Haven't I Heard This Before?

IN AND of itself, there's nothing wrong with the Inquirer's bringing aboard Mark Bowden and Michael Smerconish to its Sunday Currents section. Bowden is a former Inky reporter who's done terrific work at The Atlantic Monthly; he brings to the section legitimate foreign-policy experience and the research and reporting skills of a top-notch journalist. Smerconish is a thoughtful, charismatic commentator who skews right but does so with a healthy independent streak.

The problem is that both of these men already have outlets for their views. Smerconish yaks on a radio station that calls itself the Big Talker, while Bowden, in addition to his work for The Atlantic, is a best-selling author. Yes, the paper needs more intelligent conservative commentary, but at a time when the Inquirer is trying to position itself as fresh and indispensable, it's given us a pair of guys -- no women, Mr. Tierney? -- who are known quantities, who are part of the Establishment. Perhaps it's not surprising. The recent whacking of dozens of talented younger reporters and editors told me that the writers' union isn't interested in new blood. The hiring of Bowden and Smerconish says the same thing about management. The paper is slowly dying; the time for bold moves is now. Yet the Inky continues to plod along, unsure of its identity and unwilling to take a chance on anyone or anything truly different.

Comments

[Tom G]

I noticed them on Sunday too. My impression was that the Inqy added those two because they were recognizable names, talents, and opinions with a following that would seek them out on Sundays in the Inquirer. In the end, you have to sell papers and if you can't do that, it doesn't matter how much potential your young writers have. I see it as a good move that the two were added. Besides, doesn't Bowden represent a time when the Inqy was more highly respected?

[michael smith]

not to mention that smerconish already has a column in the daily news.

[Tom Goodman]

"Yet the Inky continues to plod along, unsure of its identity..."

To the contrary, TD, they are very sure of their identity and it reflects the views of their new ownership. Not only is the Inquirer failing to attract young readers, it is in serious jeopardy of losing a portion of its older ones starting with this reader.

One need only re-read the main editorial the day after the so-called State of the Union address to realize this paper is veering off its traditional course. The firings are only the first salvo; the worst is yet to come.

[Tom Durso]

TG1: I know they have to sell papers, and this is an okay short-term fix, but it does little to attract younger readers.

Michael: Yeah, I thought about that, too.

And TG2: Given all that's happened, I'm not optimistic about the Inky's future. It seems to get more and more ... I don't know, diluted? ... as a source of sharp news and commentary.

[Tom G]

I guess this thread is soooo two weeks ago, but there's something I wanted to add... If the paper is interested in grabbing young readers, they need to focus on the website. Getting people under 30 to read the print version is a lost cause. That horse already escaped from the barn.