Roberts' Manifesto: Seizing a Moment   

The boardrooms eventually will listen, but perhaps not in time.

Occasionally a speech is extraordinary because of its substance and timeliness, the credentials of the speaker and a style that befits the person and the moment. Consider the remarks of Gene Roberts, journalism professor and senior editor of AJR, delivered at the National Press Club on November 11 (see next page).By

His manifesto may not yet register with the more shortsighted people in corporate boardrooms and newsrooms. But sooner or later it will, because they will realize that the perils of the future have become present dangers. I hope it is not then too late for them, and for us.

Roberts received the press club's annual Fourth Estate Award for lifetime achievement. It was an evening of roasting, respect and affection for someone regarded by many journalists as the best journalist of our time, or the best editor, or both.

(The late Harrison Salisbury, surely one of the greatest by anyone's measure, wrote three years ago: "Roberts is simply the best journalist living and breathing in the U.S.A. and probably the world.")

For more than two years Gene has been a professor of journalism at the University of Maryland, where I hang out, worrying about journalism's future while inspiring talented young people to go out and improve it. Earlier in his career, as many of our readers know, he was city editor of the Detroit Free Press, a superb reporter on the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War for the New York Times, national editor of the Times and executive editor (and president) of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

His eccentric, inspired leadership at the Inquirer resulted not just in reforming a bad newspaper and leading it to 17 Pulitzer Prizes, but also in setting a pace for others across the country. That's the main point about Roberts. He sets standards, and when he does, good journalists pay attention.

Given what he had to say at the National Press Club, one should not forget what he did in Philadelphia in addition to the extraordinary journalism. He directed a battle of huge corporate proportions. He produced a newspaper of greater substance and quality than that of the opposition, the Philadelphia Bulletin, and the once unprofitable Inquirer won an immensely valuable franchise.

Was it just the advantage of morning vs. evening? I don't know of any informed analysts of that scene who think this explains what he did. He had the morning advantage, as a lot of editors have had, but that did not attract the extraordinary reporters and editors, "grow" them year by year, identify previously unrecognized stories of fundamental import, and get those stories into the paper in forms that cut through the maze for readers with powerful impact.

It was a classic case of "Quality Wins!" As Gene reminded us in his speech, this pattern has been clear throughout the country. Even so, the newspaper countinghouse has failed to take note. And now we have a lot of middle and upper-level editors who, pummeled by shortsighted management, just don't get it.

Just pick up a newspaper in most cities. The packaging is better than ever. The information listings are better than ever. And the readers see the newspaper as less essential than ever. Isn't something wrong here? Read Roberts. l