It's Still a Business

A lot of well-meaning journalism theorists and pundits have suggested that the optimal model for the future of newspapers is some sort of locally owned public trust, which theoretically would protect the paper from the vicissitudes of Wall Street and shareholders and their demand for such crass things as, say, profits. This, in turn, would allow the paper to operate above the coarseness of the business world, providing a shield for its journalism (and journalists) from those money-grubbing capitalists. What a romantic notion.

Exhibit A in this argument usually is the St. Petersburg Times, which is owned by the Poynter Institute, the journalism think-tank and training center.

Problem is, newspapers, no matter what their ownership structure, still are businesses. And in fact, the St. Pete Times, while ultimately owned by Poynter, also is a business, and its leaders are very open in saying that it must make a profit to survive. Not surprisingly--especially in the economically tough Florida market--the Times is having the same problems with declining audience and advertising that every other newspaper faces, regardless of ownership structure. 

So it's not surprising to find out that this alleged model for the future of the industry is handling the challenges the same way others newspapers are: with staff buyouts, salary cuts, and perhaps even layoffs.

So much for romantic notions of saving newspapers through some sort of profit-proof local public trust. Anybody got any other ideas?

Comments

[Digidave]

I wonder if you can combine the two? Can it be a business and a public trust at the same time?

[Mark Potts]

The St. Pete Times/Poynter relationship is that hybrid, basically. The theory is that the non-profit, public-trust entity (Poynter) that owns the paper is more tolerant of low profit margins and less subject to Wall Street pressures for higher margins and short-term results. That's the theory.

The problem is that the rules of capitalism still apply, and the business part of the arrangement--the newspaper--can't be a perpetual money loser. The Poynter folks are very clear on this point: the newspaper is run as a business. Absent a deep-pocketed owner with infinite patience (and funds) for ongoing losses, this imposes a simple reality: the newspaper, regardless of ownership, still is a business, with costs, expenses and revenue. So ultimately, it's subject to the same pressures afflicting other newspapers. It's hard to see a public trust model that can avoid that.

[Wayne]

It's easy for some of us to see a newspaper as a worthy public trust.

However, given that much of the public sees mass transportation, public hospitals and parks as tax-eating wastes, I can't imagine newspapers gaining favor in this or any U.S. economy.

No, I don't have a better idea, unfortunately.

[Statingingtheobvious]

Yeah, look at journalists' approval ratings!

The real question is: What kind of a press do we want? National Enquirer seems to do OK. Actually, the idea of an unbiased press is a relatively new notion (insert irony of "Pulitzer" Prize here.) Yet it's one many of us would like to maintain. Thus, the question becomes not "is it a business?" Doh, Mark! But, "What kind of business model is most likely to sustain a meaningful Fourth Estate?"

Consolidation of newspapers, and media in general, under the umbrellas of giant publicly held companies impairs proper journalism both economically and ethically.

However, privately held companies, with pockets deep enough to take the long view, and accept slower growth, may still offer some hope for those of us with ink, or bits, under our nails. (But, of course: Remember the Maine!)