Betting on The Future of Newspapers   

In her article on Knight-Ridder in AJR's January/February issue last year, contributing writer Susan Paterno quoted Chairman and CEO Tony Ridder as saying the company remained committed to newspapers.

Guess he wasn't kidding.

Last month Knight-
Ridder proved its commitment when it bought the Kansas City Star, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and two other papers from the Walt Disney Co.

They didn't come cheap: Knight-Ridder ponied up $1.65 billion in what was described as the largest single purchase of newspapers ever.

That's a lot of newsprint.

And that's not all. Not only is Knight-Ridder, the nation's second-largest newspaper company, beefing up its roster of dailies; it's also shedding its non-newspaper interests, abandoning online information services and cable as it did its television unit a while back.

Knight-Ridder, of course, has a long history as a newspaper company. But given the conventional wisdom, not to mention its own ventures, this journey back to the future seems like heresy.

For years the buzz has been that newspapers are relics. All the excitement in the news business seemed to be over the glories of cyberspace, that wonderful interactive, multimedia playground that offers so many more possibilities than dull, old-fashioned ink on paper.

Online was the future. Newspapers were so 15 minutes ago.

No media mogul worth his stock options would dream of tying his company's future to newspapers alone. Not only were they hope- lessly retro, they were awfully sensitive creatures, forever responding to downturns in the local economy and the roller-coaster world of news-print prices.

No, the answer did not lie in newspapers (forget the fact that even in down years their profit margins are the envy of other industries). Newspaper companies be-came "information" companies. They created "new media" divisions. Synergy was the way to salvation.

Companies needed to be involved not only in newspapers but also in TV stations, cable, on-line information services, fax products.

This is how bad it got: When A.H. Belo Corp., which owns the Dallas Morning News and a bunch of TV stations, acquired the Providence Journal Co. last year, the smart guys were saying that Belo was after the company's TV stations – as if the Providence Journal-Bulletin, a distinguished regional paper, was a mere afterthought.

But now a big media company that has tested the new order is returning to its roots.

Amazingly, the sky didn't fall. "Media analysts" didn't fall on their swords. The NBA season continued without interruption.

So break out the champagne and hope Tony Ridder knows what he is doing. Be-cause Knight-Ridder's move is a great symbol for people who love newspapers.

Don't get me wrong. I'm fascinated by the potential of the online world. I can't imagine starting the day without a visit to Philadelphia Online to check up on my beloved Eagles or Philly college hoops. I love the attitude and edge of some of the online magazines. I turn to the Nietzsche aphorism home page for wisdom, the Clyde McPhatter home page for solace.

And I'm intrigued by the medium's potential for breaking news, à la the Dallas Morning News and its Timothy McVeigh story (see From the Editor, April).

Online journalism is in its infancy, and how to make money doing it remains a question. But its evolution is one of the most exciting stories in the world of media.

But newspapers? What can I say? After so many years of reading them, after 24 years of working for them, I still love the damn things.

For all of their much-chronicled shortcomings, newspapers can do many things superbly. Perhaps at the top of the list is covering news with depth and breadth and insight and imagination.

Of course, all of that information can be posted on a Web site, enhanced with all of the glitz that cyberspace makes possible. But for actually reading the material, print wins, no contest.

That being said, there's certainly no room for newspapers to be smug. Their declining circulation, their inability to attract young readers – these are serious problems. And some of their wounds are self-inflicted.

Efforts to compete in a new media landscape and to stanch the circulation bleeding have led to some experiments that robbed them of their vitality and strengths – storytelling, analysis, substance – in favor of gimmicks.

And the response to the newspaper recession of the early '90s and the painful but entirely predictable newsprint price rise that followed was a classic case of seeking short term results at the expense of long term success.

But let's not wallow in gloom. Not long ago I helped choose the winner of the Goldsmith Prize for investigative reporting at the Joan Shorenstein Center at Harvard. I was deeply impressed by the quality of the work we scrutinized. What a great array of powerful probing, compelling writing – newspapering above the rim.

After the awards were presented, I spent some time talking to the finalists. It was a terrific feeling to be among journalists – newspaper people – so committed to their craft and so excited about their work.

Rock 'n' roll is here to stay, Danny and the Juniors proclaimed. I've got a feeling that newspapers are too.