Santa Cruz Observer

Loss of small newspapers and the vainglorious national presidential campaign

By TOM HONIG

The loss of meaningful local journalism continues across the country, and at the same time the presidential campaign has taken on the look of a reality television show.

The two are related. 

For years, as a reporter and editor at the Santa Cruz Sentinel, I noticed that the percentage of voter turnout — compared to the number of eligible voters — stood at about 30 percent. And 30 percent was roughly the percentage of newspaper readers in Santa Cruz, at least according to readership surveys. 

I’d be willing to bet that there’s no such correlation anymore. As I watch the made-for-television events for presidential hopefuls, it appears to me that voter interest has changed. The old 30 percenters were as involved with local and state issues as they were with the national stage. Local and state issues were the ones covered by local print journalists, and they were the ones who kept interested readers informed. 

Now, with newspapers in retreat and not covering local issues well, potential voters have turned  their attention to the national scene.

National presidential politics in 2019 is dominated by charismatic and telegenic  personalities and nationally known politicos. The front-runners busy themselves with daring populist proposals that are unlikely ever to be implemented, while the incumbent just seems to make up stuff if it helps his self-image. More and more, candidates are searching for the sound bite, some sort of attack one-liner that will make it to the news shows. Exhibit A: Kamala Harris attacks Joe Biden. Exhibit B: Everybody else attacks Kamala Harris. 

All  that comes at the expense of regional candidates who probably have more real-life, hands-on experience in governing than the celebrity senators who are leading in the polls. 

For years, as reporter Tim Craig of The Washington Post points out, American voters paid attention to the nuts and bolts issues of politics.  Governors who had proved themselves in office — Carter, Clinton and even Reagan — moved on to the national stage after having demonstrated a record of actually working in a bipartisan way.

Says Craig: “For the first time in a generation, political observers say, polls show no sitting or former governor is a front-runner for either political party’s nomination battle, at least so far. Experts say national politics is losing the bipartisan influence and executive experience that governors once brought to the table.”

And as Terry McAuliffe, a former Virginia governor and longtime Democratic strategist, points out:  “Governors are the most important people in the country. . . . They should be at the forefront. Nothing happens in Washington, and all the action is in the states.”

Not that you’d notice if you only read political blogs and watched cable television.

In fact, I bet that more people could name the two dozen presidential candidates and the CNN moderators than could name their own county board of supervisors. 

That’s what you get when you get your news from social media or cable TV. 

What Starbucks is saying about newspapers -- but not everyone agrees

By TOM HONIG

One of my favorite wall posters from years ago was a picture of the San Francisco Chronicle and a mug of coffee with the caption "Caen and Coffee." Everyone in the greater Bay Area knew what that meant -- an interlude with the great Chronicle columnist Herb Caen and a few minutes with your coffee to get caught up on the latest gossip.

Coffee and reading the newspaper seemed like a perfect match. That's why this news hit so hard: Starbucks will soon stop selling newspapers in its cafes. Sigh.

It figures, though. The ubiquitous cellphone has taken the place of newspapers at public places -- cafes, restaurants and the like. All during my working years my favorite getaway during the day was a quick lunch or snack at a local eatery. And I always took a newspaper or magazine with me. No longer. I sit there just like everyone else, staring -- maybe gawking is a better word -- at Twitter, Facebook or even just my e-mail.

Let's face it. Most people -- especially on the younger side -- just don't read the paper. Starbucks isn't ending newspaper sales just to be difficult. If the papers just sit there on the shelf and then go into the recycling bin at the end of the day, who can blame them for cutting back?

In a New York Times story about Starbuck's decision, the only people expressing regret were the older folks. More typical was this reaction: “I think it makes total sense; it’s not a surprise. I don’t think there is any upside to keeping the paper. If you look around in this Starbucks, there’s no one buying a newspaper. It’s just another casualty of change. Another casualty of the internet.”

That sentiment is particularly stark for us old-time print people. Many of us spend our post-newspaper hours venting  at the horrible hedge funds that now control most small- and medium-market dailies. And yes, they deserve any enmity they get. But there's also the realization that the newspaper that so many of us took pride in producing is just, well, not so marketable anymore.

The impact of the lessened role of words in print is huge. As I've written previously, social media and dramatic video on news shows appeal to emotions, while the written word is better at explaining events in a more rational way. 

That's why I was impressed by a sentiment expressed by a radio journalist by the name of Nikki Medoro of KGO radio in San Francisco. Writing on Twitter -- yes, she acknowledged the irony -- she asked: "Could the answer to 'how we got here' be the rise of social media and the demise of newspapers? Could the solution be as simple as quitting social media and buying an actual paper?"

Then she adds: "I know it's silly that I'm on posting this ON social media ... buy ya know ... that's where we are."

I appreciate her sentiment. Maybe newspapers are still worth fighting for.

Robert Mueller wasn't made for the video-clip era

The absence of an electrifying Washington moment in Wednesday’s two-stage testimony by (Robert) Mueller not only deprived Democrats of the crystallizing episode they needed to drive public opinion on impeachment, but it also meant Republicans had no reason to budge from their anti-impeachment stance.

-- Carl Hulse, The New York Times

 

By TOM HONIG

Is that what it takes to get anything done in politics these days? Do we really govern only by electrifying Washington?

Count me as one who found Robert Mueller's testimony before the Senate and the House refreshing. He might just as well have walked into the hearing rooms and said, "Read the damn report."

Social media and cable news rely, more and more, on the zinger. Get the best three or four words you can and get them ready for video clips. If they're the perfect combination of wit, alliteration and nastiness, the video will spread across the media, maybe even making it to the apex -- the late-night comedy shows.

Admittedly I can appreciate a good one-liner. After all, I wrote headlines for years, always in search of a grabber. But that doesn't mean that the lack of electricity should doom public discussion and ultimately government actions.

There's a good deal of evidence that the electrifying moment is setting the agenda these days. The president is a master of the form. So is presidential hopeful Kamala Harris, who knew that  by  informing Joe Biden that she didn't think he was a racist actually was just another way of saying that he might be a racist. When she said it, she zoomed up the polls.

Maybe there is something positive about the quick hits. They move people at the time, but tomorrow will bring a new outrage, another zinger and another issue to think about. Maybe in this fast-paced environment a short attention span is a good thing.

But let's all take a moment to appreciate Robert Mueller. He wasn't on Team Red or on Team Blue. He sat there, unashamedly a man of another era in Washington, answering some pretty obnoxious questions with unsullied dignity.

Beware of smart media stars who are sure of their opinions

One of the great qualities of the best journalists is that they're not sure of anything. That's the main reason they get their butts out of their chair and actually go talk to somebody. My God, sometimes they even talk to somebody different from themselves, someone who views the world differently. They're interested in what others have to say and how the world looks from behind someone else's eyes.

Alas, today's journalists -- especially the biggest stars -- are increasingly sure of themselves and their own knowledge. Fox News and MSNBC are particularly known for hiring people straight out of the partisan political world: Chris Matthews, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin and Robert Gibbs. They're smart. They're argumentative. They take no prisoners. They get great ratings.

The latest to join the party is David Axelrod, famously a big part of President Barack Obama's political success, who has joined NBC News.

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius has taken notice, saying in the Washington Post's Post Partisan blog: "NBC boasted in its news release about how 'for nearly three decades Axelrod guided successful campaigns at every level on the ballot.'  Once upon a time, that would have been a disqualification for a news organization."

These are people who are sure of themselves and of their opinions. (Of course, smart people who were sure of themselves and their opinions started the Vietnam War, the  Iraq War and a few other misguided ventures.)

Don't expect Axelrod to innocently question either a Democrat or a Republican. He's damn sure of what he knows. It's the people -- like me -- who aren't smart enough to be sure of ourselves who used to ply their trade in journalism. People like me actually were interested in what others had to say -- especially when they saw the world differently. It was one of the basics of good journalism.

True, there are still those who play it that way, but they don't get the high ratings and don't get the huge number of page views. They're  the ones who at the end of the day can be found at the grocery store or watering their lawn. The smart, opinionated media stars are more likely to be whisked away in their limo, on their way to exclusive fund-raisers. We're rewarding the smart people whose are sure of their opinions. 

As Ignatius says "No wonder the American public increasingly mistrusts the news media. We are obliterating the line between the political players and the people who are supposed to act as commentators and referees."

POSTSCRIPT: Not every political person wants to sit and pontificate. Buried deep in today's news is a story about recently retired Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, joining a think tank called the Bipartisan Policy Center, where she will co-chair the group's new Commission on Political Reform. The group will study the causes and consequences of partisan politics -- and will even look toward government reform.

Don't expect much coverage from the likes of Rove and Axelrod. They wouldn't get the ratings that way.

 

Selfish. Always have been; always will be

By TOM HONIG

I've written the same thing so many times that it keeps me from updating this blog very often. But with the new year -- hey -- why not?

Don't blame the politicians. Even those who serve in the sideshow otherwise known as the U.S. House of Representatives. Blame us. Most of us, anyway -- those who want a lot of government services and want someone else to pay for it.

The so-called budget deal achieved nothing. Go ahead -- tax the wealthy if you want. Just realize that it doesn't solve anything except making you feel better about not owning yachts and vacationing on private islands. 

Don't take it from me. Here's a great explanation from Charles Babington of the Associated Press: "Cliff Deal is Another No-Pain Punt. 

It feels almost quaint to suggest an AP story in this day of hyper-opinionated journalism ranging from Fox News to Paul Krugman. But this Babington has it right -- he says the fiscal cliff deal "is the latest in a long series of decisions by lawmakers and the White House to do less than promised - and to ask Americans for little sacrifice - in confronting the nation's burgeoning debt."

What Americans are doing, essentially, is putting off hard decisions on the next generation. You know, those young people who are having trouble finding good jobs, affordable housing and even decent health care. But the general voting public, urged on by politicians, lobbyists and media stars continue to believe that government benefits don't have to be paid for -- or can be paid by someone else.

As Anderson Cooper might say about the Baby Boom Generation (and I know; I'm one of them): "The fact is, they're selfish. Always have been. Always will be."

ADDENDUM: Two Washington journalists from The Wall Street Journal, David Wessel and Gerald Seib, have published a helpful graph right here of how the new law affects the deficit. Yes -- annual deficits remain over $1 trillion with no end in sight.

 

A skeptic and the private ballot

By TOM HONIG

I'm on my way to vote, and figure that Election Day is as good a time as any to rejuvenate this oft-moribund blog.

After a quick check of Twitter and Facebook, I figure I might be one of the few who have no interest whatsoever in urging others to vote my way -- or even share with anyone how I'm going to vote. And that definitely includes those sincere people who phone me up to ask who I'm voting for, or supporting, or even if I'm going to vote.

Last I checked, the secret ballot is one of the cornerstones of the American electoral system. And there are a minority of us who guard that right.

The great irony of a presidential election is that people turn out more than they do for any local or state election -- even though it's the local officeholders who affect their life more than a president does. There are people who are passionate about the presidential race who couldn't tell you who their county supervisor is -- or even which district they reside in.

When it comes to the presidential race, it's that very heightened interest that's actually horribly depressing. Unless we voters choose a meaningless protest vote for a third-party candidate, we're forced to choose between two men who have spent millions of dollars to either attack their opponent or regurgitate well-rehearsed talking points.

There have been few words of inspiration -- or even leadership -- spoken by either gentleman who has been running. I really would have liked to hear a word or two calling the voter to higher purpose. Are we voters so selfish that neither candidate can afford to discuss duty, sacrifice or even commitment? Nope. It's all about how bad the other guy is.

And that's why I'm a reluctant voter. And a discouraged one.

Let's just hope that whoever wins will govern better than he campaigned.

Another step in the death march of newspapers

By TOM HONIG

Call it the next step in the slow death of the print newspaper business: copy editors are being laid off.

The copy editor is the silent representative of the newspaper reader -- the one who historically never gets his name in the paper but who is a key cog in the publishing wheel. The copy editor is the one who knows "'who" from "whom" and whether you lie down or lay down. It's the often-ignored copy editor who manages taste, style and accuracy -- ideally -- in the hastily put-together piece of chaos known as the daily paper.

But as economic realities continue to lay waste to the legacy business of newspapers, it's the copy editors who are next in the layoff chute. Reporters and photographers already have  been put out to pasture in great numbers.  And so have pure copy editors -- the ones who just read copy and then turned things over to the production people. But now comes the next step -- as news continues to go digital, news executives are turning to the idea reporters themselves (they're now known as "content generators")  handling the editing jobs themselves.

The Denver Post has announced a major upcoming change (the Post is owned by MediaNews Group, the same owner of the Sentinel and San Jose Mercury News). Editor Gregory Moore -- a good guy himself -- sent out the following memo to the staff (courtesy of the Poynter Institute)

We have focused our attention on consolidating steps in the editing process so that traditional copy editing is done at the content-generating level. That is going to result in a reduction in the ranks of copy editors. Following this, virtually every job in the newsroom will change in some way. The editing and crafting of our copy will have to be shared throughout the newsroom.

Expect this trend to continue.

It's good copy-editing that has distinguished the best newspapers in America. But as the form of delivering news changes, copy editing is a  step that doesn't pass the economic test. Newspapers now compete with online, with radio and television, and none of those news organizations care much about a higher quality of writing. Blogs (including this one) exist without that extra degree of care.

It's a sign of the times. Self-publishing moves ahead, and legacy businesses are forced to change their economic model. But it ain't a good thing.

The media and complexity in the Middle East

By TOM HONIG

Let's face it. The ever-shortening attention span of the American public is leaving most forms of the media in tatters. Exhibit A -- the Panetta Institute's presentation this week of two Middle East experts who spent 90 minutes discussing what Sylvia Panetta called "the stubborn complexity of conflict in this region."

Middle East experts Dennis Ross (who has served both Republican and Democratic administrations) and Fran Townsend (an adviser to President George W. Bush) wended through a compelling yet byzantine examination of the region.

And how could any account of 15 column inches or 28 seconds on television fairly summarize what was said.

As Ross commented to moderator Frank Sessno: "If you look at the region as a whole (from Libya all the way to Afghanistan) any  one area would be enough (to qualify as a major issue.)

Still, any trained journalist could pick out the lede: Iran's nuclear threat.

Each expert came at the issue a bit differently, with Ross citing evidence that economic sanctions just might be working. Here's why:

-- Iran's currency has been devalued by half

-- Protests in front of Iranian banks

-- Iran is finding difficulty in selling oil at a high price (despite worldwide price increases).

-- Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- Iran's supreme leader -- is bringing in moderates to the government and has also (curiously) raised the subject that "nuclear weapons are a sin.

Despite these signs, Townsend said, the thought of nuclear weapons and a potential preemptive attack from Israel "still keeps me up at night."

So here you go. This account covers maybe one-twentieth of what was said, and so far hasn't even brought up Afghanistan, Syria, Palestinian issues, Saudi Arabia, Qatar,  Bahrain or the rest.

Maybe that's why Charlie Sheen and Lady Gaga and Tim Tebow are better covered in the media than the Middle East. But that's also why the Panetta Lecture Series is so welcome. 

The next in the series will be April 9, a Monday. It'll feature a discussion on the economy with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and former U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson. Standby tickets are sometimes available at the Panetta Institute at 831-582-4200.

News exec quits -- and has some things to say

By TOM HONIG

You just never know where cogent commentary on the future of newspapers will come from. This one is from the chief revenue officer of the Bay Area News Group -- owners of the San Jose Mercury News, the Sentinel and most of the other papers around the Bay Area.

His name is Jeff DeBalko, and as he quit his position, he posted some thoughts about daily newspapers' strategies -- or, more precisely, the lack of a strategy.

Writing on his personal blog, DeBalko talks of his brief career in the "local media" game after having spent most of his career in specialized, business-to-business media.

It's worth following the link and reading his entire post, but essentially, here's what he has to say:

1. Hope is not a strategy (Don't say: "Oh, things will get better. We just have to wait for a better economy."

2. Corporate culture is stronger than any strategy. ("Treat employees better.")

3. Get out into the community. (He argues that the web-only Patch.com is doing this better than most old-line newspapers).

4. Diversity matters. (Old white guys -- like me, admittedly -- are running the show.)

5. Selling online is not the same as building a sustainable business. (Too much focus on "the sale" and not enough on growing a productive business.)

6. Technology matters. (You're not a media company; you're a tech company. That's your competition.)

7. People matter. (Bosses might actually ask employees what works and what doesn't.)

I especially was convinced by his comment on tech. Think of every major change in media -- iTunes, Craigslist, Groupon, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix -- and not one came from an already-established media company. There are a lot of reasons for that -- mostly the need of established companies to affix a return-on-investment requirement to every new idea. Still, old media types love to talk about innovation -- even though I can't think of one real great original idea to come out of the standard, mainstream media.

The best reporters I've known over the years were the ones who spent more time out of the newsroom than in. I think that's instructive for newspaper executives. They should stop talking with each other, get their noses out of the budget sheets and actually connect with readers and advertisers to discover their needs.

 

Further discussion: Is government capable of encouraging economic growth and jobs?

The Santa Cruz Business Council opened a dialogue last week about the local business climate, about opportunities and challenges and about whether Santa Cruz leaders encourage economic development.

The discussion is of critical importance during a time of high unemployment. The question is: can and will government leaders provide stimulus to a healthy economy.

Local businessman Eric Mendelson has doubts: 

"The glass half empty perspective:  None of our elected officials attended (the Business Council discussion).  This speaks volumes about the continued difficulties businesses face in Santa Cruz County.  The regulatory environment continues to be challenging and the cost of doing business here continues to be excessively high.  The price to purchase or lease commercial real estate is still too high and businesses are opting to locate in Silicon Valley where the price of real estate is much more affordable and the population of talent is higher.  Our local university still does not understand how to foster the nascent entrepreneurs on campus and as a result, those that have serious chances of success move over the hill as soon as they can.  The city and county cannot rely on home based technology companies (i.e. iphone app developers) to rescue the economy.  Real brick and mortar commerce is needed and our governments continue to be ambivalent (at best) about attracting the necessary industrial concerns to reverse our economic downturn.

Another commenter wonders whether local government actually can do anything. He suggested this link to NPR's "This American Life" and a fascinating look at whether government is even capable of adding jobs. 

The highlight: "Act Three -- Job Fairies" in which economic development officers from governments across the United States attend a meeting the International Economic Developers Council in San Diego. Correspondent Adam Davidson compares the convention to an meeting of pickpockets as they attempt to "steal" businesses from other areas. The biggest target: California, with its reputation for over-regulation, high taxes and other business-unfriendly policies.

If you don't have time for the entire show, make sure to listen to "Job Fairies."