...blame Keller and Sulzberger.
The apparent prevailing notion in the lefty sphere that journos are responsible for the copy of theirs that gets printed is naive bollocks of a high order.
AdNag and the rest are hired hands. They write what the honchos want, otherwise they get fired.
That's business - and the business of America is business, right?
Why don't Keller/Sulzberger tell AdNag to go out and do some real journalism? Because they want to play it safe, go along to get along with the Bush regime and - be it said loud and clear - they want to reassure the Dems that they can play ball, too just assuming they win something in November.
No one in DC likes an insurgent. (Ask Feingold!)
There is no business plan on God's earth for turning the Times or Post into the sort of rag we'd want it to be that wouldn't have them bankrupt within a couple of years.
And - just now, things are barely OK for the WashPo Co and on a secular slide for the NYT Co, stock-price-wise.
Ergo, lefties expecting change are tilting at windmills.
I disagree with skeptic06 in that I don't think the degradation of journalism helps with its business plan in the long term. Maybe in the short term---and that's all Wall Street has ever cared about---which is why American businesses are mostly so stagnant.
Being cynical, focussing on gossip, refusing to cover the news, having no concern for issues outside of the GOP talking points----hey man, this is one reason why newspapers are losing their younger audiences. And it's why they've lost me--a middle-aged, well-educated, upper-income reader. They ain't getting me back. And now, when I talk to younger folks about being politically active, one of the first things I say is don't read the newspapers, read the good blogs on-line.
I don't know hardly anyone under 30 who is reading their daily newspaper----and why should they?
In the long haul, this is a terrible business plan.
The point about the short-termism of management to Wall Street expectations is well taken.
Of course, the money like to see big profits. But the thing they hate most is not losses but surprises. All their computer models depend on the validity of projections from existing data.
And the bulk of their money comes from relying on judgements founded on their models - either in dealing on their own account or in advising clients on their investments.
(They may have fun funds which invest in crazy stocks for clients' amusement. Neither NYT or WP want to see their stock in such funds!)
So - the money men are used to things as they are. But - I think you're right in saying - those things are not good for the long term.
The question then becomes, How to turn things round for the long term? Which implies, How to keep the money men on board for such a turnaround?
I can't see how it's done, frankly.
Look at the various key factors: subscribers, advertisers, journos.
Suppose - this is hardly the most radical journalistic thing you can think of - the Post ran an A1 on the State of the Union with a sidebar identifying all the lies and stretchers. With chapter and verse provided inside.
Can you imagine the WH reaction? (Whether the incumbent was GOP or Dem, be it said!) They would be like a thousand Hasterts after the Jefferson raid!
The pressure would be relentless; subscribers wouldn't need a Brent Bozell to get them to write in cancelling their subs. Advertisers would be bombarded by genuine and astroturf organizations to pull their stuff; journos would be whinging (as only they can!) about a loss of objectivity (that old whore!) - while they really were worrying whether any other rag would employ them after the Post went bust!
The exec editor would be out within a week (if it was a solo run). Whoever else had been complicit in higher management would be out, too.
Best chance: the Soros route. Soros gets a consortium together to buy a suitable rag (the Boston Globe, say) and buffer the management against pressure from money men to conform.
Will lefty moneybags go that route? I doubt it.
The chink of light is the prospect of long-term gain. If the real journalism model (obviously, there's an enormous amount of unpacking to be done of that little concept!) is the only one that's viable in the long run, a newspaper outfit that gets in first should be well placed to thrive, so long as it can be carried over the interim period.
(We're talking of carriage of something in the deep nine figures, I suspect.)
But that only puts the job of explaining back one stage to Soros. To get the thing off the ground, he needs to be convinced and convincing to an extent that, in most ventures, would indicate monomania to an outside observer.
I don't see it happening. But I don't say it's flat impossible.
They laughed at Christopher Columbus...
