In comparison, the Washington Post purchase and post-acquisition handling of the news company by Jeff Bezos looks so wise and free of mess. Bezos believes in the company and the staff, he clearly values what they have been doing and wants to preserve it, and he proves valuable financial backing and leeway and technology input to help Washington Post to grow, all while leaving it alone to handle the news. That's the kind of leadership and support that Tribune needs but is so sorely lacking, with or without the Gannett bid.
2
A group of local investors offered to buy the Los Angeles Times from Tribune even before the spin-off of the broadcast assets to a separate company and was declined by management. The Los Angeles Times is a paper I subscribe to in addition to the NY Times and has struggled under any number of owners unworthy of the paper and it's readers. The current NY Times editor famously resigned from the LA Times over some of the mismanagement that has befallen the LA Times.
I personally do not care what happens to the Tribune Publishing outfit, but care about the LA Times. Eli Broad, among others, offered to buy the paper to return it to local ownership that is invested in the community the paper serves. If freed from less than enlightened managers that see the paper as a property to be milked for revenue, I think the Los Angeles Times could grow and have a very bright future as a national media voice in the manner of the New York Times and Washington Post.
Most of Gannett's dead tree journals are unworthy of their ink or the bandwidth needed to view them and the same is true of much of Tribune Publishing. The exceptions are papers like the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times- they are big city papers with a strong reach and some national reach. They should not be strapped at the leg to a bag of dying papers well past their expiration date.
I personally do not care what happens to the Tribune Publishing outfit, but care about the LA Times. Eli Broad, among others, offered to buy the paper to return it to local ownership that is invested in the community the paper serves. If freed from less than enlightened managers that see the paper as a property to be milked for revenue, I think the Los Angeles Times could grow and have a very bright future as a national media voice in the manner of the New York Times and Washington Post.
Most of Gannett's dead tree journals are unworthy of their ink or the bandwidth needed to view them and the same is true of much of Tribune Publishing. The exceptions are papers like the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times- they are big city papers with a strong reach and some national reach. They should not be strapped at the leg to a bag of dying papers well past their expiration date.
3
Buffett or Bezos make more sense.
1
The sad part in all this?
We're all talking to ourselves. Just 14 people have taken the time to weigh in. Apparently, no one cares. Sad, really. So, go ahead, Gannett. Take over the world. No one cares.
We're all talking to ourselves. Just 14 people have taken the time to weigh in. Apparently, no one cares. Sad, really. So, go ahead, Gannett. Take over the world. No one cares.
1
If I only read the Reno Gazette Journal, a Gannett newspaper, I would not know that the world is in turmoil. Among with a digital subscription to RGJ, I also subscribe to NYT, which 24/7 pushes news that the world is about to collapse.
Gannett is OK for local news but to be informed you really need to read other sources. The Bookmarks on my laptop include a dozen other sources of information ranging from the Guardian, Spiegel and Xinhua to Mother Jones and the Atlantic. I am sure millions of Americans do the same. Losing the Chicago Tribune and LA times is not the end of the world.
Gannett is OK for local news but to be informed you really need to read other sources. The Bookmarks on my laptop include a dozen other sources of information ranging from the Guardian, Spiegel and Xinhua to Mother Jones and the Atlantic. I am sure millions of Americans do the same. Losing the Chicago Tribune and LA times is not the end of the world.
The LA Times and Chicago Tribune are already fast becoming the local equivalents of USA Today -- you glance at the headlines on the front page looking for news of local murders then settle down to read the sports pages while you consume your Egg McMuffin; after about three minutes the remains of both the "breakfast sandwich" and the "newspaper" are tossed. Comfortably nestled amongst the other publications in the Gannett family, the LA Times and the Trib will officially end any pretense to journalistic respectability.
4
Sad... sad... sad...gone are the local, independent, scrappy news tellers... replaced by corporate giants beholden to their obnoxiously wealthy owners & advertisers.
Remember when journalism was considered a fourth arm of government? It was a highly regarded institution, the truth teller, the fact finder, the great equalizer for the commoner. Maybe that was just a dream...
Remember when journalism was considered a fourth arm of government? It was a highly regarded institution, the truth teller, the fact finder, the great equalizer for the commoner. Maybe that was just a dream...
4
Another consolidation in the media, thank you Bill Clinton.
1
What happens when the 2nd and 3rd biggest cities in America no longer have journalistically ambitious newspapers? That should be the headline here, on a story that doesn't run in Dealbook.
Both the Tribune and the LAT are shells of their former selves, thanks to Sam Zell et al., but they haven't blown off all the newsroom talent, and both are still committed to serious journalism in their hometowns. Gannett has "media experience," but it dumbs down every paper it touches. Chicago is in crisis under Rahm Emanuel with racial animosity and a soaring murder rate; the city is desperate for the checks and balances journalism provides. Television and the internet cannot provide the coverage that newspapers do; what's to become of the South Side when the Gannett monster arrives? What's to become of the schools? L.A.'s a little better off, but not by much; the next major police scandal is due to arrive any day now. The papers have stabilized somewhat under the current Tribune management, but all bets are off once the money boys take over.
The key to newspaper survival remains what it has always been: good journalism. Junk the newsprint if you have to, but make the publication a must-read and people will buy it. Reporters and editors are the last people to lay off, not the first ones; quality sells. Gannett's formula is "we charge more for less."
Mr. Sorkin did well to examine this transaction, but it's not primarily about share price or due diligence.
Both the Tribune and the LAT are shells of their former selves, thanks to Sam Zell et al., but they haven't blown off all the newsroom talent, and both are still committed to serious journalism in their hometowns. Gannett has "media experience," but it dumbs down every paper it touches. Chicago is in crisis under Rahm Emanuel with racial animosity and a soaring murder rate; the city is desperate for the checks and balances journalism provides. Television and the internet cannot provide the coverage that newspapers do; what's to become of the South Side when the Gannett monster arrives? What's to become of the schools? L.A.'s a little better off, but not by much; the next major police scandal is due to arrive any day now. The papers have stabilized somewhat under the current Tribune management, but all bets are off once the money boys take over.
The key to newspaper survival remains what it has always been: good journalism. Junk the newsprint if you have to, but make the publication a must-read and people will buy it. Reporters and editors are the last people to lay off, not the first ones; quality sells. Gannett's formula is "we charge more for less."
Mr. Sorkin did well to examine this transaction, but it's not primarily about share price or due diligence.
10
Gannett has ruined every property it has touched. They bought the Arkansas Gazette which was the oldest paper still published west of the Mississippi and promised to maintain it's standards. In very little time the Gannett gutted paper was sold to and merged with the Arkansas Democrat- a right wing rag owned by someone who bought it for political leverage- and it is just a terrible rag.
3
I'm not sure how Michael Ferro is described as having "next to no" media experience when he has owned the Chicago Sun Times and Chicago Reader for four years.
If Tribune sat on the offer before announcing it, did its board members load up on stock, knowing they'd make a nice killing when the news came out?
4
Brilliant analysis Mr. Sorkin.
This is another step towards the end of journalism as we know it . The moment that a newspaper becomes publicly held its assets are in danger. With office buildings. plants etc sold off, the newspapers are expected to pay higher operating costs as well as the interests for the loans that have been made to purchase their parent corporations. What goes out the door first is their staffs of skilled reporters, the people who are at the heart of the news.
This evolving situation makes it more and more difficult for a newspaper to survive and flourish when it is already facing the competition of television, radio and every other media that sells 'space' to advertisers. Consolidation can mean loss of local coverage and reduces the need for 'duplicative' reporting in national and international news.
Printing and delivering newspapers on a daily basis is losing ground year by year. The loss in terms of needed information and critical commentary and investigative reporting is a social disaster. It's a Wall Street focus where only money talks with no journalistic principles attached to it . It is reducing the availability of news and public access to critical information in ways that are destructive of the commonwealth.
Cursing, confining, and denigrating reporters and throwing them out of the hall is being celebrated as a political tactic. This is more of the same.
This evolving situation makes it more and more difficult for a newspaper to survive and flourish when it is already facing the competition of television, radio and every other media that sells 'space' to advertisers. Consolidation can mean loss of local coverage and reduces the need for 'duplicative' reporting in national and international news.
Printing and delivering newspapers on a daily basis is losing ground year by year. The loss in terms of needed information and critical commentary and investigative reporting is a social disaster. It's a Wall Street focus where only money talks with no journalistic principles attached to it . It is reducing the availability of news and public access to critical information in ways that are destructive of the commonwealth.
Cursing, confining, and denigrating reporters and throwing them out of the hall is being celebrated as a political tactic. This is more of the same.
7
The Trib ain't what it used to be - much thanks to Zell and its turning out thanks to Ferro as well. But Gannett is generally trash - and would take any sophistication and credibility the Trib has left and toss it in a dumpster. If you actually have one thread of concern for the journalistic product that Trib produces then selling to Gannet is off the table. There's a reason the two papers I read most (no USA Today is not the other) aren't even hometown papers, but it's sad nonetheless.
9
What he said - exactly.
I have seen what Gannett does to the papers it acquires - exhibit A: Louisville's Courier-Journal.
No person or entity is more responsible for the decay of journalism in this country than Gannett.
I have seen what Gannett does to the papers it acquires - exhibit A: Louisville's Courier-Journal.
No person or entity is more responsible for the decay of journalism in this country than Gannett.
5
Oh, the horror.
Gannett, the second-largest owner of newspapers in this country, is known, properly, as a brutal cost cutter rooted in the days when newspapers enjoyed 20-plus percent profit margins. This philosophy is reflected in the paltry number of journalism prizes won by Gannett properties, which rarely, if ever, win Pulitzers. If you like USA Today, you'll love whatever Gannett delivers to your doorstep in your hometown. Look up cookie cutter in the dictionary and you'll see the Gannett logo.
Even worse is GateHouse Media, now the largest owner of local newspapers in this nation. GateHouse is the brainchild of the Las Vegas debacle in which Sheldon Adelson tried to hide his purchase of the Vegas daily, aided and abetted by GateHouse, which sold the paper to Adelson and still manages the publication. It was, arguably, the biggest scandal in the newspaper industry since--take your pick--Janet Cooke or Judith Miller, both of whom got their comeuppances. But both Gannett and GateHouse move along, snapping up every available newspaper in this nation.
At some point, the feds need to step in and ask the obvious: How is this kosher under anti-trust laws? Both chains cut costs by distributing the same content between publications to a degree unprecedented in the newspaper industry. The old model--so long as they don't own media in the same market--doesn't apply anymore. And NYT should be treating this as more than a business story. The future of journalism is at stake.
Gannett, the second-largest owner of newspapers in this country, is known, properly, as a brutal cost cutter rooted in the days when newspapers enjoyed 20-plus percent profit margins. This philosophy is reflected in the paltry number of journalism prizes won by Gannett properties, which rarely, if ever, win Pulitzers. If you like USA Today, you'll love whatever Gannett delivers to your doorstep in your hometown. Look up cookie cutter in the dictionary and you'll see the Gannett logo.
Even worse is GateHouse Media, now the largest owner of local newspapers in this nation. GateHouse is the brainchild of the Las Vegas debacle in which Sheldon Adelson tried to hide his purchase of the Vegas daily, aided and abetted by GateHouse, which sold the paper to Adelson and still manages the publication. It was, arguably, the biggest scandal in the newspaper industry since--take your pick--Janet Cooke or Judith Miller, both of whom got their comeuppances. But both Gannett and GateHouse move along, snapping up every available newspaper in this nation.
At some point, the feds need to step in and ask the obvious: How is this kosher under anti-trust laws? Both chains cut costs by distributing the same content between publications to a degree unprecedented in the newspaper industry. The old model--so long as they don't own media in the same market--doesn't apply anymore. And NYT should be treating this as more than a business story. The future of journalism is at stake.
16
Ferro is just the latest financial hustler to play with newspapers. He probably wants to take the company private and then strip and flip to one of private equity firms like Angelo Gordon or Alden Global Capital that play in the newspaper ink pond. And as a private company, he can do it all without having the feds or the papers readers, advertisers and staffs looking over his shoulder. While Gannett us the McDonalds of newspapers, at least ut is a newspaper operator. The resudents of LA, Chicago, Hartford, St. Petersburg, Orlando and Allentown deserve to have their newspapers be something more than one rich guy's toy. Where are the feds?
9
This is an eye opening report. If true - and my hunch is that it is true - this is yet another example of boards neglecting the shareholders.
1