Liberty, journalism and Sam Zell

You are invited inside Horsey’s inner sanctum to discover what’s on the mind of the editorial cartoonist. Big thoughts about the world that didn’t make it into a cartoon? Burning questions for readers to debate? The inside scoop on how a cartooning commentator gets the job done? It’s all of the above, plus the occasional unpublished sketch and off-the-wall observation.

« Hillary's Kool-Aid drinkers | Main | Puppies, the press and TMS »

Liberty, journalism and Sam Zell

Who is Sam Zell and why should you care? The answer to the second part of that question is easy: the health of our nation depends on an informed electorate and an informed electorate depends on an unfettered news media willing to tell people more than what they want to hear.

The answer to the first part of that question is that Sam Zell is the most vulgar embodiment of a pervasive bean counter mentality that is threatening the best of American journalism.

At the end of 2007, Zell concluded a sweet deal to take over the Chicago-based Tribune Company -- sweet, because he did it with a small amount of his own money. He leveraged the deal by borrowing billions of dollars from the Tribune employees retirement funds (how this is legal, I cannot fathom). Now he is master of a media conglomerate that reaches 80 percent of Americans through 23 televisions stations and 11 daily newspapers.

What does Zell know about journalism? No more than any other billionaire real estate mogul. But that hasn't stopped him from telling off journalists at some of the country's best newspapers -- the Chicago Tribune, Newsday, the Hartford Courant, the Baltimore Sun and, finest of all, the Los Angeles Times. Zell has told these new employees of his that they are practitioners of an arrogant kind of journalism that doesn't give readers what they want and fails to make increasing company profits a key objective of news gathering.

As I detailed in my cartoon, Zell has delivered his message on a grand tour of his properties, dropping F-bombs all along the way. Worse than his crude language, though, is his vision of the future of journalism. Apparently, foreign coverage and reporting from Washington, D.C., will be discounted. Stories that seek to protect the public interest by tackling tough, important subjects will be frowned upon, unless they can somehow be shown to enhance the bottom line.

Yes, Zell wants to give people what they want. That's not such a radical idea. From comics to horoscopes to gossip columns, newspapers have always done that. But Zell's diatribes imply that should be the only way to define news. He seems to believe it is arrogant to say people don't always know what they want or need to know. I'd argue that is not arrogant, it is a simple fact of communication. None of us -- journalists included -- know everything we need to know. We depend on people who are better informed to tell us many important things. It has always been the job of reporters to inform themselves and then to pass on that information to readers in an intelligent, fair way. It has also been the vital role of newspapers to act as watchdogs, to let corrupt politicians or corporate crooks know they are being observed by people who buy ink by the barrrel. I'm sure Zell would deny he is undercutting that role of the media outlets he now owns, but the fact is, the job cannot be done by newsrooms without the manpower to do it and without the assurance that traditional journalism will be honored rather than derided by the man at the top.

No one would dispute that newspapers are in dire trouble. Profits and readership are falling fast. But publishing pap will not bring them back. People still value serious and substantive information. Newspaper web sites are booming. What is missing is a new economic model for the news business. That's what a smart businessman like Zell should be working on. Sure, journalists need to adapt to new ways of delivering information to an audience that can access a world of information with a few clicks of a mouse. But dumbing down the news product is the dumbest idea of all. It won't bring in the profits wheeler-dealers like Zell crave. It will, however, imperil our free society.

There is a reason Thomas Jefferson said, if given the choice between a government without newspapers and newspapers without a government, he'd opt for the latter. Jefferson knew there was nothing less at stake in that equation than our very liberty.

Posted by at February 26, 2008 11:47 p.m.

Comments

#102297

Posted by lost at 2/27/08 7:14 a.m.

Horsey aka h______A__. Practice what you preach!!!! Semper Fi

Report violation

#102318

Posted by unregistered user at 2/27/08 7:40 a.m.

Today's clueless, idiot editors are far worse than this guy, though, and we don't hear too much complaining about that.

We don't need Zell to dumb down the product; the gutless, clueless moronic editors already have done that. Instead of analysis of political issues, we have stories about Britney Spears. Instead of capsules with useful information, we have giant cutouts and giant numerals.

I'd say the enemy already is in the newsrooms and has been there for some time.

Report violation

#102374

Posted by unregistered user at 2/27/08 10:10 a.m.

Right on, Horsey, but one point needs to be clarified. Newspapers are NOT LOSING READERSHIP. The print editions are, but thanks to online, newspaper readership has launched into the stratosphere. And those profits sinking? They're still PROFITS. For instance, today it was reported the Washington Post Co. saw "a double-digit drop in ad revenue" last fiscal year. OK, but they still had a NET INCOME of almost $300 million.
What's wrong with this picture?

Report violation

#102375

Posted by SamuelA at 2/27/08 10:13 a.m.

At the risk of lowering myself into this online sewer, I have to say I am amazed at your reaction to Sam Zell.

Zell recognizes, as you should, that newspapers are great at turning out what they think we poor, besotted idiots need to be informed, but they are really lousy at giving us what we want.

Your declining circulation is adequate proof of how poorly you have adapted to a less passive audience. I don't mind you telling me what you think I ought to know - I can tolerate the arrogance - but you better be listening when I disagree.

A dying man - or industry - should spend less time cursing the heavens - or corporate offices - and more time finding a cure.

I'm amazed that Sam Zell would invest in an industry whose future seems to be so bleak, and, if I were you, I'd being singing praises to anyone willing to keep this dinosaur alive.

Report violation

#102404

Posted by mtOlympus at 2/27/08 11:20 a.m.

I like the Seattle PI very much.
Hopefully it won't be demolished.
I also like the Guardian.

This is about 'a must read' book about journalism
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2008/02/dont_fence_us_in.html

Report violation

#102417

Posted by unregistered user at 2/27/08 11:50 a.m.

Right on David! It's too bad so many of your commentators this far have willfully misinterpreted your defense of the "arrogance" of offering people information they might not get access to otherwise.

Report violation

#102584

Posted by western goldfinch at 2/27/08 5:59 p.m.

Newspapers are competing with TV news, a "cool" medium competing with a "hot" medium, per Marshal McLuhan (I apologize if I remember the name incorrectly. Anyone who recognizes the reference knows who I mean.) Newspapers will never have the urgency that TV news has, so it should stop competing and embrace the market it can attract: thoughtful citizens who would like to have more in-depth reporting. Stories that might span days, stories that give history, stories that give different perspectives, stories of how other countries see the U.S., how other states' issues are similar or different, columns that reflect differing viewpoints on a given issue. There is so much world to explore that surely it could be done. Guest columns from current newsworthy people about their issues. Advertising to people who fall into this readership, while not as profitable as the impulse buyers, could still turn a profit. (I don't mind profits, since that's what keeps the paper in business. However, publicly-traded media companies have to return large profits to hundreds of thousands of shareholders, requiring a larger number than a family- or closely-held organization.) Newspapers must also be willing to pay people well - even (or especially) those who do not make a big name for themselves. This is what will produce quality on a day-to-day basis. Star quality is great, but it doesn't make a "great" newspaper.

Report violation

#102828

Posted by Wolbeck4Mayor2009 at 2/28/08 12:54 p.m.

With all due respect Mr. Horsey, I don't think the Seattle PI is much of a watchdog on Seattle City government. They do surface reporting, but rarely if ever dig for any answers beyond the initial rhetoric the politicians give them. They just take the initial rhetoric and print it, and they call that reporting. Like I said, they rarely if ever dig for answers beyond the initial rhetoric politicians give, and that's unfortunate for our republic and for our fragile liberty. I don't even know who this Zeel guy is you talk about, but you mentioned watchdogism in what you wrote and that's why I wanted to comment.

Lastly, I'm not a "professional" by any means, but one of the tenants to quality journalism is asking quality questions, and I don't see many quality questions being asked at the Seattle PI.

With all due respect to the Seattle PI and Mr. Horsey, this is the impression I get from reading counteless PI articles. Surface reporting, no digging for substance beyond the initial rhetoric or spin the politicians give.

Report violation

#104446

Posted by doshii at 3/4/08 4:52 a.m.

Man. I wish my J-school teacher at Wazzu told us what you just stated, Horsey. I tried to tell him that, but was told I was wrong, that it was arrogant.

No one seems to get it. We're paid to help people know more. That does necessitate us to, well, know more than our readers do, one way or another. And at times we don't.

Ultimately, though, it's the second half of that ideal that matters — putting it out there in an intelligent, helpful manner. Journalists obviously rely on people who know one heck of a lot more than they do, and that's our main advantage over the reader — we can tie it all together in a package better than they can because we're paid to do that.

Professionals are better than amateurs and laymen for a reason. They're trained and paid to be better. Doesn't mean they're always better, but for the most part, they are.

Report violation

#104494

Posted by John Gray at 3/4/08 8:51 a.m.

Sam Zell is just getting contemporary journalism back to its roots.Why Joe Pulitzer and W.R Hearst were famous for jazzing up newspapers with big headlines and lurid stories.doesn't Horsey remember Hearst's famous telegram to his man in Cuba:"You supply the pictures,I'll supply the war."?

Report violation

#111816

Posted by Skimission at 3/26/08 4:24 p.m.

Newspapers are in business to make money.

The internet is making the paper newspaper irrelevant. It will be more so as they get more sophisticated in their presentation.

If Zell can figure out a way to keep them relevant, more power to them.

Report violation

! Login below to post a comment.

Unregistered users, sign up now

Or post anonymously (About this feature)

RSS
Headline widget

BLOGGER BIO

David Horsey: Political cartoonist