Paper Cuts

Inky, DN to Trim Newsroom Staffs; Lousier Journalism to Follow

Yesterday was not a good day to be a newspaper reporter in Philadelphia. The parent company of the Inquirer and Daily News announced (Inky; DN) significant personnel cuts in the papers' newsrooms. Sagging ad sales were the cited reason. Journalists interviewed -- some on the record, some anonymously -- expressed the anticipated mix of anxiety and anger toward parent company Knight-Ridder, while the papers' editors vowed to continue producing a compelling product while tightening their belts at the same time.

As a short-term solution, the cuts are hardly surprising. Print journalism is a slowly dying industry -- fewer and fewer people make reading newspapers a daily part of their to-do list -- and the industry has been slow to respond to external threats, in particular the medium you're currently reading. Print's influence is growing ever weaker; the only place where it remains strong is in the political arena, but as public consumption continues to decrease, that influence is likely to wane. Trimming newsroom staffs is an obvious way to cut costs and boost the bottom line. (Not to mention increase sales at local bakeries.)

In the long term, though, the move will only hasten the downfall. The pages of the Inquirer, once a regular collector of Pulitzers, will see more and more wire-service stories and inconsequential, easily produced journalism. The Daily News will circle the wagons and rely even further on the sports pages to carry its water, hoping that the Eagles continue to win. Neither paper's long-term strategy will result in more readers and greater interest from advertisers; quite the opposite, actually.

And the hell of it, of course, is that pound for pound, newspapers are the most informative, reliable, balanced, interesting, and professionally produced sources of news that exist. That market forces and demographics are stripping them, slowly but inevitably, of their influence and their effectiveness, is sad. And it will hurt the city and the region, and, ultimately, the country (the New York Times Co. also announced staff cuts yesterday), as our most vigilant civic watchdogs are rendered toothless because their margins aren't wide enough. Neither TV nor the 'Net stands ready to take their place.

Comments

[Jeff Martin]

It's sad news for those of us who write for a living, 'ey TD?

[Tom Goodman]

Fine piece, TD. I look forward to walking to the end of the driveway every single day of the week to pick up the two newspapers to which we subscribe. I enjoy sitting at the dining room table and holding them in my hand. Nothing compares to that experience, not the internet, not television, not the radio. But the decline is inevitable and inexorable. USA Today signalled the last-ditch attempt by newspapers to turn themselves into a hybrid of all these media, and it is a rotten excuse for journalism. Now, the legitimate newspapers have come to the blog party, belatedly, but that won't save them either. As we all know and lament, people want their "news" fed to them in 30-second intervals without detail or analysis. The result is the "fair and balanced" propaganda from the Bush Administration's Fox organs.

"informative, reliable, balanced, interesting, and professionally produced sources of news that exist"????? Are you kidding me!!!? As long as it's THEIR idea of informative, reliable, BALANCED(?), interesting & professionally produced. Dad

[Bill]

I agree with both Tom's. Sad day indeed. There is nothing like reading the Sunday NYT or even the Inquirer and just plowing through.

I will take exception with one thing. Sometimes wire copy is a good thing. Why does the Inquirer need to send Bob Ford to the Tour de France or Wimbledon? Or Joe Logan/Juliano/Mike Kern to the British Open? Save some money. Or why does it need 20 people at the Super Bowl? Wasting money? Maybe tightening the belt and letting AP handle those types of events might save some jobs.

[Tom Goodman]

VERY good points, Bill. I think they continue to send them because they mistakenly believe only small time newspapers rely on wire services. But imagine the expense of having a reporter on the scene for most if not all of the Tour. Why the food bills alone would be staggering to say nothing of the threat to an individual's cholesterol.

[Tom Durso]

C'mon, Tom G., haven't you read the new book "French Reporters Don't Get Fat"?

[Tom Goodman]

No, but I read the sequel:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2005/nf20050419_5664_db089.htm?chan=gb

[Tom Durso]

Sacre bleu, Tom G.!

Dad: Tell me which medium does better than newspapers when it comes to fairness and accuracy. I'm not talking about editorial pages -- I mean the news side of the house. I won't argue with you that papers have their agendas, but by and large their news coverage is a hell of a lot better than TV's, radio's, and the Web's. And that includes papers with as conservative an opinion page as the Wall Street Journal and as liberal as the New York Times. Each is a great, great news outlet, on its worst day still better than anything TV does at its best.

Looks like another fun Thanksgiving dinner! :)

BUT you NEVER get fairness in the SLINKY or is it STINKY, I mean inky. I look at them from the grunt's point of view.....why fight for anything or anybody.......just let the inky & their liberal, blood sucking scum bag pals(mmmm, where'd I get that from?) handle everything. OF COURSE they & all the libs know what's best for me (us). They don't practice yellow journalism........not us, we're fair AND balanced!!! Just ask us......WE'LL TELL YOU!!!