Wishful Thinking at The New York Times

I was shocked by the willful naivete of yesterday’s New York Times editorial decrying media deregulation. Engrave this line on their tombstone:

The strategic challenge for newspapers is not cutting costs, but how to attract a larger share of online advertising and make money off the millions of people who read them free online.

They wish.

That has long been the cry of editors of papers including the Times: preserving their newsrooms as they operate now, protecting their ways. But they keep ignoring the obvious fact that most newspapers operated as uniquely profitable media monopolies but those days are clearly over. The internet is a highly competitive market where prices and margins simply will not match print — though audience size is greater. They also keep ignoring the obvious opportunities presented by the networked internet to operate more efficiently and also more broadly (start here and here as well as here). Finally, they keep ignoring the opportunities of crossing media, which leads to the next red herring from the Times as it argues against merging local newspapers and broadcasters:

For all the technological advances that have shaken American media over the last 30 years, remarkably little has changed about who produces the local news. Internet outlets repurpose and comment on the news. A few cable channels provide national news. But in many small and even medium-sized cities there are only two entities that put money into local news-gathering: the local newspapers and the TV stations.

Oh, come on. Local TV stations may put money into local news — and pull money out of it — but they don’t put real reporting into it. Newspapers like the Times used to sniff at local TV news the way they sniff today at blogs: They have long been repurposers, recyclers; they’re not even commenters. Imagine the possibilities of a print newsroom that follows the Rosenblum method of empowering every reporter to shoot video stories — and shoot them in new ways. What if that became the basis of the local TV news? What if instead of four crews on the ground in with expensive satellite trucks you had the hundred reporters of a formerly print newsroom all gathering news across media with small and inexpensive cameras? What if you had real reporting, real stories, not just reading out loud on cold streetcorners (’police this morning are….’)? I’d start watching local TV news again (oh, it’s on in my house, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything to watch). There’s a benefit of combining, of finding new ways to do things, a benefit for the newspaper, the broadcaster, and the public. Oh, yes, and they can do all these things on the internet, too, proving that it is more than a place to repurpose and comment.

Here’s another herring in this barrel:

But you don’t get one healthy media company by combining two sick ones.

Really? Mergers are, of course, a way to create stronger companies out of weaker ones, otherwise no one would merge or acquire; old companies would just die. Certainly adding a healthy P&L to a struggling one is one way to help the struggling company. Why else did the Times buy About.com, which is just about the only bright spot in its P&L. (Disclosure: I used to consult at About.) But I guess the Times knows what it’s talking about here: It’ learned from the company’s purchase of the ever-sicklier Boston Globe. Not all acquisitions need to be so dumb, though.

One more bullet, one more fish:

Mr. Martin’s plan, moreover, could dangerously reduce media diversity. Not only would the mergers allowed under the rule change eliminate independent voices, but they also might crowd rivals out of the news business. A study of F.C.C. data by consumer groups indicated that less news is broadcast in cities where companies have been granted waivers to the rules to allow them to own both newspapers and broadcasters.

Diversity of voices? What, happy talk voices? There’s no perspective from the community on the 5 p.m. news; the people reading it all came from elsewhere on their way to elsewhere. I could well imagine how that show could have more voices — start with giving some of those cheap cameras out to people in that community. But today, there’s no media diversity because media are homogenized, purposely bland, cherishing sameness, dreading change. You want diversity? Go to that dreaded internet thing, there you’ll find more diversity than the Times can bear.

Oh, and by the way, does New York have less news because it has cross-ownership (and doesn’t the Times Company have a dog in that fight, one it doesn’t mention in the editorial: The NY Post and its WYNY, not to mention the Times’ WQXR)? Does Chicago? Did San Francisco?

Now I happen to agree with the Times about the point of its editorial: FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s plans for media consolidation are half-assed. We just disagree about what should be done about it. I say he should open up the media marketplace. But, of course, the Times doesn’t want that. It wants protection. It wants sameness. It wants to preserve its ways.

Remember that the editorial page at the Times reports not to the newsroom but to the publisher’s office and then consider this a window onto its strategy or lack thereof. If I owned Times stock and if I hadn’t sold ages ago, I’d be selling now.

Comments

[MarkNYC]

Does anybody still own NYTimes stock? The Times does a great job in its online news and they are combining blogs and video in a quality, innovative way. Times reporters are becoming more involved with their readership so they are changing. The real story here is the split stock ownership. If you are a family memeber, with preferred stock, you don't have a real incentive to cut costs.

[MediaTechSalesPro]

The NYT is laughable. As a longtime observer of the media technology industry, I'm surprised by the naivete of the Times. In 1999, I was working with a large competitor of The Times which owned newspaper, television, radio and cable outlets in numerous large markets. Their goal was to combine news operations whenever and wherever possible an use television reporters to cover stories with the greatest video potential, radio reporters to cover stories where audio was the best medium for the message and newspaper reporters for in-depth, text heavy stories. I am not hearing this company lament media deregulation or cross-ownership relaxation.

Perhaps the NYT wants to level the playing field. Perhaps they would be happy if radio and television outlets were forced to follow the distribution model of a newspaper. If so, over-the-air, cable and satellite distribution would be outlawed and broadcasters would be forced to record all content onto CD's or DVD's and deliver that to paid subscribers in their homes.

Get with the times, Times!

[Paul Meisel]

I don't remember the last time I actually watched a local newscast for anything but weather. Cable does everything else better. The local newspaper still serves a purpose but would be greatly enhanced by combining their generally weak news operations with those of other outlets.

[ussmls7]

The paper wasted to print the crap that comes from what could be a NEWS paper, could used to treat the ills of the green movement.
Yes the paper is a American icon, but if you only live in the past, you will be left behind, so as the NYT's. News reachs most of us before the Times set upon on how to spin that news to fit there views. No wonder they are behind the 8 ball. People are tried of attacts on this country, & it's not only the Times, subcribtion has drop on most major News papers, not only from free, fast, media & cable, but the content is a huge factor. No longer are the major papers the main players in getting someone elected, remember Moveons big bust? RIP should be the headlines if the NYT's, because nobody cares if they ever put out any more crap from where I live.