PressEthic

After reading Hard News by Seth Mnookin, and coming to appreciate both the upsides and downsides to a family-owned and run newspaper business, I am increasingly disturbed by recent reports of fat-cat billionaires looking to buy out newspapers to call them their own. What is their aim behind this pursuit? Is it really for the good of journalism - to save the dying art of print media? Doubtful. Their public MO is that it's a good investment. But why, then, are we in "such big trouble" as journalists? Why is everyone freaking out about declining circulation and decreasing profit margins if buying a newspaper is a sound investment?

In an article in Editor & Publisher, Charlie Gasparino, a Newsweek and Wall Street Journal business writer, responded to questions about Maurice "Hank" Greenberg's rumored intent to buy The New York Times Company, which would include the New York Times, the IHT, The Boston Globe, and more, including television and radio stations and web sites.

"Greenberg believes this is an undervalued asset. Number two, there is a lot of ego here. Jack Welch is out there talking about buying the Boston Globe. Hank Greenberg wants to be in there. He’s got money to turn, and I believe there is a little revenge here. Let’s face it: The New York Times hasn’t been nice to Hank Greenberg over the years, especially as he came under investigation by Eliot Spitzer."

Is anyone else concerned about leaving the ownership of newspapers under another Howell Raines-esque, power-hungry businessman? From the top down, how does or will private ownership affect editorial management, the climate of the newsroom, and the quality of the journalism produced. We've all seen what happened to the L.A. Times under the conglomerate of the Tribune Co. Would things be better under the ownership of billionaires Eli Broad or Ronald W. Burkle?

Interestingly enough, the Philadelphia Inquirer, which has been bought out by McClatchy Co., is now part-owned by Bruce Toll of Toll Brothers, a luxury building company. This new ownership has caused journalists in the newsroom to think twice about stories that focus on Toll Brothers or other businesses that any of the owners have a stake in.

The article (also in Editor & Publisher) reads:

'On many stories, we are having to ask ourselves if there is an ownership that has to be disclosed,' says Henry Holcomb, an Inquirer business writer and president of the Greater Philadelphia Newspaper Guild. "We are thinking about that for the first time.'

Holcomb has had to make such disclosures on several occasions since the newspaper's sale, including the Aug. 23 story he wrote about Toll Bros.' earnings falling 19% over the same period last year. Although Bruce Toll was not mentioned in the main elements of the story, his brother, Robert Toll, the company chair and CEO, was. He also included a line disclosing Bruce Toll's link to the Inquirer... While the disclosure of such connections may appear to be a simple call, the issues of how, when, and what to disclose have prompted the paper to form a committee charged with creating a specific policy... But disclosure is just one of the issues facing the Inquirer as it moves away from a distant corporate entity and plunges into the unknown world of local, private ownership -- and an ownership that is not just interested in newspapers. Toll and Tierney have both strong business concerns, as well as political views and connections. While staffers say the publisher and his partners have shown no signs of meddling in stories, the fact that they are who they are elicits at least some uncertainty from the newsroom. 'There is a feeling that people are going to watch this thing very, very carefully,' says Dick Polman, a longtime Inquirer political reporter. 'People have to be very vigilant.'"

Scared of private ownership yet? I certainly am. Sulzberger at the Times heads a legacy of great leadership, yet he was the one who made the mistake of hiring Howell Raines, at the expense of the Times' reputation (eventually). Private ownership can mean that co-publishers or publishers are vetoing stories that relate to them, nixing coverage of sensitive issues, cutting funding to certain areas of the staff or certain bureaus, and urging the staff to focus on their "pet projects" or increase coverage of certain issues.

Pro: private owners do not press for such large profit margins (hence why they are interested in owning the paper in the first place -- profit margins that are more than Fortune 500 companies are good enough for them). Con: With less money, less money goes into the paper-- which often means staff cuts, bureau cuts, budget cuts.

So when compared to big companies like Knight Ridder and the Tribune Co., are private owners just the lesser of two evils?

The Times apparently has no intention of changing control:

"Asked about the New York Post report, Times spokeswoman Catherine J. Mathis said the company had no interest in changing the so-called dual-class share structure, which cements control of the company by the Sulzberger family.

'The Ochs-Sulzberger family has given no indication of a desire to change the dual-class structure,' she said. This was 'designed to protect the editorial independence and integrity of The New York Times newspaper ... and, in these challenging times, that is what it is doing.'"

Very fitting with their new motto: "These times demand The Times."