A general rule of thumb is that, unfortunately, those whose jobs help society the most tend to be paid the least. (The inverse is also sometimes true.) Teachers, social workers and government employees aren’t getting six-figure bonuses — they do their jobs, I hope, simply because they care.
The same is true for journalists, and I think many of us wear it as a badge of honor. Even though we are rarely rich, we can take down — when warranted — the richest and most powerful people in the world: a president who illegally wiretaps the opposition and spies on U.S. citizens, a CEO who steals the pensions of his employees, and countless other people for whom absolute power brought absolute corruption.
Still, no matter what amount of good an individual journalist or entire newspaper does, it will never generate revenue that parallels those of Google, Apple, or any other global, billion-dollar company.
Investors realize this. Except in the case of socially-responsible investing, people rarely have loyalty to the companies or sectors in which they invest their hard-earned dollars. Investors, in most cases, will put their money into the companies whom they think earn the greatest returns. Period. It doesn’t matter whether the company is in the film industry, weapons industry, or porn industry. If Company A’s stock price is projected to increase 10 percent while that of Company B is seen as jumping 35 percent, most people will invest in the latter, regardless of what they think about the product.
And this is a major problem for print newspapers, which are facing a perfect storm of declining profits, a decrease in advertising dollars (at least in Boston), and a tendency among young people to ignore mainstream, daily newspapers in favor of free — and always up-to-date — content on the Internet. The value of The New York Times Company’s’ stock, as one example, plummeted from $50 a share in 2002 to just under $24 yesterday even though its total equity has risen from $1.28 billion in 2000 to $1.51 billion at the end of 2005. Regardless of what the NYT’s balance sheet states, investors will always see better investment opportunities elsewhere. And that is where they will put their money. It will be very difficult for the NYT — or anyone else, for that matter — to convince them otherwise.
Even though the NYT has been increasing its total assets, The Boston Globe has become an unprofitable drain on the company. As long as the Globe must satisfy investors, the quality of the newspaper will suffer. Newspapers provide a public service, and helping people is rarely profitable — or at least as profitable as Wall Street demands.
The solution is for the Globe, and perhaps newspapers in general, to return to local, private ownership — under an owner who is more interested in informing the community than in raking in profits. (A wealthy retiree who doesn’t need the money, perhaps?) Jack Welch and Jack Connors reportedly made an offer to the New York Times Company, but it was refused. I do have reservations about Welch because, as Dan Kennedy has noted here and here, he has reportedly tried to influence news coverage at media outlets he’s owned.
A local owner who cares little about money would be more tolerant of low profit-margins and less likely to cut newsroom staff or freeze salaries to increase the bottom line. Everyone would benefit: the Times would lose an unprofitable asset, and Bostonians would regain a vibrant, essential publication that’s been missing for quite a while. But who in Boston could take the helm?
