The media industry received an unpleasant bit of news on Thursday: the magazine Editor & Publisher, which has covered the newspaper industry for over a century and won acclaim and awards over the past decade for its critical reporting, will cease publication at the end of the year. The move comes after the sale of a unit of magazines by Nielsen Business Media to 5 Global Media, a new company formed by Pluribus Capital Management and Guggenheim Partners. E&P staffers were notified of the news this morning.
Greg Mitchell has been E&P’s editor since 2002. He’s been tweeting about the news at his active Twitter feed, and also spoke for a few minutes with CJR assistant editor Greg Marx. An edited transcript of that conversation appears below.
CJR: Did you guys see this coming? It certainly came as a surprise to us, hearing about it.
Greg Mitchell: It was kind of a shock to us, only tempered by the fact that for the past month there had been online reports that there was some sort of deal that Nielsen was about to sell a bunch of magazines. And according to the reports, we were part of that deal; in other reports, we weren’t.
So it wasn’t a shock in the sense that we knew something was boiling, and that quite likely there would be some kind of sale. But we thought either we would be part of the deal, or we would be left behind and that would be OK, too. But not that we would fold this quickly, and with no online [presence]. It’s just sort of totally ceased publication.
CJR: So the Web site is going to disappear entirely?
GM: Unless there’s an outpouring of support and outrage, and people step forward, which could certainly happen. As of now, we’re here until the end of the year. We can come into the office until the end of the year; we’ll be at our phones and our desks, staying together. But there’s absolutely no plans for Nielsen to print the magazine or keep the Web site going.
CJR: What’s the general mood like there?
GM:Again, I think people are shocked. It’s a weird situation here—Nielsen owns forty-some magazines broken into three different units, and we were part of the unit with the magazines that have been sold, Brandweek and Adweek and Hollywood Reporter and so forth. And this all happened at the same time, so you have dozens of people on the same floor here being taken into meetings about their new owner, and trying to figure out what’s ahead for them. And at the same time, we’re hearing that we’re ceasing. So it’s kind of a strange day.
CJR: Were you given any explanation as to why you would be ceasing publication?
GM: It’s just a business decision, nothing to do with performance. We had turned the magazine around completely since 2003. We were a weekly until 2002, when we were starting to struggle, and we went monthly. And to the amazement of practically everybody, we turned things around, started making money, won awards, the Web site become tremendously popular and influential—it was quite a success story. So it was kind of a shock to us [to hear that] E&P would not keep going in some form.
CJR: Are there any aspects of that turn-around you’re particularly proud of?
GM: Even before I got here, E&P was practically the first magazine that was really promoting newspapers going on the Web—pushing, stressing, cajoling. In fact, our interactive conference is over twenty-five years old. And when I came in here, I really pushed for our own Web site to became more prominent. We made a big impact on the Web, going back seven or eight years ago. It really helped make us more of a force.
- 1
- 2
Truly sad news. I've read E&P since I was a high school journalist some 45 years ago.
#1 Posted by janet mendler, CJR on Thu 10 Dec 2009 at 04:02 PM
Sad news, indeed. I've been reading E&P since I was a high school journalist some 45 years ago, and subscribing since I graduated from college.
#2 Posted by janet mendler, CJR on Thu 10 Dec 2009 at 04:04 PM
I'm not happy to see such an institution go away,, but I lost my affection for the publication when Greg Mitchell took an industry publication and used it as a forum for his left-wing views.
#3 Posted by quotidian, CJR on Thu 10 Dec 2009 at 04:43 PM
What kind of nutjob are you, quotidian? Rightwingers like yourself are ruining this country. Stop listening to the fat blowhards and airheaded bimbos long enough to see what you've done, OK?
#4 Posted by RJ, CJR on Thu 10 Dec 2009 at 05:25 PM
Since EDITOR & PUBLISHER is a profitable publication, serves a very useful function, and has no effective competition, it seems to be a very stange business decision to close it down!
An enterprising magazine group (Hearst?) should reide to the rescue.
#5 Posted by Bill Irvine, CJR on Thu 10 Dec 2009 at 07:16 PM
It's really sad that we're losing THE industry trade mag. It's equally sad that I don't care, because it was lost long ago. This publication has made itself irrelevant to those of us on the front line of the business of journalism. At least Greg Mitchell had a platform to promote his books.
#6 Posted by Don't care, CJR on Thu 10 Dec 2009 at 08:51 PM
Too bad
#7 Posted by Sad, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 08:11 AM
How many jobs are being lost?
Was E&P actually losing money?
If so how much?
These are the basic questions that are not being answered in the numerous accounts I have read. Are there any reporters out there?
I first read E&P in the 1950s and 60s for the reporter want ads and quickly learned the reference to "good fishing and hunting" meant you will need to hunt and fish to eat with the salary we will pay you. I took a couple of those jobs and learned to hunt and fish, and to report.
gil bailey
#8 Posted by Gil Bailey, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 12:13 PM
@Giil Bailey,
I haven't fully reported this out, but my understanding is that E&P had been profitable in recent years but not in the past year.
the NYT story makes reference to E&P's 10 staff members.
#9 Posted by greg marx, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 12:36 PM
E & P stood up for the First Amendment - except when its editors opposed the point of view expressed - I'm thinking of Judith Miller's term in jail. If E & P was bothered by that, they sure hid it well. Mr. Mitchell also was an enthusiastic supporter of the witch hunt for the 'leaker' of Valerie Plame's not-very-secret employer. NY Times stories outing people involved in interrogations of Al Quaeda members, by contrast, were given sympathetic treatment. I guess it just depends.
Probably these were symptoms of decline, rather than the cause of it; capture of a news organization professing to be non-partisan by zealous seems to be a signal of declining future fortunes. E & P almost never challenged the prevailing urban orthodoxies of the mainstream media, and it frequently highlighted minor stories in order to push a political agenda. Mr. Mitchell wasn't shy about giving big play to stories that allowed him to promote his own books, either.
To all left-leaning E & P defenders, please skip the name-calling and cite me some real evidence of my mistaken impression that Mitchell pushed a left-wing agenda. E & P did run a piece giving credence to the reality of the Matthew Shepard case - that Shepard was killed over a drug deal gone wrong, not because he was gay, as the mythmakers have it - but that's all I can remember. The rest has been utterly predictable.
#10 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 12:44 PM
This is very SAD news for the staff of E&P and the entire News Media.
What many people don't realize is that if most newspapers eventually fail, a majority of news content will disappear. And, that includes the internet.
Fastforward to December 2015: People will be fed up with reading stories about someone's kids and pet. Yes, there's plenty of sex and sensational
"news" for content. But, . . . . why can't we find out what's going on with our state legislature or local government? Do you remember how easy it "used to be"?
Tom Edwards
#11 Posted by TOM EDWARDS, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 03:00 PM
How is refusing to testify when subpoenaed a case of the first amendment? She had the right to free speech and she had the right to not incriminate herself, she didn't have the right to show contempt of court and not show up for testimony.
You know who else Greg Mitchell didn't write about (nor did you)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Wolf
He was in jail longer and the tapes in question were his property. Greg must be some kind of neo-conservative because he didn't defend the liberal's first amendment (?)
Ugh, and the Plame story being a witch hunt? Please, stop rewriting history.
Especially the 4 year old, talked to death kind.
PS. The New York Times outed the ACLU's anonymous and biggest donor recently, which may or may not have cost them 20 million. A quarter of the ACLU budget is gone.
THOSE EVIL CONSERVATIVES! Who do they think they are, the WASHINGTON Times?
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 03:15 PM
In all the newsrooms I've worked, whenever someone was searching the back pages of E&P, you knew that person as looking for another job in one of the "regions." What a shame to lose such a gem.
#13 Posted by Suzy Maynard Barile, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 04:41 PM
It's time to revive Brill's Content.
#14 Posted by Carl Cronan, CJR on Sat 12 Dec 2009 at 11:42 AM
Good riddance.
How bout that Greg Mitchell "John Edwards is as pure as the driven snow and the National Enquirer is garbage" column?
And how about the journalistic ethics of disappearing that column down the memory hole when it made Mitchell look like an idiot and a partisan hack?
http://wcvarones.blogspot.com/2009/12/lying-liberal-greg-mitchells-editor.html
#15 Posted by W.C. Varones, CJR on Sat 12 Dec 2009 at 02:31 PM
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch
#16 Posted by R. B. Hubbard, CJR on Sat 12 Dec 2009 at 06:21 PM
As a former staffer at E&P in the days when it was family-owned, I am shocked and saddened to see it close. Fight to keep it. Someone come forward. It's worth it.
Carla Marie Rupp
#17 Posted by Carla Marie Rupp, CJR on Sun 13 Dec 2009 at 01:35 PM
I loved E&P for decades. Even under Mitchell there were still some excellent stories. But his open hatred for the right (read his Twitter feed sometime) highlighted all that is wrong with a supposedly neutral media.
I don't wish job loss on anyone, but whoever put MItchell in as editor should have had his head examined.
#18 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Tue 15 Dec 2009 at 08:52 AM
I couldn't disagree more, Dan. Prior to Greg editing E&P, the magazine was an industry mouthpiece.
Love him, or hate him, Greg was the first editor in memory to use E&P as a platform to make the media look in the mirror.
In the end, the reason E&P folded is the same reason all trade magazines fold: not enough revenue versus expenses -- i.e. profits, or the lack thereof.
#19 Posted by DBH / Talking New Media, CJR on Tue 15 Dec 2009 at 02:14 PM
DBH, you may make a plausible point on your own terms, but it certainly didn't help E & P's case that Mitchell hated the guts of a significant sector of consumers of the news industry, i.e., the sector to the right of the Democratic Party's rank-and-file, and seldom missed a chance to express this emotion in terms left over from some alternative weekly circa 1972.
As a result, as is the case with publications whose agenda is basically partisan-political, E & P ended up having what liberals might call a 'non-inclusive' approach to coverage of the news industry. The very issue of the degree to which partisan slanting has wounded the credibility of information sources 125 years old, or even younger, is a live source of debate in media-political circles, but you wouldn't have known it from reading E & P. Instead, you got stories like a recent one alleging that ACORN was 'framed'. A newspaper or reporter was almost always safe from Greg Mitchell's professional scrutiny as long as it or he or she hewed to a left-leaning political line. He did not put a mirror up to news sources who skipped the ACORN story, or (notoriously) ignored or trashed the evidence of John Edwards' amazingly hypocritical behavior, or engaged in stomach-turning race-baiting in the Duke-lacrosse affair, or . . . I could go on. Too many of us could go on, as well.
#20 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 15 Dec 2009 at 03:25 PM
Okay, let's assume that Greg Mitchel was using E&P as his intolerant liberal-leftist platform. Shouldn't that have been a great business decision considering many of you assume the media, who formed E&P's customer base, are also intolerant liberal-leftists?
And if we assume that it was serving that market well, then why did it fold?
These old narratives get in the way of telling the real story.
#21 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 15 Dec 2009 at 03:44 PM
Hi, Thimbles
If I understand your question correctly . . . no, the pandering to liberal media types was not a great business decision. For starters, there's too much competition . . . by analogy, I always felt Air America was doomed from the start because the liberal-leaning radio audience already had NPR. In the case of E & P, it brought little that was new to the conversation. Same old urban-liberal blab you can get in most NY-based magazines.
And for a second reason I can think of, the hard copy of E & P was retailed at regular magazine stands, and the online version was linked at Drudge. The publication sought not only news producers as customers, but consumers as well.
There are a lot of reasons why publications fail, and Mitchell's conversion of E & P into a vehicle for his own political views was probably not a major one. As I originally wrote, the takeover of E & P by a narrow political mentality was probably a symptom rather than a cause.
#22 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 12:58 PM
This is way after the fact, but since this is CJR, I felt compelled to set the record straight on several points made by Greg in the interview. I was the editor of E&P from its acquisition by what was then known as VNU in 1999 until 2002, as well as the editor of sister publication Mediaweek from 1991 until I left the company in 2002.
First, the E&P turnaround began in 1999, not 2003. When we acquired the company, the magazine was a shambles, a hodgepodge of flapdoodle design bound by such sophomoric conventions as edicts that all stories be written in the present tense and all web URLs be printed in color (whomever came up with that one sure didn't know much about printing costs). We redesigned the magazine on the fly in a matter of weeks, then turned it over to Roger Black, who, $80,000 later, came back with the current design. We refocused the magazine to be less promotional of the company's own interactive media efforts and to cover all disciplines of newspapering, which, at least at this writing, remains a business dependent on the sale of advertising and the manufacturing and distribution of a physical product every day. We added staff, including Alicia Mundy (now covering the FDA for the Wall Street Journal in Washington) and well-regarded freelance writers. We did both hard news and long-form narrative. And we did cover editorial issues, though we did so in a non-partisan manner with an empahsis on service journalism. In 2001, I received a call from David Laventhol, the former Times Mirror CEO and LA Times publisher who was then running CJR, who said he'd called simply to tell me that "what you are doing is being noticed." Having once worked for Times Mirror under David, I was floored by that call.
Next, Greg is correct in saying that the magazine was posting losses in excess of a million dollars. What he might not know is that $800,000-plus of that loss was due to a corporate G&A charge for "rent." With 18 staffers, a bunch of Macs and a fairly limited expense budget, that was way out of proportion to the actual cost. I was told when I brought this up to senior management (facetiously, I believe) that they would be happy to move the expense over to Mediaweek and bring E&P closer to breakeven.
The Adweek magazines group at the time shared many overhead expenses and all revenue among the magazines, and though it was nearly impossible at the time to determine how profitable Mediaweek was, it certainly was making plenty of money (and, with Brandweek, ostensibly carrying Adweek, which got credit for 60% of revenue but brought in far less). Even if management were serious, I would not have made that choice.
Going back to when I worked for E&P in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the magazine never made any money. It barely broke even, with the E&P Yearbook and Market Guide providing the profits.
While the Interactive Conference may be 25 years old, it is but a shell of what it was before the dot.com crash.
I left the company primarily because I did not agree with management's push to make the magazine a monthly. There is no such thing as a monthly news magazine, and the pace of monthly production is not conducive to running a newsy website. Additionally, to my knowledge, no content-driven news website currently makes any money once staff costs are apportioned correctly.
E&P was the victim of a short-sighted, and short-term it turns out, executive management at VNU, none of whom remain at the Nielsen Co. Their focus was entirely on quarterly margin maintenance, hence the accounting gimmick noted above.
I am pleased that E&P has been saved, and I wish all the best to its new editor, Mark Fitzgerald and technical editor Jim Rosenberg. They were, and are, the heart and soul of the publication, each with more than 20 years there (and Fitz with a preponderance of the Neal Awards mentioned in the Q&A, I believe).
I also wish Greg the best; I have liked and
#23 Posted by Bill Gloede, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 01:04 PM
It's very interesting to read the historic deatails of E&P provided by Bill Gloede alongside the interview with Greg Mitchell. I for one shall miss the coverage of smaller, regional publications that always received attention in E&P. seo
#24 Posted by Rex Vane, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 01:58 PM
Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed this great and interesting article.
gMS Hacks | Maple Story Hacks
#25 Posted by Dark Beard, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 02:11 PM
I genuinely liked reading through your post!. Quality material. I might advise you to come up with blogposts even more often. By doing this, having this kind of a worthy website I think you will probably rank higher in the search engines. term paper
#26 Posted by Sara, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 09:38 AM
Great overview. Your style of writing is really a joy to read.
#27 Posted by http://online-payday-loan.biz/100-online-payday-loan/, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 01:50 PM
Thanks for the interview transcript. It's good to know what's going on with this situation with this publication.
reg cure | registry cleaner reviews
#28 Posted by Henry Johnson, CJR on Mon 22 Feb 2010 at 01:11 AM
It's very interesting to read the historic deatails of E&P provided by Bill Gloede alongside the interview with Greg Mitchell. I for one shall miss the coverage of smaller, regional publications that always received attention in E&P.
cold sores
#29 Posted by Kileung, CJR on Tue 23 Feb 2010 at 02:27 AM
I'm writing a profile and the person was unable to meet in person so they answered questions by e-mail. When I write I my article is it better to I write: "he says" or do I have to say that he answered by e-mail
#30 Posted by Clarenciov@msn.com, CJR on Sun 7 Mar 2010 at 08:49 PM
Postscript to this story: Greg Mitchell has found a new home, and it will surprise no one that it is with the left-wing political sheet 'The Nation'. Joe Strupp found a new position at - wait for it - the left-wing 'Media Matters'.
E & P has continued to operate, albeit without an editor pushing a narrow political agenda in the guise of being a press review. Causation, correlation, who knows, but the takeover of venerable publications for more strictly left-wing ideological reasons seems to be a sign of the decline of that publication's influence and appeal.
#31 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 2 Apr 2010 at 04:46 PM
While the Interactive Conference may be 25 years old, it is but a shell of what it was before the dot.com crash. Although it's not much of a crash these days novation dicer
#32 Posted by Bobby Jones, CJR on Thu 17 Jun 2010 at 06:23 PM
Editor & Publisher has found a new buyer but its top editorial talent will not stay with the magazine. The magazine, which chronicles the newspaper industry, was set to fold after Nielsen sold many, but not all, of its trade publications to e5 Global Media LLC. But Duncan McIntosh, the California-based publisher of Boating World magazine
and Fish Rap News, stepped in and purchased the title from Nielsen. However, editor Greg Mitchell announced Thursday that McIntosh has informed him that he ...
audio codecs
#33 Posted by John, CJR on Tue 6 Jul 2010 at 02:15 AM
black corset
#34 Posted by Nick Gonnella, CJR on Thu 30 Sep 2010 at 06:52 AM
It's very interesting to read the historic deatails of E&P. I for one shall miss the coverage of smaller, regional publications that always received attention in E&P.
Regards, John C
hampers uk
#35 Posted by John c, CJR on Sat 5 Feb 2011 at 07:10 PM
It's very interesting to read the historic deatails of E&P provided by Bill Gloede alongside the interview with Greg Mitchell. I for one shall miss the coverage of smaller, regional publications that always received attention in E&P. internet marketing
#36 Posted by Joanne, CJR on Thu 7 Apr 2011 at 06:30 AM
I can't believe they are just getting rid of the whole website just like that? Do you think they will sell the website to someone else? It has to be worth quite a bit.
Ronnie
Appliance Warehouse
#37 Posted by Ronnie, CJR on Thu 29 Sep 2011 at 09:48 AM