A Death in the Family

If you have any connection to journalism, even as modest as a media class or two that you took in college or the work you did on your high school newspaper, you speak the name of Editor & Publisher in almost hushed tones, with the reverence it deserves.

As long as I can remember, Editor & Publisher has served a vital role for journalists. It was always present in every newsroom in which I worked. It was one of the few things that all the editors and supervisors with whom I worked had in common.

It was, therefore, a shock to learn today that Editor & Publisher will stop publishing after more than a century of serving the newspaper industry. It's that punched–in–the–gut feeling you get when someone in the family dies.

I knew things were bad in the newspaper business these days. A bad economy combined with declining advertising revenue (admittedly, along with a decline in quality at some papers) has brought many changes to the industry. But, somehow, I believed that a trade journal, especially one that had been honored as often as E&P, had to survive for the industry to regroup and grow.

Max Boot, at Commentary, likens this "adjustment" to growing pains brought on by the emergence of new technology.

"No doubt buggy makers around the turn of the 20th century felt similarly threatened by the arrival of automobiles," Boot writes, "and missed the fact that the transportation industry as a whole was growing even as their small sector of it was receding into nothingness."

Boot is too simplistic, I think, too prone to looking for the romantic angle, although there may be a kernel or two of truth in that stuff about new technology. I'm still inclined to believe that the loss of advertising revenue has more to do with the crisis in the newspaper business, but there is no doubt in my mind that most newspaper publishers failed to recognize the changes that would be produced by the internet — and they and their former employees are paying the price for that today.

That said, though, it is a sad day for journalism.

Who'll Stop the Pain?

Recent unpleasant developments in the newspaper business have not been unexpected.

Nevertheless, Editor & Publisher has been filled with bad news for journalists lately — news that supporters of freedom of the press have been hoping could, somehow, be avoided.

But that, it seems, was not to be.

• The owners of the Rocky Mountain News were unable to find a buyer for the newspaper; consequently, it will fold after tomorrow's edition — and nearly 150 years of publishing.
  
  According to E & P, the Denver Post, which has had a joint operating agreement with the Rocky Mountain News since 2001, has already hired some of the newspaper's top staffers.


• In Connecticut, the Hartford Courant announced plans to lay off 100 staffers this week.
  
  "That brings the news staff to 135, or just more than half the newspaper employed last year," reports E & P.


• In San Antonio, the Express-News is cutting at least 75 newsroom staffers. The move has been called "a fundamental and painful restructuring of the newsroom staff."

Who'll stop the pain?

More Bad — But Not Unexpected — News

Editor & Publisher reports that the A.H. Belo Co., which is the parent company of the Dallas Morning News, has confirmed what many expected. Belo "is laying off another 500 people and cutting expenses by $50 million before the end of the first quarter."

But before those 500 people join the millions of us who are out there looking for jobs in this less-than-robust economy, I'm sure they'll be gratified to know that Belo "won't stop publishing or home deliver on certain days," according to the company's chairman and CEO.

"We think with the headcount reduction and getting cost reductions that are not related to people that if we can do this successfully, we've created some runway — and we don't have to risk alienating our loyal customers who expect a paper," Robert Decherd said in a conference call Tuesday.

E & P observes that "[t]he latest round of job cuts amounts to more than one-sixth of the 2,950-person workforce. At the beginning of last year, A.H. Belo employed about 3,600 people."

E & P also reports that additional measures slated for April include eliminating retirement plan matching contributions and charging those who still have jobs to park in downtown Dallas lots.

I've parked in downtown Dallas lots before. And my guess is that public transportation will reap some unanticipated benefits from this move.

Too bad the same can't be said of the 500 souls who are about to receive their pink slips.

'Several Cities' Likely to Have No Paper by 2010

Editor & Publisher has some worrisome news for advocates of the First Amendment.

"Newspapers and newspaper groups are likely to default on their debt and go out of business next year — leaving 'several cities' with no daily newspaper at all, Fitch Ratings says in a report on media released Wednesday," writes Mark Fitzgerald.

"Fitch is generally pessimistic across the board," he continues, "assigning negative outlets to nearly all sectors from Yellow Pages to radio and TV and theme parks. But the newspaper industry is the most at risk of defaulting, it says."

That's bad news for those who believe a culture benefits from the printed word.

With advertising revenues declining and a credit freeze in effect, the recession of 2009 promises to be more severe than the recession of 2001. And, in a world in which more and more people depend on the visual media — TV and the internet — for news and information, newspapers are becoming expendable.

Editor & Publisher also reported today that there will be about 2,000 job cuts at Gannett newspapers across the country — "the result of economic declines," says the vice president of corporate communications.

The cutbacks were announced in October — but exact numbers weren't released at that time.

There is no real freedom without freedom of the press.

But how can freedom be preserved if the press isn't profitable?

Matchmaker, Matchmaker

---

"The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics."

Chicago Tribune

---

Speculation is running wild about whether former Secretary of State Colin Powell will issue an endorsement of one of the presidential candidates when he appears on NBC's "Meet the Press" tomorrow.

The speculation has spread and now includes foreign media as well as domestic.

Philip Sherwell of The Telegraph of London sounds like Tevye from "Fiddler on the Roof" as he leaps from one conclusion to the other.

"On the other hand ... "

To illustrate what I mean, Sherwell begins his article by observing "Colin Powell ... is expected to denounce 'ugly' personal attacks on Barack Obama and may endorse the Democrat for the nation's top job."

Sherwell then quotes Powell's former chief of staff as saying that Powell has bemoaned the "vitriol, bile and prejudice" in the campaign and "I'd expect him to talk about it."

But Sherwell also points out that Powell's ex-aide describes him as a "loyal soldier who owes a lot to some people in the Republican Party," which he concedes is "a factor that could mitigate against an endorsement by a man not prone to gesture politics."

In short, Sherwell speculates that a Powell endorsement of Obama is a definite maybe.

(While reading Sherwell's article, I was almost disappointed that I didn't hear a chorus singing, "Find me a find, catch me a catch ...")

There are a few genuine endorsements to talk about today.

• Perhaps the most significant comes from the Chicago Tribune.
  
  It may not seem especially surprising that the fifth-largest newspaper in the United States (with a circulation of nearly 1 million), which happens to serve the city where Obama makes his home, has endorsed the Democratic nominee.
  
  Until you realize that this is the first time in its 161-year history that the conservative Tribune has endorsed a Democrat for president.
  
  The paper was a strong advocate of the abolition of slavery, and it supported favorite son Abraham Lincoln when he sought the presidency in 1860. But it hasn't always endorsed Illinois politicians who ran for the nation's highest office. It did not support Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson when he ran against Republican Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s.
  
  Supporting a Democratic presidential nominee is a new experience for the Tribune, but it doesn't always endorse the Republican nominee, either, as its editorial points out — although the examples it cites are endorsement editorials that were written by journalists several generations removed from the current editorial staff.
  
  In 1912, when former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt sought to return to the White House as the Progressive Party's candidate, the Tribune backed Roosevelt.
  
  And, in 1872, instead of supporting Republican President Ulysses S. Grant's bid for re-election, it endorsed the editor of the New York Tribune, Horace Greeley (at left), who ran as a Liberal Republican but was endorsed by the Democratic Party.
  
  Last spring, the Tribune endorsed both Obama and McCain in their parties' primaries, but the Tribune admits that it is "hard to figure John McCain these days" and asserts that he "failed in his most important executive decision" — when he picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate.
  
  "Give him credit for choosing a female running mate," writes the Tribune, "but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. ... McCain put his campaign before his country."
  
  In contrast, says the Tribune, "Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate — he put governing before politicking."


• In comparison, I guess, the other two high-profile newspaper endorsements are neither surprising nor particularly historic.
  
  The Washington Post, for example, has a track record of supporting Democrats — although, for many years, late publisher Katharine Graham insisted on a policy of not endorsing presidential nominees.
  
  Since at least 2000, however, the Post has been endorsing presidential candidates — but, while conservatives often mention the Post and the New York Times as the joint Eastern apex of the so-called "liberal media bias" in American journalism, the truth is that the Post has endorsed some Republicans and taken conservative positions on some issues.
  
  But it lives up to expectations in its endorsement of Obama.
  
  "There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain," writes the Post, shedding crocodile tears. "Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president."
  
  The Post also uses Palin as a scapegoat, saying "The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president."
  
  But, while she may be convenient for that role, that doesn't mean the Post might have endorsed McCain if he had chosen someone else for his ticket.
  
  And the Post recites the qualities it believes Obama possesses that make him the best choice. "He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment."


• In the eyes of its modern-day readers, the Los Angeles Times follows a liberal editorial policy, but it was not always so.
  
  When I wrote a paper in graduate school on the 1932 election (to which I referred in this blog last month), I studied the Times' coverage of the campaign — and the Times' editorial policies clearly were different in those days.
  
  Students of history know 1932 was the year Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt defeated President Herbert Hoover in a landslide. On Election Day, the Times' front page ran an item in a box above the fold with a headline advising readers "Where to Vote For Hoover."
  
  Most Angelenos (like most Americans) did not follow the Times' recommendation when they went to their polling places.
  
  Times have changed.
  
  And one of the things that has changed is the Times' long-standing ban on endorsing presidential candidates. The newspaper stopped endorsing presidential candidates during the Nixon presidency but is resuming the practice this year.
  
  Today's Los Angeles Times says it endorses Obama "without hesitation."
  
  And recent voting history suggests that California will be in the Democratic column in November.
  
  It appears likely that, with its first presidential endorsement in nearly 40 years, the Times will achieve an electoral symmetry with its readers in 2008 that it wasn't able to achieve three-quarters of a century ago.
  
  Palin, once again, takes the hit for the Republicans. The Times writes that the decision was "irresponsible ... [It] calls into question just what kind of thinking — if that's the appropriate word — would drive the White House in a McCain presidency."
  
  And the Times isn't bashful about borrowing the poetic style of its preferred candidate. Obama, the Times writes, "represents the nation as it is and as it aspires to be."

I don't know if Powell will endorse anyone tomorrow or not, but I do know there will be legitimate endorsements published in the nation's newspapers in the next couple of weeks.

Whether the so-called "liberal media bias" exists, the truth is — as statistics clearly show — that the majority of newspapers that endorse presidential candidates have tended to endorse Republicans over the years.

In the last half century, the exceptions to that rule have occurred when the Republican candidate was considered to be too extreme (1964) or out of touch with the public while presiding over a recession (1992).

Thus far in the 2008 general election campaign, Obama leads in newspaper endorsements by about a 3-to-1 margin. Obama also has been endorsed by a few magazines — The New Yorker, Vibe, Rolling Stone and Esquire.

But only 82 newspapers have endorsed a candidate so far, according to Editor & Publisher. More than 400 newspapers endorsed a candidate in 2004.

Clearly, many, many newspapers that usually endorse a presidential candidate have not done so yet.

Perhaps they're waiting to focus their attention — as political observers tell us the voting public does — after the World Series.