Unfit to Print

As with cattle ranches, so with communications empires–which, in the turbulence of the Internet age, have been looking far less imperial than formerly: sagging circulation, the flight of advertising, that sort of thing. Justifiable pride in family traditions of ownership and public service gives way to financial reality.

A case study in modern media transition and transformation is the Belo Corp. of Dallas, owner of the Dallas Morning News, the Providence Journal, and various TV stations, an empire seemingly on the wane after a burst of muscle-flexing in the 1980s and ’90s. What I mean is, Belo will be a case study some day, but not quite yet. Judith Garrett Segura’s account of Belo’s stormy passage through modernity trails off uncertainly: nothing resolved, plenty of issues still hanging around, such as what does it mean in the 21st century to inform, guide, and befriend a large city and metropolitan area?

I myself labored for 28 years in the vineyards of the Dallas News before commencing a stint in academia, and Segura’s perspective and my own do not, shall we say, overlap at every point. I hope, all the same, to do justice to her account, which is of a staid, generally self-satisfied family company energized in the 1980s by younger members of the dynasty, and now–

Now, what? Segura leaves the question dangling delicately, and no wonder. In the first quarter of 2008 the newspaper (as opposed to the TV) side of the corporation lost $8.7 million. For the six-month period that ended in March 2008 circulation in Dallas fell 10.6 percent. It was the biggest such hit any of the country’s 20 largest newspapers took in the period. A round of layoffs in 2004 preceded buyouts that sheared from the paper its architecture critic, its lead movie critic, and a widely-quoted TV critic, among many others. A news- paper once renowned in the Southwest for its careful attention to literature lacks a book critic. An award-winning religion section disappeared. Robust editorial viewpoints receded toward the middle.

Other American newspapers (the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Los Angeles Times) have suffered similar affronts to pride and sense of duty; the News‘s stumble was more precipitous. A generational leadership change that began in the 1970s and achieved consummation in the ’80s brought the paper triumphantly through an old-style newspaper war with the crosstown Dallas Times Herald (which expired in 1991). Management poured money into the news operation, beefed up the newsroom, acquired a handful of smaller newspapers, and generally looked fit for the future.

Segura, a former archivist for the paper, cheerleads for the new management structure and for its enterprises and missions, which she sees as leading the News away from pre-Enlightenment obsessions such as tight control by a small family clique (the company went public years ago), avoidance of red ink on the business side, and, perhaps, worse: devotion to conservative causes and candidates.

The old Dallas News was, indeed, a “conservative” enterprise, in the sense that it backed conservatives for public office and moved not-too-briskly–though not-too-slowly, either–to acknowledgment of profound societal changes. The paper didn’t like “the sixties” very much, though it refused to straitjacket the bona-fide characters it employed: e.g., Texas columnist-historian-“chili head” Frank X. Tolbert and sportswriters Bud Shrake and Gary Cartwright. Their individuality and, sometimes, quirks (Tolbert liked to bellow like a steer as he roamed the halls) gave the News flavor and personality. As did the immensely popular columnist Paul Crume, a droll, unpoliticized master of style and subtle narrative.

Segura buys into the tale of “angry, mean-spirited rants” that poisoned the political tone of Dallas. To which I am obliged to reply: balderdash, lady. The mean-spiritedness of the old News editorial page is an urban myth of the same dimensions and longevity as alligators-in-the-sewer. In any case, the new family team that began running the News in the 1980s brought in new submanagers who, over time, eradicated any reputation the paper might have had for personality, spirit, and flavor. No more conservative “ranting,” that’s for sure.

To what purpose? The goal might be described as unclear. If the idea was to increase circulation, that inspiration fell short. A whole lot of ex-subscribers quit because, as they explained, the new News bored them, never saying much that was worth hearing, never causing the blood to surge, the tear to well, or the corners of the mouth to crinkle in amusement.

The formula for staying alive in the new media age has, I would think, as much to do with content as with method and means. You’re in the entertainment/information business. So entertain! Inform! Don’t take for granted the kind of reader loyalty the sahibs of the old Dallas News enjoyed for so long. It doesn’t exist. You have to compete for that: Fight for it, yell and punch for it. And then leave something worth taking away, to be chewed on thoughtfully by those who trusted you to instruct them.

William Murchison is the Radford distinguished professor of journalism at Baylor.