It’s been a dreary exercise lately, reading Jim Romenesko’s collection of media industry news on Poynter.org. Some days, it has become little more than a parade of memos from copycat newspaper publishers who, faced for the first time in their lives with an actual problem to solve (falling circulation, falling ad revenue, falling readership) seem to have no management tool whatsoever in their arsenals other than cost cuts.
It is, on its face, a bizarre strategy, one which would not pass muster in any Business Management 101 course: Our product is failing the marketplace test; let’s trim back even more on what we offer the public. Or, maybe, just maybe, we could roll the dice, innovate and spend more money producing something new, different and better. Ehhh. Silly thought. Ignore it.
Finally, though, a backlash against all of these one-trick ponies occupying publishing suites has begun to emerge. First, press critic Jay Rosen suggested that Knight-Ridder, which is on the block, make an announcement that instead of selling itself to another big company, it would launch a pro-active plan to sell off its component parts to individual buyers. Under Rosen’s suggestion, KR would sell all 32 newspapers it owns to local buyers (presumably local buyers with a civic conscience) who would pay a premium for the opportunity to own the local daily. If no such buyers are found, so be it. Rosen calls it “the Main Street Strategy” to distinguish it from a “Wall Street” strategy.
And, as we noted earlier, a group of Knight Ridder alumni — many of them distinguished editors themselves — published an open letter also calling for something other than a traditional block sale of the company’s newspapers to whomever offers the highest price.
In recent days, other voices have joined this chorus. John McManus, of gradethenews.org put it this way:
“It’s come to this: A single wealthy investor [Bruce Sherman of Private Capital Management, which first urged a Knight Ridder sale] is able to threaten the civic vitality of 32 American metropolitan areas by forcing the sale of their newspapers to new owners in order to satisfy his demand for larger profits. Because those higher returns almost certainly will come at the expense of investigative reporting, independence from advertisers and adequately staffed and skilled newsrooms, the readers of Knight Ridder newspapers ought to rise up in opposition to the planned sale or dismemberment of the company.
“After a decade of shrinking its news staffs, the nation’s second-largest newspaper company no longer commands the respect it earned winning 84 Pulitzer Prizes in 79 years. But papers such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Charlotte Observer, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Kansas City Star, St. Paul Pioneer Press and San Jose Mercury News are still too essential to the civic life of their cities to be auctioned off like so many pork bellies.”
McManus suggests that “[r]eaders dismayed at the prospect of denatured local news should write letters to Mr. Sherman promising a boycott of the new owners of their paper — if they fire journalists or slash their compensation in order to meet PCM’s price.” He notes that, “using the power of the Internet, journalists, educators, community and government leaders, and citizens who recognize that newspapers form the spinal cord of participatory government now have the power to generate a massive protest” and presumably scare away any potential buyer of Knight Ridder who has further cost cuts and degradation of the product in mind.
McManus has working for him little more than the power of his own rhetoric, but late last week, MoveOn.org, best known for campaigning for lefty political causes, and for its formidable ability to mobilize both people and money, joined the fray.
The organization launched an online petition drive to protest job reductions at the Los Angeles Times and three other Tribune Co. newspapers — reductions that threaten the papers’ ability to deliver “strong watchdog journalism.”

Journalists traditionally aren't joiners -- for good reason. But as Wall Street continues to dismantle the foundational institution of American journalism -- the newspaper -- journalists will need to make common cause with their own communities.
If journalists remain passive bystanders they will have little chance of maintaining either the quality of their news reports or their standard of living.
Thanks to Steve for helping raise the issue. Mr. Sherman's efforts won't stop with Knight Ridder if he's successful. He owns major chunks of eight other newspaper chains.
Posted by John McManus on Mon 5 Dec 2005 at 02:21 PM
Maybe this is just a way to redefine journalism.
News is now a commodity, like soy beans or corn. Writing is 'content' and stories are manageable simple chunks or text that are concise, don't jump and contain little information.
Uninformative? Certainly. But at least it doesn't annoy and doesn't add to the costs. And if readers continue to leave in droves, why, that's just a sign of the future.
Wonder what the focus group has to say about that?
Posted by Dave In Texas on Mon 5 Dec 2005 at 07:25 PM
what is happening to the newspaper industry is part of the same transformation that has been affecting workers in many industries since the mid 1980s
"the power of the press" was based on the printing press...there are now numerous ways o f documenting and distributing news information and there are new and more efficient means of "printing" newspapers...it was only a matter of time before the news staff got hit by the changes in work
there has been very little public discussion of the sweeping changes that are being made in how people work and "earn a living"
disruptions, like the cuts to news staffs that are occurring now, are noted...but as the news people affected by the recent change in their lives can attest, the loss is personal and not experienced as part of a larger community issue
maybe some reporter will report on the big changes some day
Posted by jamzo on Tue 6 Dec 2005 at 09:30 AM
> It's another thing entirely for companies -- even companies beholden to Wall Street -- to ignore customer protests.
Yes and no. Unfortunately, the advertisers are the customers, and even if they wanted to throw their civic weight around, unless they have an alternate venue to advertise in they won't be going anywhere.
So what'll happen in future? Should we wait until the value of the then-emaciated newspaper drops to something the civic-minded community can afford? Or should the community take a look at the writing on the wall and try to start a competitor now?
And if Wall Street had a "newspaper futures" market, what'd be the value of an option to buy the San Jose Mercury News in 10 years' time?
(somehow the pieces don't seem like they're adding up, and this might point to why)
Posted by Anna on Tue 6 Dec 2005 at 11:26 PM
To Lovelady's four "constituencies" add a fifth; AGENDA.
How else to explain the media fixation on incessant stories about Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi et.al. while spiking the "man bites dog" story that a once highly regarded Democrat Senator and VP candidate supports Bush on Irag.
Perhaps customers would return to media that eschew ubiquitous and insultingly repetitious propaganda in favor of respecting and truly informing their customers.
Posted by RCB on Thu 8 Dec 2005 at 09:40 AM
News should to be able be sold and received money. The edition should make a profit, differently it is impossible. But journalists to dismiss it is impossible.
Posted by Bruce on Tue 17 Jan 2006 at 09:09 AM