nancynall.com » Motherless children.

Motherless children.

More is becom­ing clear in the wake of the Knight Rid­der sale. (Note to self: Does any nor­mal human being use the phrase “in the wake of” in every­day dis­course? I didn’t think so.) The staff of 20 papers have rea­son to sleep far, far bet­ter at night, know­ing they’ve been adopted by a good fam­ily. Twelve other staffs can look for­ward to a few more weeks of stomach-lining dam­age and 3 a.m. staring-at-the-ceiling ses­sions. My ex-paper is among the Dejected Dozen.

McClatchy, the good fam­ily, has already said it plans on a clean break, that it won’t even accept deliv­ery of the unwanted 12, that the mar­ket­ing begins today. Some prospec­tive buy­ers are emerg­ing, or at least being talked about. Fort Wayne is a par­tic­u­larly odd duck. What are you buy­ing? A 75-percent share in a two-newspaper agency (the small­est city in the coun­try to still have two dailies), com­bined daily cir­cu­la­tion around 100K, family-owned dom­i­nant morn­ing daily and a gasp­ing, dwin­dling p.m., which would be yours. What’s more, the pub­lisher of the a.m. part­ner is now say­ing she’s not inter­ested in selling.

I don’t know what the choices would be. Could you buy the agency and fold the p.m. and just be a land­lord to the a.m.? Don’t know if the JOA would allow that. Make the p.m. a shop­per, or some other dead-man-walking pub­li­ca­tion, while you wait out the a.m. publisher’s resolve not to sell? Or is that resolve another way of say­ing, “My price just went up”? I really don’t know.

Here’s what I do know: A few days ago, a mar­ket ana­lyst, spec­u­lat­ing on this sale, said that what­ever the out­come, the affected papers will be in for some seri­ous cost-cutting, that it’s time to “cut the fat, and maybe even the mus­cle,” to ser­vice the debt a buyer would incur. I laughed out loud. Fat? The fat at my paper went out the door some­time in 2002. Much of the mus­cle fol­lowed. Today The News-Sentinel is a dou­ble amputee. An entire depart­ment has van­ished from the news­room, and oth­ers oper­ate with skele­ton crews, although the desks remain, or did. That was one of the long-term goals about the time I left — to rearrange the fur­ni­ture and get rid of all those empty chairs that were bum­ming every­body out.

I’m going to stop read­ing about all this, I think, and just file it all in the drawer marked Why It Was a Good Idea to Leave. Page? Turned. Future? Uncer­tain. Path? Murky. Also: Bet on Gannett.

11 responses to
“Motherless children.”

  1. brian stouder said on March 14th, 2006 at 9:51 am

    “I don’t know what the choices would be. Could you buy the agency and fold the p.m. and just be a land­lord to the a.m.? Don’t know if the JOA would allow that.”

    Well — to me the inter­est­ing piece is that a major cap­i­tal invest­ment is being made at Fort Wayne News­pa­pers (the all new press build­ing across the street) — 

    but I don’t under­stand how the JOA bears upon that.

    Quite pos­si­bly being a land­lord plus a part­ner in the new print­ing oper­a­tion (which pre­sume­ably will be state of the art, and be able to pro­duce all man­ner of adver­tis­ing and com­mer­cial print­ing, plus satel­lite news­pa­per pro­duc­tion).… in which case your Gan­nett guess sounds good

  2. brian stouder said on March 14th, 2006 at 12:44 pm

    Hey!

    I’m sure Madam Telling Tales will link to this from her main page — but in case she’s being mod­est, go to

    http://​indi​ana​.type​pad​.com/fwob/

    Good stuff!

  3. Jim said on March 14th, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    Wow, that is a great arti­cle. News­pa­pers are so bound by the motto, “Because that’s how we’ve always done it.”

    When I worked for The Goshen News, I cov­ered meet­ings of the avi­a­tion board and the library board — yes, the libary board. And I would often ask why it was worth hav­ing a reporter sit for two hours at a meet­ing to come up with a 12-inch story on actions at the library board. The answer: “Because we’re the paper of record. Our read­ers expect that.”

    Of course I knew that nobody was buy­ing the News because of my vig­i­lant cov­er­age of the air­port board. The paper’s bread-and-butter was its sports cov­er­age — peo­ple wanted to read about the local high school bas­ket­ball team.

    There’s a big dis­con­nect between what papers want to be and what the cus­tomers want. You could print an edi­to­r­ial call­ing the pres­i­dent of the United States a com­mu­nist and get a few angry let­ters and maybe some phone calls; screw up the TV list­ings and you’ll be hear­ing noth­ing else but com­plaints for the rest of the week.

    I’m not sure how many news­pa­per edi­tors have fig­ured out that what they are sell­ing is not paper, but the con­tent on the paper. Right now, many peo­ple can get that con­tent (to the degree they want) online — why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

    Edi­tors need to find a way to sell the con­tent — in what­ever medium.

  4. nancy said on March 14th, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    Actu­ally, I think that was a pre­ma­ture release (if that doesn’t sound too dirty). It’s off the site now.

    That essay was writ­ten for the next print issue of the Indi­ana Pol­icy Review, which won’t pub­lish for another cou­ple of weeks. The edi­tor usu­ally shares its con­tents else­where, but I don’t know if he meant for that to be pub­lic quite yet.

    Any­way, you’ll see it later. And I’ll link.

  5. Jim said on March 14th, 2006 at 2:07 pm

    I hate those pre­ma­ture releases …

  6. brian stouder said on March 14th, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    Well, Jim and I got the super secret sneak pre­view, before suc­cumb­ing to pre­ma­ture release.

    The rest of you will just have to wait…

  7. Connie said on March 14th, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    Well Jim, the Elkhart Truth has a library reporter, he usu­ally just calls me up the next morn­ing and asks me if any­thing inter­est­ing hap­pened. I love it when I con­trol the local news!

  8. Jim said on March 14th, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    Con­nie, if you only knew how many times I sug­gested cov­er­ing a meet­ing by phone …

    No, it made much more sense to have a reporter there for two hours, plus another hour writ­ing the story.

  9. Dorothy said on March 14th, 2006 at 4:12 pm

    I read the arti­cle and was duly impressed. I do a lot of wor­ry­ing when I read about the cur­rent state of the news­pa­per busi­ness since I have a daugh­ter so new to it. But the paper she works for is fam­ily owned and seems very sta­ble. I just trust that every­thing will work out for her. She loves her copy edit­ing job, and she’s learn­ing design now, too.

  10. alex said on March 14th, 2006 at 8:58 pm

    In the wake of… yes, that’s old-school jour­nalese. Edward R. Mur­row would talk like that. Eat­ing the dust of would be a lit­tle more Gen X. In the queef of… there, now that’s more the style of the Gen Y and younger set.

  11. harry near indy said on March 15th, 2006 at 5:43 am

    very good arti­cle, nancy.