“You’re just trying to sell more newspapers.”
I hear that from readers and I ask, “so, what’s wrong with that?” It’s like accusing Goodyear of “just trying to sell more tires.”
OK, I know what readers are saying. You are accusing the paper of misdirected motives, of sensationalizing the news in a quest for more sales.
My answer: Not true.
But when Gary Hetrick, an accountant from Medina, took time from his busy tax season to send me an e-mail, I was intrigued by his perspective. His point? The Akron Beacon Journal should share the same goal as companies like Goodyear — to maximize profit.
“Goodyear strives to produce quality products that are safe. It is stupid business to make unsafe tires, stupid to break laws and stupid to antagonize the public.”
In the same way, the Beacon Journal’s goals should be to give readers what they want at the lowest cost, he said. “Is there any difference between these two industries? Isn’t the ultimate goal to increase shareholder value?”
And then Hetrick asked, “Is there a Journalistic Credo that sets the print media apart from other profit-motivated companies?”
Newspapers and especially journalists do view themselves as special because there is a public trust involved.
The press has a role in a democracy that is so important that it is protected by the Constitution. I don’t see anything in the Constitution that says, “Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom to make tires.”
Journalists believe that the protection provided in the Constitution requires a quid pro quo — that is, the press bears the responsibility in society to watch over the public process in exchange for the protection.
What is this public trust? Without free media, government would act in anonymity and secrecy — including the courts, the police, and agencies that protect our health and safety. Without media, government would watch over itself.
Yes, there are many honest government officials. But without the media, there certainly would be corruption, unknown to citizens and continuing unabated.
For journalists, the credo that Hetrick asked about is an important responsibility. Because without a watchful press, our democratic form of governance cannot survive.
Does this “credo” extend to the corporate desire to maximize shareholder value? That’s the rub. After all, the Beacon Journal is part of a publicly owned corporation that must turn a profit to satisfy stockholders.
Newspaper executives profess a desire to achieve both goals — maximize profits AND fulfill the watchdog role in society. Some doubt that can be done.
For Hetrick, though, it’s a simple equation. “I am a CPA, so the maximizing of shareholder value by businesses is generally a good thing in my opinion.”
Are newspaper profits maximized? Consider this. When the Beacon Journal recently did an in-depth look at Akron’s polymer industry, it cost many thousands to produce and print — with no increase in newspaper or advertising sales. Try justifying that on a profit-loss balance sheet.
To be fair, quality journalism does promote the overall reputation of a newspaper, with resulting loyalty from subscribers. There is much value in that. And sometimes it leads to public praise.
The annual Pulitzer Prizes will be announced tomorrow. All of the Pulitzer winners will be excellent examples of extraordinary journalism.
But does Wall Street care about Pulitzers?
Bill Drewry, a stock analyst who specializes in the newspaper industry, spoke at a January conference at the Poynter Institute. He was quoted as saying, “Wall Street is very cold and calculating. If you ask the typical analyst which company won how many Pulitzers, they wouldn’t know and they wouldn’t care.”
The social function of newspapers is irrelevant to most analysts, he said. “They think it’s just a profit driven equation.”
Those are not encouraging words for journalists.
In The News About the News, a book making headlines these days, Washington Post editors Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser say quality is competing with profits — and losing.
The book points out that over the years, as ownership shifted from families to corporations, the goals have gone from good journalism to greater profits.
“Newspaper editors… have been held more accountable for controlling costs and increasing profits than for improving the quality of their journalism,” the authors say.
And while they see a slight rebirth in the commercial success of quality journalism in the aftermath of Sept. 11, they express strong concerns about the future.
“If new generations of Americans are indifferent to good journalism, it cannot thrive. If economic pressures and unenlightened managements continue to depress the quality of the news, the country will suffer.”
Ultimately, it is you, the readers, who will determine the fate of the media and the country, they say. “In the end, the most important people shaping tomorrow’s news won’t be the owners or the journalists, but the readers and viewers. As long as they create a market for good journalism, there will be good journalism.”
Still, Gary Hetrick isn’t so sure. “I still believe that the media has a very difficult task in trying to be a public watchdog and maximize shareholder value. It may take more of an idealist than me to think that it can be done.”
