Skip navigation

A couple of weeks ago, Newsosaur predicted either MediaNews or Morris Publishing would be the next ones to declare bankruptcy. Well, a few days ago, another newspaper company did annunce Chapter 11, but it was Philadelphia Newspapers, owner of the Philadelphia Enquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News. According to the New York Times, the company had not been complying with its debt agreements for about eight months, and suspended payment on debt in the Fall.

The announcement, coupled with the Fed’s chief dire prediction about the economy, doesn’t bode well for the future of debt-laden newspapers.


Wendy Carrillo, an astute woman in the masters of specialized journalism program, wisely pointed out how the nature of one of our recent cyber-discussions was focusing now not on what’s wrong with the newsmedia, but how to fix it.

Although I initially dismissed her comments, I must confess I’ve had a change of heart. Maybe it was Walter Isaacson’s piece in Time,  or maybe is a collective sign of desperation as we see the water continues to rise and now it’s up our chins. In any case, the lively debate about Isaacson’s proposal and other solutions is alive and well in the internet. Ken Doctor has a very good post about it, and so does Neusosaur. If we keep churning out ideas, something’s bound to become butter.

Judging by the animated discussion it generated in our Specialized group, I suspect many of you will already have read this week’s Time cover story by Walter Isaacson. If you haven’t, a wag of Colbert’s finger. If you have, Jon Stewart will be proud.

Immigrants tried to give the United States a taste of what the country would be like without them, and now newspapers may follow suit.

I stumbled onto this intriguing post by  TJ Sullivan,who’s pushing for newspapers to stop uploading their contents unto the web for one whole week so the public gets a taste of what the world would be like without them.

Immigrants couldn’t really pull it off, but they made a valiant effort. It will be interesting to see this idea take off.

Peter Drucker, considered by some the creator and inventor of modern management, described in a book published in 1974 how the Japanese process of decision making is based on first defining what the problem is. Maybe top newspaper managers should get a copy.

Last week, a group of top executives launched “The Newspaper Project,” a campaign to promote the value of newspapers and share tips on how to survive in tough times. The project includes an ad blitz to set the record straight about the importance of their print product.

But just like media guru Ken Doctor notes in his blog, I wonder if these execs aren’t barking at the wrong tree. It’s not that readers don’t value newspapers, it’s that they can get the information they provide for free so they don’t have to bother with a subscription. People still value news, but the forms of delivery have changed so dramatically that execs are still running from cover. And judging by the grumpy postings of Alexandre Gamela, they still don’t get it.

Mmmmm. Our esteemed director and professor are against one, but maybe, just maybe, that’s what newspapers need. Not so their owners can continue making obsene amounts of profit, but to rescue important community institutions (the L.A. Times comes to mind). A government bailout and a restructuring of ownership could relieve the debt burden many newspapers are carrying and give control to community members who value their role in the democratic process and not just as cash cows.

Let’s be real: there’s no way indebted newspaper chains (McClatchy, Media News, Tribune) can keep up with the exorbitant payments their huge debt demands of them. It’s as if a waiter had purchased a million dollar home (something he couldn’t afford to begin with) that later lost half its value in the real estate crash.

McClatchy stock closed at 66 cents Friday, a 13 percent decline from the previous day. You all know about LA Times, and Media News and Gannett have both implemented one-week furloughs for all their employees. Basically, they want to stop the bleeding with a band-aid…

During Wednesday class I became so distracted by arguing that Latino media is indeed advocacy media that I failed to bring up a point I consider even more important. Why are the Latino journalists mentioned so eager to prove they are not “advocates”? What’s wrong with advocacy journalism?

It was beautiful to see CNN reporters finally do their job when they angrily confronted government officials after they failed to rescue stranded Katrina victims. Indeed, they were advocating for them. Their new found courage was so successful that the network instituted — at least for a while — a segment called “Holding them accountable.”

Isn’t that what our job is supposed to be about? Holding government officials and other people in power accountable? Isn’t that what advocacy journalism is all about? I suspect that in the media’s efforts to be “objective” we became “detached”, which in turn the audience translated as “uninterested.” (I’m quoting somebody here, I think maybe Geneva, but I’ve done so much reading about the topic lately it’s all become a blur). What if the audience is responding by turning away, by folding the newspaper and switching to non-objective outlets, like Fox News and the Daily Show?

I sure hope Latino and other ethnic journalists do not abandon their decades-old practice of speaking up for their communities and promoting civic participation and engagement. Indeed, that may be an important reason why they are not suffering as much as the mainstream media is.