Richard Pérez-Peña has several interesting bits in his piece on the soon-to-commence Battle for New York between his own New York Times and Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal.
As I said the other day, the last thing we need right now is a newspaper war, especially between the country’s last two giants standing. But it’s been hard to tell if Murdoch wants the Times to die so that the Journal might live or if he just wants the Times dead. This quote points to the latter:
Sure enough, in the News Corporation’s planning discussions about the local New York section, the talk has been less about what The Journal would gain than about “killing The New York Times,” according to several people with direct knowledge of the preparations, who asked for anonymity to discuss what are supposed to be secret matters. “It’s not an economic decision,” one of them said.
Indeed, Murdoch has long taken big losses on his major papers to advance his power. The Times of London has been a perennial money-loser, though this pre-Murdoch Journal story says it was headed toward profitability in the months before the crisis, under Robert Thomson, (UPDATE: Or not! The Telegraph says today that the Times lost a staggering $132 million last year and $75 million in 2008, the year it was supposed to turn profitable.) and now editor of the Journal. The New York Post has lost tens of millions of dollars annually for years and, now that Murdoch has a much more powerful platform, seems like a dead paper walking.
Topping the news here, which the NYT credits to Sarah Ellison’s forthcoming book, is the report that the Journal lost a whopping $80 million last (fiscal) year. That isn’t all a function of the economy. To put it in context, the NYT itself made $21 million in 2009.
How long will Murdoch be willing (or able) to subsidize such losses at two newspapers?
Seeing this, Business Insider editor and CEO Henry Blodget (h/t Heidi Moore) notes that:
* The New York Times has 1,100 journalists, circulation of 900,000, and an operating profit of $21 million (in 2009)
* The Wall Street Journal has 750 journalists, circulation of 2 million, and an operating loss of $80 million (year through June, 2009)
That’s helpful. But then Blodget falls flat on his face with this leap of financial logic:
The WSJ appears to pay its journos a lot more than the New York Times
First of all, I’ll bet you anything that isn’t true (UPDATE: And so will my fellow Journal alum Heidi Moore). The Times doesn’t hire kids out of college for $30,000 to $40,000 a year like the Journal has a habit of doing (and did with me!). The Times starts at roughly twice that. Also, journalists have long had a habit of going from the Journal to the Times. Rarely do they go the other way. One reason for that is pay.
But more importantly, you can’t make the deduction Blodget, a former Wall Street analyst, does with the limited data points he has. The most glaring absence here is revenue. You just can’t guess about salaries like he does here without revenue numbers, and the Times brings in far, far more revenue per reader than the Journal does.
For one, the Times gets about $600 a year in circulation revenue for each unit of circulation, subscription or newsstand. News Corporation doesn’t break out these numbers, but it’s doubtful the Journal gets a quarter of that per head. A subscription to the print paper costs $119 a year (less if online only), and if you’re like me, you get your WSJ paper with airline miles equivalent to about $40.
Then there’s that whole Sunday paper thing. The Times has one, and the Journal doesn’t. The Times’s ad pages dwarf the Journal’s.
Point being, if you have a lot more revenue, you can employ a lot more journalists even while paying them the same—or more.
Murdoch can't run in the red forever but he seems to think he's different from all other business ceo's. Why would I subscribe to the WSJ even online when I can't get the TSL--a branch of the Times of London on a weekly basis online nor in the mail. I'm supposed to get both. I received the Times of London once a week usually from November through January this year. I can access it but it's supposed to BE HERE and it's not. The mail is worse. Last fall I received one issue of 10 in succeeding weeks. I did receive them after I complained but that meant I have two or three in the weeks of Thanksgiving and Christmas. This time around I have missed two weeks in January though the others have come sporadically. I have to complain to London and to the contractor in New Jersey just to get a weekly literary magazine. I get the feeling the contractor thinks California is too far away and I won't miss it anyway. With business practices like that why should I spend money of any amount on the WSJ???
#1 Posted by Patricia Wilson, CJR on Mon 22 Mar 2010 at 05:18 PM
I agree with the thesis, but would toss Murdoch's ownership of Fox into the discussion. Murdoch and his deputy Roger Ailes have been throwing everything including the kitchen and bathroom sinks at the Obama administration for two years, and yet this morning, Murdoch woke up staring generational political realignment in the face. More than an election, more than an agenda, health care reform on Obama's desk and signed tomorrow is the true measure of realignment and definitive of an opposition at its nadir.
Rupert Murdoch hasn't just associated himself with the remants of the party now staring into the abyss. He has been their primary communication patron and political officer. And tonight he is losing, really, really badly -- irretrievably, perhaps, in his lifetime -- on a project that means everything to him: advancing authoritarian capitalism in the democratic world.
The Times' project for generations has been report on human events in the service of advancing democratic capitalism. As such, and particularly in these klugy times, Obama is their horse. The symbiosis of the Times' and the administration's geo-economic vision poses a direct challenge to Murdoch's personal and professional ambitions. The success of one is toxic. The success of both may be fatal.
#2 Posted by Jon Johannson, CJR on Tue 23 Mar 2010 at 01:23 AM
Sorry, Ryan, but we think you are missing the real point in this otherwise excellent article.
Murdoch has never been about journalism. His sole driver is acceptance amongst his moral betters and weilding power. He wasn't called the 'dirty digger' because he was willing to work hard!
Go here for a snapshot of what he does, why and how:
http://www.springhillvoice.com/reclaimdemocracy.html
#3 Posted by stopmurdoch, CJR on Tue 23 Mar 2010 at 08:38 AM
I was already a subscriber to the WSJ and the Financial Times when Murdoch took over. Two things that I was optimistic about was a promised increased emphasis on international news and a luxury magazine that would compete with the FT’s “How to Spend It” luxury magazine. I never saw an increase in international and the luxury magazine was a disappointment. For some reason I didn’t pay too much attention to the reports of Murdoch turning the WSJ into a general interest newspaper. But then came a large increase of political news coverage throughout the paper and especially the front page. And there was, indeed, a noticeable trend to right-wing leaning in the news section. I was always able to separate the news coverage in the Journal from its Op/Ed pages and some of the extreme right-wing columnists. But the wall between opinion and news has been lowered to the point of it being barely distinguishable—particularly in its use of headlines. The thing where I really saw the change in the Journal’s coverage was during the presidential election. There was a public poll that was devastating to McCain’s presidential bid. Near the bottom of the release there was a graph that spelled out a single positive takeaway from the poll for McCain, which was very minor. The WSJ used that as its lead for a front page story with a deceiving headline. It was the only major news organization to do so. That’s when I decided that the WSJ wasn’t worth my time anymore. I have always been a very happy subscriber to the FT.
I am certain that reports of the WSJ paying far less than the New York Times are true. It certainly is the same with Fox. The Murdoch model seems to be to pay large salaries for those who make money and ratings and to treat the rest of staff as serfs, in both pay and working condition.
Doing this to the Journal seems to have had two devastating effects: The first, as noted in the article, it has taken away from the its strength as a business paper and has become a paper that is less distinguishable from its main rivals. Second, it has weakened its editorial voice. The reason its editorial voice was so strong was because of the high journalist standards of the rest of the paper.
#4 Posted by Anthony DeMarco, CJR on Tue 23 Mar 2010 at 10:34 AM
Anthony,
Your concerns are correct. Rupert Murdoch has no time for facts or truth. His only interest is in servicing his climb to the top of total media control of a sufficient number of the voters in any 'democracy' to grant him absolute power over governance.
He has it in Australia, (his chief head-kicker is actually the godfather of our PM's child!!), and his control over our country is so complete that nothing happens here unless he allows it.
At least in war-torn countries they have media diversity! In Australia Murdoch essentially owns everything including our secret service and army!
No coincidence, look up "Keith Murdoch Fraud Gallipoli" or anything else about these people, and you'll see what a bunch of suckers we have been for them down here.
Sad.
#5 Posted by stopmurdoch, CJR on Tue 23 Mar 2010 at 11:31 AM
So, stopmurdoch, I'm missing the point when about Murdoch being all about power when i said "My guess: It’s a power thing"?
#6 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Tue 23 Mar 2010 at 08:20 PM
No Ryan,
That bit is absolutely spot-on, and should probably have been the headline.
The missing of the point occurs when you try to (we guess you do this in a wistful hope that maybe it isn't so) give the benefit of the doubt to a man who has proven repeatedly that he deserves no such benefit and has, in fact, proven beyond all reasonable doubt that it IS all about power, (his contempt for democracy, journalism and the law is a side issue which seems untouchable).
We have no fight with you. Our fight is with the corrosive effect Murdoch has on our country, and through Fox yours.
Keep up the excellent work. As a business journalist, we're keen to keep following your stories on the amazing amount of money Murdoch seems to be able to lose. Did you look into that $600M dodgy 'Queensland Newspapers'-'Commonwealth Bank' deal? It's really fascinating stuff and just a micro glimpse of how this guy works.
Regards.
#7 Posted by stopmurdoch, CJR on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 08:45 AM
Fact Fix: The Pérez-Peña piece did not say that The Times made $21 million in 2009, but that The Times Media Group had an operating profit of $21.9 million. The Media Group includes many other outlets, so the comparison is tenuous.
#8 Posted by Robert Marino, CJR on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 02:30 PM
Here's an original data point (/ or at least, an original factoid) that may or may not be relevant to quantifying the pay of WSJ'ers vs Times'ers.
A year ago I published an educated observer's estimate of the salaries of two Times writers who are important "brands" in their own right: Maureen Dowd and Gretchen Morgenson. He pegged Dowd at a minimum $350k and Morgenson at a minimum $250k. (A Times spokeswoman issued the typical non-denial denial: see http://news.efinancialcareers.com/Blogs_ITEM/newsItemId-17353 )
#9 Posted by Jon Jacobs, CJR on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 04:19 PM
mmm, stopmurdoch, don't think I give Murdoch the benefit of any doubt, but okay.
Robert, the NYT Media Group is for all intents and purposes the NYT. It consists of the Times (something like 95 percent of revenues), the IHT, and Baseline StudioSystems--not "many other outlets."
#10 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 06:38 PM