The Newspaper of the FutureIf we're lucky, it will look something like the newspaper of the past.
Posted Tuesday, July 3, 2007, at 5:10 PM ET
[Warning: Go ahead and read this piece, but also make sure to read the follow-up, which mea culpas for this piece's deficiencies. --Jack Shafer] As newspaper circulation cartwheels into the abyss and print advertisers defect to the Web, publishers keep profit margins high by snipping, shearing, and slicing costs. The large-wingspan Wall Street Journal recently shrank its page size to the industry standard to save an estimated $18 million annually, and the New York Times will soon follow.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponDollar-pinching publishers are now paying experienced reporters and editors to leave their jobs. Buyouts will soon reduce the Los Angeles Times to 850 journalists, about three-quarters of its peak.* The San Francisco Chronicle has announced plans to cut the newsroom from 400 to 300. The San Jose Mercury News employed 400 journalists seven years ago and will soon have only 200 crashing the keyboards. Similar stories can be told about the Dallas Morning News, the Boston Globe, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Baltimore Sun, and other newspapers. Foreign bureaus are being shuttered, and full-time arts slots at newspapers in Atlanta, Minneapolis, Chicago, and elsewhere have been eliminated or downgraded.
How many journalists can a newspaper jettison before its hair falls out and its ribs start showing?
The connection between quality and head count would seem intuitive, but a dip into the microfilm archives of the New York Times and Washington Post shows that decent newspapers have been produced with far fewer hands.
In the last three or four decades, newsroom staffs have ballooned almost everywhere. Today's Times employs about 1,200 newsroom staffers and the Post about 800. But 35 years ago, each produced a quality daily with about half that number, according to Leon V. Sigal's 1973 study, Reporters and Officials: The Organization and Politics of Newsmaking. Sigal found that the Times employed 500 "reporters, editors, and copyreaders" and the Post about 400 at the time.
Some of the expansion came in the establishment of distant bureaus. The Times had 15 national bureaus and 28 foreign capital bureaus in 1972. Today it has 11 national bureaus and 26 foreign. The 1972 Post had four national bureaus and 11 overseas. Today there are about a half-dozen domestic and 19 foreign bureaus.
As you unspool summer of 1972 Post microfilm, you're struck by the relative reliance on stories from wire services and other newspapers. To pick a representative issue, I read the July 6, 1972, edition closely. It had two wire stories and one from the Manchester Guardian on Page One. The Post sports page even delegated coverage of the Baltimore Orioles, Washington's nominal big-league team after the departure of the Senators to Texas, to a wire service.
The Post of yore ran about half the number of comics, and its TV listings were limited to a box of five local stations compared to the full page containing almost 100 channels today. Style had not yet morphed into a full daily feature section. A thin feature about Emmylou Harris stops 7 inches after its jump from the front of Style, and a wire story about Jacqueline Onassis winning a lawsuit over a paparazzi also played on the front.
The feeble 1972 Business section made big news out of a story titled "New Shoe Shine Pickup Service Set" and also relied heavily on wire copy. Today's Business section is two or three times as hefty. The Metro section from 1972 ran one-third-to-a-half as many column inches as today's Metro. The old obituary section (aka "The Irish Sports Page") ran at half or two-thirds of today's space. The paper of 1972 had yet to spawn a Weekend section, a Health section, a Sunday Source section, the zoned weekly neighborhood sections, scads of service journalism, or a kids' page. These features and sections account for much of the staff growth since 1972.
The Post gave about the same emphasis to national and foreign coverage in 1972 as it does today. Although the average Post story from 1972 is probably 25 percent shorter than today's, the national and foreign stories I read from the July 6, 1972, edition Post don't skimp on the day's events. The paper captures the presidential campaign in full fury, files breaking combat news from Vietnam, and informs the reader of the reshuffling of the French government. On Page A4, staff writers Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward team up to report about the fallout from the June break-in at the Watergate. White House consultant E. Howard Hunt Jr., implicated in Watergate and wanted for questioning, is found to have a "special interest in Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's accident at Chappaquiddick" (" 'Bug' Suspect Said to Seek Kennedy Data").
The July 7, 1972, New York Times places a similar emphasis on national and foreign stories at the expense of other coverage. A.M. "Abe" Rosenthal had yet to "section" the paper to increase coverage of the arts, business, science, the regions, various service sections, and the boutique extras the contemporary Times reader has come to expect.
The 1972 Times is a good newspaper. You've got Drew Middleton reporting on the Pentagon; Sydney Schanberg filing from Saigon; Steven V. Roberts, Bernard Gwertzman, and James M. Naughton covering Washington; Flora Lewis on France; and Francis X. Clines writing local news, just to name a few bylines in the July 6 Times. The 1972 Times and the Post place greater reliance on more short wire stories to deliver the day's news. How much of this was to inform the reader and how much just to make pages fit is anybody's guess.
By my personal measure, the national and foreign news published in the summer of 1972 by the Times and Post matches the current product, even though it is less "featurey." That both papers did fine work with half the current manpower should encourage serious readers—even though it may depress journalists.
Answering the harder question of whether quality journalism can survive staff-slimming depends on 1) how big the original staff was and 2) which beats the survivors end up covering. Theoretically, a staff of 400 or 500 journalists working in 2007 should be able to out-report a staff of 400 or 500 journalists working in 1972, thanks to all the new tools at their disposal: computers, cheap long-distance, cell phones, convenient air travel, and news and information databases. But if hard-news sections take a disproportional hit as papers rescale, all the iPhones and Googles in the world won't matter.
Obviously, my preference would be for soft sections to erode faster than hard ones as newspapers retool and that the future newspaper ends up looking like its cousin from the recent past. I'm rotten at predictions, so I really shouldn't venture a guess as to which way publishers and editors will steer, but if you pushed me for a forecast, I'd guess that most will make a mess of their papers by drawing down manpower proportionately, guaranteeing that the hard-news pages are as mediocre as the soft ones.
******
Fun facts I couldn't fit into the article: The space given to editorials and op-eds since 1972 is unchanged in both papers. Also, corrected for inflation, the Washington Post is your better deal. The 1972 Times cost 15 cents—75 cents in today's money. The Times currently costs $1 at the newsstand, but the price rises to $1.25 later this month. The Post charged 10 cents—50 cents in today's money—and currently costs 35 cents. E-mail your newspaper predictions to . (E-mail may be quoted by name in "The Fray," Slate's readers' forum, in a future article, or elsewhere unless the writer stipulates otherwise. Permanent disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co.)
*Correction, July 3, 2007: The original version of this article misstated the peak size of the Los Angeles Times staff. (Return to the corrected sentence.)
Supporters of Health Reform Give Democrats a Big, Wet, Expensive Kiss
Lithwick Reports From the Supreme Court Hearing on Giving Juveniles Life Without Parole
Mad Men: Will Sally Draper Ever Forgive Her Father?
The Weirdly Sexual New Ad for Halls Lozenges
It's a Bad Idea for the Government To Cap Malpractice Awards
How Many Times Can Someone Fire a Pistol in Seven Minutes?
Remarks from the Fray:
The main difference between today's NYT / WaPo and that of yore was back then, journos seem to have been able to draw rational inferences and place today's claims into context with what proved to be yesterday's lies.
Now we have "inference-free" journalism; where what should be an obvious inference of government wrongdoing can not be labeled as such -- until and if proved in a court of law or through admission of guilt by the malefactor on national TV.
Today's media watchdogs only bark if the police have already caught the burglar.
--JackHughes
(To reply, click here.)
What Shafer's piece overlooks is that newsroom numbers are higher today not simply because of bloat, but because work once done by the backshop — a workforce eliminated over the last decade at most newspapers — now resides in the newsroom. As jobs are cut, editors who once concentrated on content are increasingly burdened with production duties. And it rolls downhill -- reporters are being saddled with paperwork and procedural tasks, as well. It will make a noticeable difference in the long run.
--Lemmy
(To reply, click here.)
There will always be a place for the newspapers, the newsprint-laden fishwrap that provides the only reliable source of non-broadcast news. Many of us want to have that conversational veil over our morning coffee, hard proof of saliency and a degree of intellectual honesty not possible on the Internet. Newspapers realize this, but they do not understand the importance of cloning us into another generation of readers who will eschew the trickery-laden electronic media in favor of cold, hard, printed, ink-smearing facts not subject to viral devilment.
Doing so requires that schoolkids get megadoses of newsprint in classrooms, the ubiquitous newspaper being the only continuing source of noise-making, trash-heaping, waste-covering paper always available to them. Once ingrained, this habit may carry over until the next generation hangs out at Starbucks, shielding their yawns and bloodshot from loquacious strangers.
--Arlo Attwater
(To reply, click here.)
My question is, "Why should the newsroom be any different from the manufacturing plant?"
What do we do to reduce labor costs in manufacturing? We multitask, we cut support head count, we automate if possible, we work longer and harder and most of all, we work smarter. We get more work done with less people. Those who don't, fail in this very competitive world of higher salaries. Perhaps those in the newspaper business who don't understand this need to talk to their friends in manufacturing.
What are the facts of life in manufacturing? I am one of those who have attended meetings where top management has told us to "look at the person on either side and know that the position held by one of every three of you will be gone in one year, with performance being the deciding factor on who stays and who goes," I hated it. I went home and worried and cried at my wife. I woke up at two in the morning and did not go back to sleep that night. And then I went to work and assured my position by performance.
What should the response of newspaper men and women be to the need for leaner and more productive news staffs?
Assure your position in a leaner industry through performance. The weaker and those who fail to produce will surely die, because that is life.
--meridiantoo
(To reply, click here.)
(7/5)