Slate's Bizbox
press box: Media criticism.

How Indie Was the International Herald Tribune?Its departing publisher's sniveling nothwithstanding, not very.

By Jack Shafer
Posted Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2003, at 6:00 PM ET
Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty

You've got to admire departing International Herald Tribune CEO Peter C. Goldmark for spurning the hush money that ordinarily goes to the newly fired or resigned. Instead, he's chosen to speak his mind about how badly he thinks the New York Times Co. will muck up his beloved "independent" IHT. (The back story: Last year, Times Co. cutthroats divorced their 50-50 IHT partners, the Washington Post Co., paying a reported $70 million to consolidate ownership.)

Still, I can't generate a watt of sympathy for Goldmark's anti-Times Co. broadside. In a 900-word note to the paper's staff, he bemoans the fact that the editorial side of the previously "independent" IHT will now report to the Times Co. "This means I am the last publisher of the IHT as an independent newspaper with its own voice and its own international outlook on the world," Goldmark writes.

I'd be chapping my lips in anxiety about the IHT's fate, too, if the Times Co. wanted the editorial side of the paper to report to Richard Mellon Scaife or Bill Moyers. But why should the Times Co. drop $70 million on the IHT and then let somebody else call the shots? Is Goldmark new to the business world?

Or is he just delusional? In the staff note, Goldmark continues:

The world needs more independent voices, not fewer. And at a time when the world is growing to mistrust America, it needs thoughtful voices and independent perspectives that see the world whole and are not managed from America.

There's that word "independent" again ... and again ... like some Latin incantation. Prior to the Times Co. consolidation, were Gerhard Schröder, Kim Jong-il, and Saddam Hussein oblivious to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the "independent" IHT's copy came from those two American-managed newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times, with a dash of Los Angeles Times tossed in, and only a smattering of home-grown stories? For all the IHT's vaunted independence, both of its last two executive editors, Michael Getler and David Ignatius, came from the Washington Post. And how were Getler and Ignatius rewarded after their "independent" runs at the IHT? With new gigs at the Post. That's no slam against Getler and Ignatius, both fine journalists. It's a swipe at Goldmark. Simply put, the IHT hasn't been "independent" since the Post Co.'s Katharine Graham purchased the first chunk of it from Jock Whitney in 1966 and the Times Co. bought in a year later.

Anyone can appreciate why the demise of the "independent" IHT mists the eyes of Goldmark and other IHT employees. It's sad to have your newspaper wrestled out from under you. But newspapers should serve their readers, not their employees. For all its vaunted independence, the IHT produced very few exposés and scoops, and it developed very little in the way of new talent. If the Times Co. makes good on its announced plans to expand the IHT and make it more timely at the cost of independence, I say all the better. Love 'em or hate 'em, the Visigoths from New York know a thing or two about producing fact-laden, quality journalism on a deadline.

Months before the Times Co. muscled the Post Co. out, James Ledbetter rightly called the IHT "the duck-billed platypus of the newspaper world" in Slate. "The Trib's bigger problem is not that it's a day stale but that its decades stale," he wrote. Indeed, the IHT may well have reached its high-water mark in Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless (1960), where the character played by Jean Seberg hawked it on Paris streets. Never again has it enjoyed such cachet.

For all Goldmark's sniveling, the IHT deal may end up reinvigorating international journalism. Last week, the jilted Washington Post found another sweetie to canoodle with in Europe and Asia: the Wall Street Journal. The Post will offer the Journal a dozen or so stories for the Journal's overseas editions, a win-win for both newspapers—and readers—as the International Herald Tribune morphs into the New York Times International.

Or do you prefer Anna Karina in Pierrot le fou? Send mail to .

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large.
Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks From The Fray:

I walked in off the Paris street (well, the Neuilly street actually) in 1980 and got a desk job at the Trib. I worked it for the better part of 14 years. That kind of entree will not be happening under the Times's new corporate regime, I would guess.
The old Trib didn't exactly stand for joyous anarchy, because it wasn't always a happy, friendly place and you could usually feel a bit of -archy. But it was the kind of place where the fellas and gals could have a glass of Beaujolais between editions. (There were only two in those days. Editions, I mean.)
I regret that Trib, the real Trib. In fact, the Times should show some respect to the name and give it a quick burial. Everybody who knows the newspaper knows the real Trib was dead the day Sulzberger walked in the door. The Times is a fine newspaper, but as of Jan. 1, le 'erald Tribune, c'est fini.

-- Ouijeregrette

(To reply, click here.)


Seriously Jack, implying Moyers to be the left's equivalent of Scaife is a bit much. But then to hyperlink to a piece so void of journalistic integrity and intellectual responsibility, is truly going too far.

The piece in question, spewed by Brent Bozo, III of the Media Research Center and Parents Television Council, is such a hypocritical machination, that it

Moyers is completely open with his political/social views and expresses them in his journalism. And to no one's surprise, but the utterly clueless.

Now let's quickly run down the monetary stats in the two pieces. Brent Bozo's "grand expose" (by reading another's article) complains that Moyers makes $200k a year as head of the Schumann Foundation, which he cries has given $15 million (in total) to the evil crusade that is "Campaign Finance Reform."

And, as absurd as his complaints are, let's compare this with Scaife's vast local (and, coincidently, conservative) newspaper network and the $500k his "foundations" spread slyly A WEEK. That's $25 million a year.

Furthermore, Moyers is a public figure who has repeatedly expressed his views and argues them openly. Scaife timidly hides in the shadows, trying to manipulate national issues and policies to his whim.

And a further note on Brent Bozo, no where does he explicitly point out his own connections to "media criticism." As the founder and president of two overtly right-wing, ultra-fundamental organizations (MRC, PTC, not to mention the CCC, a right-wing marketing and PR center) Bozo tries, repeatedly, to sway opinion against popular culture. Feeling that adolescents (as well as anyone else) need to be told what not to watch and listen to, instead of simply expressing his complaints and allowing people to choose for themselves (as well as point out the various problems with his complaints), Bozo understands he cannot directly criticize informative and thought provoking broadcast organizations like PBS. So he's left to plotting pathetic, tangetial remarks. Unfortunately, they are so void of creditable information, that no one can take them seriously.

-- VitalTruth

(To reply, click here.)

(1/25)

Washington Post