing for a daily.

LADN losses continue

We've just received word that LAUSD reporter George Sanchez is the latest casualty of MediaNews' cost cutting.

In addition to his reporting duties, Sanchez played an active role in the bargaining unit, volunteering to serve as both a steward and a member of the bargaining committee. For the newsroom, losing someone with his dedication and commitment to his fellow journalists is definitely a painful sacrifice.

We wish George nothing but the best on his future endeavors. He has our gratitude and absolute respect for his steady and insightful assistance during these difficult times.

A message of dread

Tom Hoffarth has posted a powerfully somber, candid reflection on the loss of colleague Tony Jackson, and the state of sports journalism in Los Angeles County. Equal parts sadness and frustration, Hoffarth's drafted an elegy that doesn't cover any new ground, yet manages to grab your attention anyways. In a few blunt words, he's managed to convey what many of us are feeling.

Those of us left paddling in a circle, as it sometimes feel, feel like our lifejackets keep slipping off our shoulders. We huddle up, as a good team does, and try to figure out how to tie a rope to each other and make survival last a few more weeks. Because no matter when you think that last tidal wave has come, there's another on the horizon.

So far, Hoffarth seems to have touched a never among the non-journalists in cyberspace. Commenter "gregb" posted the following:

Tony's firing was the final straw for this subscriber. The DN sports section has deteriorated tremendously in the last 18 months. Wire service copy for Clippers, Kings, Ducks, CSUN and glorified "non-wire" for the Angels. High school coverage has been reduce to "junk status."

I cancelled the paper because I will not pay metro prices for nothing more than a glorified wire service newspaper. I have been a Daily News reader since it was the Van Nuys News and a four-day a week paper. Now it will be as a non-subscriber because ownership didn't care about me as a paying customer.

Every time the staff is reduced, the circulation seems to take another hit. Maybe re-investing in the product side of our business isn't a cure-all for what's plaguing the industry, but wouldn't it be a good place to start?

Globe threatens closure*

Are there any sacred cows left? Or have things gotten so bad that literally everything is negotiable? How much of tomorrow are you willing to surrender in order to preserve today?

These are the sort of very real questions facing journalists across the country. Most recently, the Boston Newspaper Guild, which represents over 600 employees at the Boston Globe, has been forced to face some harsh choices. The New York Times Co. has been threatening to close the paper if demands for employee concessions are not met. Since last week, representatives from the company and the employee union have been trading proposals with the hopes of reaching an agreement.

But that was last week.

As of today, the New York Times is reporting that the talks have stalled, despite claims by the employee's union that concessions exceeding the Times Company's demands. For their part, the Times Company has announced that it plans to file a notice of their intent to close the Globe within 60 days.

Dire news and tough talk are nothing new to our members here as well. Over the last year, members at the Daily News and Press-Telegram have collectively been hit with an assortment of demands, including unpaid furloughs, a 401(K) freeze, layoffs, the loss of vacation accrual, and threatened wage cuts. And there's little reason to suspect that the worst is over.

Every newsroom is different, and so is each bargaining unit. Individual members have to decide what's right for them and their coworkers, and in this day and age that's no easy task. As the demands for concessions grows louder, it's unfortunate that few among the upper echelons have been willing to make similar sacrifices. But unfair as that may or may not be, it's irrelevant. Business decisions are made by the folks in charge, and if they're not fair, what can anyone do?

If threatened with closure, is there anything that's too important to give up? Is there a line that cannot be crossed? If so, where?

What do you think?



* At the zero hour, a crisis has been averted. According to >Poynter Online, a deal has been reached with six of the paper's seven unions, so the threatened closure is no longer necessary.

But the good news ends on an ominous note:

We are disappointed, however, that we have not yet been able to reach an agreement with the Guild. Because of that, we are evaluating our
alternatives under both the Guild contract and applicable law to achieve as quickly as possible the workplace flexibility and remaining cost savings we need to help put The Globe on a sound financial footing.

For all the concessions, it appears the company is not satisfied yet. That doesn't bode well for the employees in Boston.

Layoffs continue*

MediaNews made good on its warning that further layoffs would hit the Daily News this week. According to DN steward Steve Rosenberg, staff artist Jon Gerung, metro reporters Jerry Berrios and Brandon Lowrey, and photographer Tina Burch are no longer with the company. Burch requested a buyout, and was not laid off. On the management side, Senior Editor Oscar Garza was released. Three managers were also reassigned into the newsroom.

There are rumors that more layoffs could come as early as next week. We've heard nothing to substantiate this information yet, and are actively seeking details from the company.

This is absolutely frustrating for the newsroom at the Daily News, who continue to struggle against a management structure that seems to value them less each week. Despite furloughs, 401(K) suspensions, incessant layoffs, a lack of communication from senior executives, and the threat of a contract that will give them no rights and even less pay, they keep on pushing forward and giving their best to a company that offers little in return. It has to be exhausting.

And still the bloodletting continues.

It's nothing less than amazing that their newsroom, despite anemic staffing, manages to produce a daily newspaper that goes out to more than 100K readers every single day.

We've asked the newsroom to share their thoughts and offer comments on this latest round of layoffs. We'll update this post as more information arrives.

This was sent out by reporter Brandon Lowrey.


Hey all,

It's been a fun run. It was my first job out of college, and I had an idea of where this was going since a month after I was hired in February 2008. I was sure I was a goner, then, so the last 15 months have felt a little like bonus time. Really great bonus time.

I wrote this to thank you all for the fun, encouragement, puns and black humor - not to mention the opportunities.

Even as a pretty idealistic young guy, I can't deny times are depressing for our industry. Reporters are unappreciated and undervalued, both by corporate bigwigs and many in the public. I can see how some can become cynical and jaded.

But the very fact that you all keep doing is inspirational. It reminds me that there are good, smart and reasonable people out there who really want to change the world - or at least their corners of it - for the better. I wish you all the best in continuing your invaluable and incredible public service with care, compassion, reason and passion. They all really need you, whether or not they know it now.

Keep in touch,

Brandon Lowrey



* We've received an email from sports reporter Tony Jackson, who has reportedly been let go as of today. Jackson covered the Dodgers for LANG, and no mention has been made of who (if anyone) will fill his shoes on that beat. The L.A. Times has more details.

Antitrust hearing focuses on diversity

Are antitrust laws killing the newspaper industry? That's the argument media executives from made to congress this week, asking for an exemption to the laws regulating media consolidation, arguing that consolidation is the only way to preserve the industry's falling revenues.

But few have been swayed by the request so far.

Bernie Lunzer, President of the Newspaper Guild, testified that allowing MediaNews and Hearst to absorb more newspapers into their regional chains may do "do more harm than good" to readers and communities.

The largest concern we have about such a monopoly in Northern California is that an answer to the very real problems that exist in our industry will remain unanswered and that real innovation will be stifled. The two large corporations behind this initiative will only have forestalled their inevitable reckoning. The result will be underserved communities.

Lunzer isn't the only voice challenging the perceived "need" to homogenize content and reduce operations by slashing staff. Many believe that this trend toward consolidation and cost-cutting - which began long before the introduction of the internet - bears at least part of the blame for newspaper's diminished relevance.

Ryan Blethen argues that media conglomerates have been imperfect stewards for newspapers, and increasing their presence won't solve the problem.

The public-ownership model is disintegrating. That is what Congress must understand. We have a chance to put newspapers and professional journalism back in stewardship of smaller entities that care about community.

Lunzer agrees that ownership models, not industry conditions, may be the best solution for the newspaper industry.

If there is to be serious consideration of the problems facing newspapers, Congress needs to look at alternative ownership ideas, like employee stock ownership, non-profit approaches and the new L3C concept. The L3C approach would allow publications to serve a stated social purpose in exchange for the ability to accept non-profit foundation money. Smaller, more committed news operations will be more successful in providing real coverage to communities. Bigger is not better. The current financial crisis is evidence of this.

It boils down to a simple question: Why are newspapers failing? If the answer is simply that archaic print media is no match for the faster, leaner online competition, then consolidation seems to make sense. But that argument overlooks the fact that for most community newspapers, there is no natural online competition. The internet is a boon for economies of scale, where your market is quite literally national, if not global. For most newspapers, this isn't the case. And there are few community-centric online newsgathering operations, and virtually none that operate on the scale of a local newspaper.

In other words, newspapers have stacked the table against themselves by relying on national and international content that puts them squarely at odds with online outlets. Wire news is cheaper - but the competition, as we've seen, is much stiffer. That's a fight most print outlets have been unable to win.

It's true that classified advertising is gone, or severely diminished, and those losses have hurt the industry. And there's no indication that money will ever come back. But the revenue losses from classified advertising alone aren't enough to put most newspapers out of business. Adjusting projections and expectations to more modest goals, and focusing on developing content that's truly relevant will do more to preserve newspaper fortunes than simply drawing more ink out of the same tired well, and running identical pages across several newspapers, in a region that's larger than many states. Readers are smart enough to know when they're not being served, and the earnings sheet reflects their disappointment. More of the same won't change that.