Copyright 2005 Ben S. Pollock
Monday, Sept. 26, 2005: One of my guilty pleasures finally is starting to regurge on me. I have been enjoying accounts in journalism-industry media of the big, bad bean counters and how they’re ruining my profession. It’s so obvious, it’s so true, it’s so commented upon it must be so.
Even when such commentaries include reporting, such as this one that I found in my vitamin Romenesko, I see something missing. More garlic? A sprinkle of paprika?
What’s missing is The Other Side.
It may be turgid, but bean counters can write. It may come out in a monotone, but bean counters can speak. If the language they use is too technical, why that’s when we call on business reporters to translate.
Actually, Romenesko and the likes of Editor & Publisher regularly include the opinions of the corporate side of the coin of the realm. They explain keeping stockholders happy with a 25 percent profit keeps everything afloat and that 15 percent isn’t enough, never mind how even successful grocery chains manage on 3 percent net revenue.
That’s not all the understanding that we need. The Golden Egg is the thing.
The craftsmen’s side (including craftswomen; the suffix is without gender) shouts to the companies that Autopen their paychecks, You’re wrecking the Golden Egg! Shrinking staff, shrinking expertise, shrinking news hole, shrinking chance-taking, shrinking iconoclastic spunkiness that brought in readers in favor of inherently skewed market research (skewed as in “fighting the last war”).
If the world is that close to running out of oil, the oil companies would be working more feverishly on alternate fuels they could sell — and maybe they are, secretly.
If media companies want to sell more papers — sell more advertising — or move more smoothly online (meaning fewer missteps) and sell ads there, tell us buggy whip makers why you appear to be “killing the Golden Egg.”
Maybe the boys-who-cry-wolf whom I am now sick of reading, aren’t asking it of those who could answer. This Rake account mentioned above calls for more columnists — and not advice or tips columnists, either. That’s my song, but this Upper Midwest dude isn’t backing it up with facts, good quotes or arguments. He just quotes the soloists of the choir to whom he warbles.
I’m all in favor of such a well-argued essay that it doesn’t especially need sourcing. This one would come close but its biggest problem is excruciating length. Despite the extreme wordiness, this essayist only touches his best argument for good writing attracting readers and profits:
The Rake writer more or less thinks the bean counters and their marketing look to broadcast as the model, while noting younger adults rely on Jon Stewart for the luscious mix of info’ and ‘tainment? He notes that unique, strong voices, like Stewart and his Daily Show onstage and backstage team, and sees LettermanOprahLeno representing the Geritol generation. (Are there still Geritol ads?)
Yet, New York Times Co. is cutting. Knight-Ridder is cutting. Reporters and bloggers need to find out how the people at these un-italicized names plan to grow the long-term Goose.
I am privileged to work for one of the last family newspapers. Its management is fully aware of the trends yet still favors the bombast of real newspapers. This explains its deep market penetration in Arkansas, of all places. My job is as secure as my biggest goof-up that gets caught, not particularly vulnerable to the miscalculations of boards that claim merely to answer to stockholders.
Corporations don’t grow from people who buy shares only to sell them at the next mediocre or even lousy quarter. The day traders make commissions from such orders, and that’s about it. Corporations benefit from people who hold their stock. And vice versa. My Ozark hills are full of millionaires who bought Wal-Mart shares 35 years ago.
Unless I’m missing some economic theory. -30-
