1. ‘It Was Written’
Randall Keith and I are talking about the past when his boss, Dave Butler, slides open a glass door, eases his long frame into a chair, plants his feet on the conference room table, and makes clear by his weary affect that the topic does not interest him.
Instead, this is what Butler wants to talk about when he talks about his newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News: all the many readers—2.7 million weekly, in print and online when you factor in the Merc’s smaller sister papers across the Bay Area; the Merc’s new “spiffy” app; its willingness to focus on the “important stuff” rather than compete with “every school board that has a website” and all the many tech bloggers—“I have no idea how many blogs are dedicated to covering Apple”—because, he says, the Merc is “willing to be more interesting.” He wants to talk about making money, too, because the Merc makes some. How much he will not say, except that most of the profits still come from print.
Dave Butler has been a newspaperman since 1972, a self-described journeyman who became the editor of the Mercury News in 2008. The paper had been sold two years earlier by its longtime parent company, Knight Ridder, to the McClatchy Company. McClatchy in turn quickly sold it to MediaNews Group, whose chairman, Dean Singleton, put Butler in charge. Three months into the job, Butler wrote a memo to the staff, outlining a vision that could essentially be boiled down to a simple premise: the past could no longer animate the Mercury News. The days of four hundred people in the newsroom, revenues of $300 million and profit margins north of 30 percent, a bureau in Hanoi, a Pulitzer for foreign news, Spanish and Vietnamese language editions, and a Sunday magazine, were gone. The staff of the Merc, now about half the size it was at its peak in the late 1990s, had no choice but to press on with vigor and a sense of mission: “Let’s carve some new trails in the jungle of journalism!”
Butler has the advantage of having missed his paper’s past, and so is unencumbered by the memory of what the place had been, not so long ago. Randall Keith knew. He had arrived earlier, in 1998, just in time to watch the great tech bubble inflate, carrying the Merc along with it. He had left a job as city editor of the Quincy, Massachusetts, Patriot Ledger to join a paper with a national reputation both for its journalism and its profitability. Time magazine had several years earlier dubbed the Merc the nation’s most tech-savvy newspaper. Its revenues from classified advertising—especially recruitment ads for all those many high-tech companies whose every product rollout and inevitable IPO were covered by the paper’s burgeoning business staff—had fueled ever more revenue, $288 million the year Keith arrived.
The Merc was fat, ambitious, and admired in those days, in particular for the speed with which it had adapted to the great technological changes that were shaking the industry. It seemed destined, in fact, to master those disruptions, fitting for a paper whose widely read day-opening blog was called “Good Morning Silicon Valley.”
The Merc was among the first daily newspapers in the country with an online presence, the first daily to put its entire content on that site, the first to use the site to break news, and among the first to migrate that burgeoning online content to the web. In the early 1990s, the joke among the paper’s small online staff was that, given the still modest returns on its digital investment, the paper could still make a few bucks charging admission to all the visitors from papers across the country (and around the world) who showed up to see how they were doing it.
“It was a big adventure,” Keith says. “It was a lot of fun.”


Thanks for the fascinating article about the San Jose Mercury News and its early role in digital news. I was on the newspaper staff there from 1987 to 1994, some of the paper's salad days. It was a competitive and generally upbeat newsroom that took pride in chasing big stories hard and beating others in recognizing trends. It also was one of the first papers to recognize the importance of its visual folks (the photo eds greeted me, a new assigning editor, with the message "equal partners"). I spent most of my time at the Mercury News on the city desk in San Jose as special beats editor, deputy city editor and acting city editor. My last job was as head of its then growing Peninsula bureau, an outpost of nearly 20 reporters, editors, columnists and photographers covering the turf between San Jose and San Francisco. (It no longer exists.) One day in 1994, Bob Ingle, then executive editor, came to the bureau to talk about the future. He told reporters that someday they'd be carrying audio recorders, taking pictures and shooting video. His reception was silence and shock once he left. Ingle, as your piece suggests, was a somewhat taciturn sort who kept his own counsel. But he had as good a vision of the future as anyone in those years. Too bad he didn't prevail or help Knight-Ridder chart a new course. But as Charlene Li apparently learned in two years, according to your article, this was a company that keyed on short-term earnings only and maximizing the bottom line.
That, of course, wasn’t the staff’s desire. I wouldn't necessarily call the Mercury News a great paper in my time. But it was a very good paper and a great place to work with many reporters and editors who have gone on to enormous careers. When I left, I went back to the "academy" (I teach at Emerson College in Boston). But I left my heart in San Jose.
#1 Posted by Jerry Lanson, CJR on Thu 10 Nov 2011 at 04:05 PM
Great piece. Nicely written. Lotta nuance there.
One criticism: Webb resigned by design. He was exiled to some province & made miserable. That Merc editors "backed away" from his piece is also an understatement.
So what?
Well, as the piece notes, via the internet, Dark Alliance basically made the paper's name, nationally, among those of us not preoccupied with Important Silicon Valley Drama. It was good work. Good journalism.
It was good content.
And, perhaps surprisingly, it was the content that mattered to the online platform, not the other way 'round.
Though it's been told, so maybe doesn't count as news, the way Merc brass treated Webb is the Mercury News' saddest 1990s legacy. The way it treated disruptive technologies is, at best, a distant second.
#2 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Thu 10 Nov 2011 at 05:19 PM
The fall was inevitable. The leaders who ran the Merc and KR were just not prepared for the complete collapse of their classified revenue stream. They could not see nor grasp the existential threat that the Internet wrought on their business.
I was a designer at the Mercury News starting 1991 and the digital designer for Mercury Center from 1995-98. It was a heady time for the paper and Mercury Center. Both grew. The prospects for both bright. But that was a fleeting moment.
The last decade has been one of uncomfortable adaptation. The terms of these changes have been dictated to the newspaper business by forces they cannot shape and barely understand. Revenue and readers are on a steady and irresistible downward slide. The business as it is currently constructed will never grow again. The future of newspapers, if there is one, is properly contracting itself to match its dwindling revenues.
This is not to say that there is no opportunity for growth in the new world. There is actually boundless opportunity and an audience that consumes more news and information than ever before. It is just that the newspaper as it is and as we knew it will increasingly not meet that need.
#3 Posted by Albert Poon, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 04:40 AM
Many thanks for the kind words about the piece. I am struck now, and in trying to understand what happened then -- at the Merc, and elsewhere -- how essential compelling content was and remain central to the success of...the business. As content was diluted in the interests of cost cutting, readers turned away, and as they did, they found not only new places to find news, but new places to find what they wanted to buy, or where they wanted to live and work. The experimentation -- the risk taking, the stretching the definition of news, the willingness to move away from default-position thinking, all of it was essential. And, alas, too little of it happened.
#4 Posted by Michael Shapiro, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 09:52 AM
The author of the article forgot to mention extreme liberal bias of the newspaper. This definitely contributed to downfall. I remember as they published in three consecutive issues a report 'proving' that our alphabet services (FBI, CIA, etc.) organized delivery of drugs into this country with the purpose of exterminating a black population.
I decided to boycott this newspaper since then.
vlad
#5 Posted by Vladimir Kuznetsov, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 12:01 PM
This is difficult for me to read -- I experienced the last of the good years at the Merc and the full-blast impact of the bad ones.
I never thought of myself as a romantic about newspapers till I saw what happened the the Merc during my tenure. It was heartbreaking.
#6 Posted by tom Mangan, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 12:30 PM
As a former reporter for the Mercury News during the early days of Mercury Center, I do recall a general zeal among the staff to not only embrace but to use the new avenues to enhance our journalism.
Two instances come to mind.
When a hurricane slammed Hawaii, Mercury Center helped lead us to - and later distribute - information on damage to specific condominium complexes with units owned as second homes by folks in Silicon Valley. Per my recall, I believe that led us to establish a phone hot line for the exchange of information which we used in news articles and list sidebars.
Later, I was assigned to work on a project to see how a detailed, very long and well researched article would work for new media publication. Weeks were spent researching minute details and writing information into power packed sentences. I left the paper shortly after. The experiment - like many at Mercury News - was noble but ended up as yet another footnote in the quest for innovative relevancy.
#7 Posted by E.A. Torriero, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 01:33 PM
I worked in advertising at the SJMN during the period described here. Based on the events I participated in, the things I heard about and what I remember this story is accurate, insightful and contributes vastly to the story of newspapers in the digital age.
But after reading the whole piece I am somewhat inclined to say “So what.” My last year as classified manager we did $120,000,000 in help wanted alone. A couple of years later—after I retired—that number went down to about $10,000,000. Filling jobs and selling cars and houses works really well on an electronic platform that has no need for an expensive adjunct that produces content. I’m with Bob Ryan on this one. The train was going to get us pretty much no matter what.
I do have a factual quibble. The article mentions the vulgar phrase Bob Ingle used to shut people down which I remember had the word “dumb” in it rather that stupid. It was thus shortened to DFI, which was for a time a somewhat universal—and generally humorous—Mercury News acronym.
#8 Posted by Lou Alexander, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 03:12 PM
Newspapers and the people who run them are by definition conservative. They write the first draft of history, so they're afraid to make mistakes. That was especially true at the Merc after Dark Alliance, so it's amazing they went as far as they did with Merc Center. The opportunity was there, but the vision to exploit it by fundamentally changing the business model, could never find purchase in a corporation ruled by journalists. That said, the reporters and editors at the Merc were incredibly talented at what they did best. Unfortunately, what they did best was not what the business needed to survive.
#9 Posted by Doug Edwards, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 03:48 PM
Point taken about Ingle's rejoinder -- though he did not quibble when I raised it with him. As to the point about the train having already left, I'd thought that way for a long time -- the inevitability, the fate of a good company undone by "disruptive technology." But, in time, I found that argument, as well articulated as it is by Bob Ryan, was one I had difficulty accepting. My reporting came to suggest otherwise.
#10 Posted by Michael Shapiro, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 04:51 PM
In every instance of a tale of a diminishing newspaper, grave-dancers love to point to the publication's "extreme liberal bias" with unmitigated glee, joyfully shouting at their pleasure at the loss of employment by so many people who worked ridiculous hours at pay that would seem miniscule by corporate standards.
If someone could prove the liberal agendas of the failed non-editorial encyclopedias, shoppers or phone books, this logic might prove valid in even one single instance.
It about competition and technology, about a delivery system that simply cannot and will not compete, except on a much smaller scale. It's a shame so many dedicated people who devoted much of their lives to a well-meaning career to do good for people are treated so shabbily by those who celebrate the end of what they've worked for.
#11 Posted by Dave Wilson, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 05:53 PM
This is a fine tour of an essential part of the history of the decline of newspapers. Still, like most that has been written and said on the subject, you fail to offer a satisfying answer to this fundamental question: What could we have done differently that would have enabled the Merc and its ilk to continue as generators of content comparable in quantity and quality to that delivered in their heyday?
My question itself may rely on some weak premises. For example, as your allusion to the two mediocre newspapers up the road in San Francisco suggests, the quantity/quality equation prior to the train wreck wasn’t all that strong outside a few fortunate metropolitan markets. Also, the heyday itself was a brief aberration in an institutional history that has more of a Fox News cast to it than any of us would like to admit, dating at least as far back as the controversy over Alexander Hamilton’s affair with Maria Reynolds. That brief aberration owed its life-blood after World War II to the monopoly power that favored the last surviving printing press owners in so many local communities and made it for a time in their self-interest to throw a more generous chunk of the revenue into their newsrooms.
Ultimately, any answer to the question of how newspapers could have survived as powerful content generators must be built on finding enough revenue to support thriving newsrooms. In an online world, that needn’t be anywhere near the revenue necessary to support the infrastructure of a high-margin printed newspaper, perhaps as little as 15 or 20 percent. There may be that much revenue available in many communities, but so far no one has proved it. Maybe the missing piece is a local digital monopoly comparable to the local print monopoly, but that piece will probably always be missing in a digital world.
Meanwhile, as citizens, we must find better ways to utilize the fire hoses of information that the digital revolution is spraying all over us. Whatever it was we newspaper stewards failed to do is now certainly written.
#12 Posted by Harold W. Fuson, Jr., CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 06:01 PM
Michael: My newsroom pals tell me that Ingle was as likely to use stupidest and he was to say dumbest. I did not spend as much time with him as they did so maybe all I every heard was the DFI version.
#13 Posted by Lou Alexander, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 06:55 PM
"Nicely written." says Edward Ericson Jr. above. Huh? This is one of the most poorly written pieces in a supposedly credible national publication I have read in a long time. The sentence structure throughout is clumsy, and overall it is turgid, bogged down in needless irrelevant details, and consistently fails to get to the meat of the matter. It begs the sharp scalpel of a skilled editor.
I see that its author Shapiro teaches at Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism. Guess he's an prime example of those who can't do teach. If this is what is written by someone preparing the next generation of journalists for the challenges of reporting and writing news in the 21st Century, the Internet is hardly the only danger journalism faces today.
#14 Posted by Rob Patterson, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 07:00 PM
The simple reason that the San Jose Mercury News failed is because after they broke the CIA drug smuggling story in the eighties they were quickly taken over by the CIA. Almost all their ventures fail because they are not suited to run these companies correctly. Actually, they will take a loss rather than lose control of the essential media.
#15 Posted by blueskybigstar, CJR on Sat 12 Nov 2011 at 09:09 AM
I predate all this.. I started at the Merc in 1948, the first MS from Columbia they hired and I lasted 22 years but I have lived in Santa Clara County for most of my life (and still do). The basic conflict at the papers in the days of which you are writing was the difference in philosophy between the Knights and the Ridders. The Knights favored the editorial side, the Ridders, advertising. I often wonder what would have happened if Larry Jinks had stayed on longer. Either he and Tony would have gone on separate tracks or we would truly have seen a new vehicle. The present Mercury is a joke, hardly a newspaper and not likely to be one, even though it once had the potential to be more. In the long run, though, no one has yet got their arms around the internet revolution, Nor are they likely to do so with the present management.
#16 Posted by Carl Heintze, CJR on Sat 12 Nov 2011 at 11:34 AM
As a reporter and editor at the Mercury News from 1984 to 2008 I was involved in all of the online efforts, including leading at least one "online first" effort in the newsroom. One thing not touched on in this piece is that Page One was always the core value in the newsroom during most of the time covered by this article. Online was always No. 2, despite the annual slogans used to try and convince the journalists otherwise. “I don’t have time to write a web brief, I’m writing for Page One!,” more than one reporter told me year after year. This attitude had a direct impact on how the newsroom responded to its web site.
In addition, the KR corporate web site platform we all had to use was an impediment because it was clunky, understaffed and the rules for it were rigid. I recall being told in 2001 or 2002 that for a business reporter to launch a blog we’d have to wait 3 months to get it set up! Really? In Silicon Valley? We did a work-around and used Blogger.
But this article is less about good journalism. The news content was always there, even if you had to beat reporters and editors over the head to get it. It’s a well-told story about how publishers and corporate leaders let the cash cow - classified and other advertising - get stolen right from under their noses despite warnings from a few who “got it.” For the Mercury News that meant a $100 million revenue loss within a few short years. That’s about a third of its annual revenue in 1999/2000. Simply staggering. The sad part is that lots of good journalists lost their jobs or their faith in the future of corporate-led journalism. The bad business decisions also mean we have a citizenry that has less impartial information to consider when making local, state and national decisions. It’s also sad that no one has yet figured out a new business model to fund daily journalism in a way that will keep communities informed like we did in the 80s and 90s. But many of us are still hopeful
#17 Posted by Steve Wright, CJR on Sat 12 Nov 2011 at 02:39 PM
Mercury Center, like Viewtron before it, employed the best available options at the time, in the best tradition of newspaper innovations over their storied existence. My seven years with Viewtron were exhilarating with new possibilities, which were all the more impressive because we had to create so much on the fly. A decade before Merc Center (and the World Wide Web), Viewtron published full-length Miami Herald content online, augmented it with original reporting and more, and proved that there was a market for the service. Had Knight Ridder executives stuck by their promise to give us a full six years to prove our concept – instead of abruptly pulling the plug in year 4 – they eventually might have parlayed a more agreeable publishing powerhouse merger than AOL’s with Time Warner. It’s even more painfully apparent, however, that the availability of more information to more people today than ever before in history has failed to elevate our public discourse.
#18 Posted by Bill Whiting, CJR on Sat 12 Nov 2011 at 06:07 PM
Terrific autopsy of the Merc News. The disruption continues as news media companies continue to flail. Knight Ridder was simply too far ahead of the tech with Viewtron, and Mercury Center was right to charge for content. This is a well reported, fascinating story. It should be read by news publishers and boards, and journalism students. Perhaps they and we can learn from our mistakes.
#19 Posted by Jane Briggs-Bunting, CJR on Sat 12 Nov 2011 at 09:31 PM
It was something of a shock to come to awareness again in the so called "unconscious" of a presently living representative of my "greater self," an American, too, which made this all the more shocking. (This would never have happened had he not chosen to play with trance and attempt to write in that condition.)
Before long, I'd used his computer and Internet connection (by slyly nudging him a bit, feeding a few mental associations into his mind as stared at his computer monitor) to find out what had become of The Manchester Guardian, but this led to an entire series of shocks, as you might expect, the current state of the newspaper business being just one of many.
I appreciated the article -- it helped me to fill in some of the gaps in my understanding -- but have come to understand that the changes underlying it are but the tip of the iceberg -- I'm not the only "spook" around, these days. As I wrote, long ago, "Comment is free, but facts are sacred." Unfortunately, some facts are very resilient to corroboration by ordinary means yet exist, nevertheless.
Regards
#20 Posted by CPScott, CJR on Sun 13 Nov 2011 at 11:45 AM
A worthy explication of institutional decline, though sadly one lacking in the "answers" we disappointed newspeople and readers wish existed for the question of how quality journalism might be revived in the current inhospitable climate for newspapers. The St. Petersburg Times, supported by the Poynter Institute, offers one example of an economic model, but it is unlikely to be widely replicated.. We can hope for a future in which a successful system of micropayments for the acquisition of information, data, and entertainment could provide revenue streams sufficiently supportive of creators (this dream persists with regard to music and other creative output).. It could still happen. But as of now, consumers are used to information being free, and the flood of material competing for our attention swamps the thoughtful and inspired among an undifferentiated mass of dross, with deleterious effects upon consumers' ability to discern value. The extent to which newspapers can gain readers' confidence in their curatorial expertise might be the last, best hope of the genre, but the fact that newspapers such as the Merc choose instead to devalue their own promise by relying upon a mishmash of wire reports and cheaply gathered, generally low-value local-affiliate material suggests the death spiral will continue unabated. As a reporter for the Miami Herald in the 1980s, I saw the impact of the videotex experiment's failure (along with the industry-changing imoact of USA Today's shorter, dumbed-down approach) and started looking elsewhere for my future income streams. But I will never give up hoping that the market will somehow develop more hospitable frameworks for effective newsgathering and journalism with integrity and high aspirations, because Jefferson was right about newspapers' importance to democracy. A public commons devoid of the best possible information-conveying instruments is sure to suffer from the "garbage in garbage out" problem as people increasingly rely upon less balanced information sources. Would it really be "socialism" or otherwise a harmful thing for us to have a "public option" to compete with the market-based actors who have essentially failed us? Perhaps such a thing could be financed by a tiny tax dedicated to re-enriching the public sphere by creating better incenetives for journalistic activity meeting certain standards (number of sources, balance, even footnotes/links; surely a neutral framework could be agreed upon)? There is surely no shortage of available, skilled journalists thrown out of work by the processes outlined here, not to mention the many other talented potential contributors from other fields who could lend expertise. Without providing financial incentives, we lose much of that potential. Perhaps some corporation will come to the rescue, but doesn't the history covered here suggest that any such action is doubtful? We can wring our hands, accept the new status quo, with its information elites and have-nots, or dare to think of alternatives that might bring forth a better day in which journalism again becomes an admired, public-spirited enterprise, open to all and led by those less interested in profits than the betterment of society. OK, dream on.... Maybe. Or ... ideas? Thanks for the discussion prompt, anyway. A real trip down memory lane (as well as some alleyways I missed having as good a view of), and an object lesson in over-reliance upon markets to generate the best societal outcomes.
#21 Posted by peaceworker, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 05:05 AM
This great newspaper was taken down because it was going after the Bush family and the Bush family won
#22 Posted by Hapy, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 08:45 AM
I am really very disappointed because of lots of changing since. It was finest
newspaper for San Jose Mercury News after 1980"s. I felt so much loss which
our composition and editorial room had worked so hard. What is sad today? Something was screwed up........And lost fine writers and editorial department.
#23 Posted by Robert Strohmeier, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 11:43 PM
Good piece from the 50,000-foot level. Here on the ground, now on the opposite coast, it still breaks my heart to look at the Merc. Starting Good Morning Silicon Valley was a thrill and those four years were tremendous fun. Everyday proved, as Dan Gillmor used to say, the readers know more than we do. They knew more than our corporate leaders knew, too. What a shame.
#24 Posted by Pat Sullivan, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 04:31 PM
Agree with the story in general, especially on paywalls, except for it basically throwing Webb under the bus. Edward Ericson is right; the Merc just crushed him and walked away from what was a very good, and very largely true, news story.
As for what could have been done? Sticking with paywalls and investing in premium content.
And, the commenter who touted Poynter? I'm not so sure it's doing that great.
#25 Posted by SocraticGadfly, CJR on Thu 17 Nov 2011 at 09:21 PM
Let me add one more thing about anybody touting the Poynter model. The St Pete Times is still not paywalled. Being owned by a nonprofit entity doesn't matter if you still have a stupid business model.
For example, many in American media circles tout The Guardian. That's even though its parent trust foundation admits that it hemorrhages millions of dollars/pounds on its unpaywalled online operations.
Stewart Brand said information wants to be costly, as well as free, folks.
#26 Posted by SocraticGadfly, CJR on Fri 18 Nov 2011 at 12:03 AM
Seize the future? Orwell's "1984," maybe. Ten years ago I sent one of their scribes an e-mail questioning his vendetta against Microsoft. He reported my complaint to "security."
#27 Posted by M. ALTAMIRANO, CJR on Fri 25 Nov 2011 at 01:01 PM
I had the great fortune of working for Bob Ingle and Chris Jennewein during the formative years of Mercury Center. There were scores of hard working people at the Mercury News that made the online efforts possible. Unfortunately, those names were lost as is so often the case when reminiscing of technology in the Silicon Valley.
If only Mr. Shapiro would have been a fly on the wall of the conference rooms at Mosaic (then soon-to-become Netscape) Communications during Mr. Ingle's doctoral thesis on Internet publishing to Jim Clark and Mark Andreessen. That would have made for some interesting news...
#28 Posted by Michael Deleo, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 08:05 PM
It's more than a stretch to suggest that because Knight Ridder had MercCenter in its chalice, it was therefore one sip away from immortality. If only.
The author and Knight Ridder’s many critics overlook the fact that to this day, no one else has found a way to be wildly successful online with news content at the center of its efforts.
The Tribune Co. undoubtedly felt very good for a long time about its investment in AOL (not to forget about Time Warner and its epic affair with AOL). Nor, by the way, has Yahoo or Google found news to be a profitable line of business.
Knight Ridder did find some success online, which the author apparently found to be an inconvenient truth, deciding as he did not to give KR credit for its role in creating CareerBuilder, now the No. 1 jobs site. Nor was there a mention of cars.com, another profitable online creation of the newspaper industry -- again with Knight Ridder a key player at its inception, and Tony Ridder leading the charge.
If any part of online had been easy to figure out, the Tribune Co. would not have entered Chapter 11, the NY Times and McClatchy would not be fighting for their lives. The fact is, there’s a good chance the Washington Post would be dead without its diversified portfolio (e.g., Kaplan). Ditto Cox’s newspapers without the parent company’s deep pockets thanks to its other non-newspaper, non-Internet assets. All of these companies have spent heavily trying to make a go of it on the Internet, as did Knight Ridder. But nobody has figured it out, just as nobody in the newspaper industry figured out Google, Ebay, Facebook or Yahoo ... or the many other long-forgotten wannabes such as MySpace, Excite, At Home, Infoseek, and on and on.
Nonetheless, the author apparently shared the view of many journalists who are understandably angry about the plight of their profession and believe somebody should be blamed. And so it was written.
But not fully or fairly.
It's more than a stretch to suggest that because Knight Ridder had MercCenter in its chalice, it was therefore one sip away from immortality. If only.
The author and Knight Ridder’s many critics overlook the fact that to this day, no one else has found a way to be wildly successful online with news content at the center of its efforts.
The Tribune Co. undoubtedly felt very good for a long time about its investment in AOL (not to forget about Time Warner and its epic affair with AOL). Nor, by the way, has Yahoo or Google found news to be a profitable line of business.
Knight Ridder did find some success online, which the author apparently found to be an inconvenient truth, deciding as he did not to give KR credit for its role in creating CareerBuilder, now the No. 1 jobs site. Nor was there a mention of cars.com, another profitable online creation of the newspaper industry -- again with Knight Ridder a key player at its inception, and Tony Ridder often leading the charge.
If any part of online had been easy to figure out, the Tribune Co. would not have entered Chapter 11, the NY Times and McClatchy would not be fighting for their lives. The fact is, there’s a good chance the Washington Post would be dead without its diversified portfolio (e.g., Kaplan). Ditto Cox’s newspapers without the parent company’s deep pockets thanks to its other non-newspaper, non-Internet assets. All of these companies have spent heavily trying to make a go of it on the Internet, as did Knight Ridder. But nobody has figured it out, just as nobody in the newspaper industry figured out Google, Ebay, Facebook or Yahoo ... or the many other long-forgotten wannabes such as MySpace, Excite, At Home, Infoseek, and on and on.
Nonetheless, the author apparently shared the view of many journalists who are understandably angry about the plight of their profession and believe somebody should be blamed. And so it was written.
But not fully or fairly
#29 Posted by Chip Visci, CJR on Sun 18 Dec 2011 at 11:19 AM