Saturday, April 30, 2005
As profit rises, Pulitzer wins decrease
There is an interesting Q&A with Davis “Buzz” Merritt in the CJR Daily, web counterpart of the Columbia Journalism Review. Merritt contrasts winning of Pulitzer prizes vs. profit margins which indicates when profit goes up, the number of Pulitzers won decreases. Merritt retired in 1999 after 43 years working for Knight Ridder, including 23 years as editor of the Wichita Eagle. Over those years, he watched as the news business generally, and Knight Ridder specifically, became increasingly driven by the bottom line. Earlier this month, his book about this change, Knightfall: Knight Ridder and How the Erosion of Newspaper Journalism is Putting Democracy at Risk was published by AMACOM.
The Q&A below was by CJR Daily staff writer Susan Q. Stranahan who worked for the Philadelphia Inquirer, a Knight Ridder paper, from 1972 until 2001.
SQS: In the book, you compare the number of Pulitzer Prizes won by Knight Ridder papers with profit margins recorded. As profits went up, prizes went down.
BM: First of all, we know that politics sometimes influences who wins a Pulitzer. That said, here are the numbers: In the decade of the 80s, what I call the Big Five -- the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and AP won 26 percent of the 136 Pulitzers awarded. Knight Ridder newspapers won 23 percent, and all other newspapers won 51 percent. Between 2000 and 2004 [with 70 Pulitzers], the Big Five won 60 percent, Knight Ridder 6 percent and all others 34 percent. During the 80s, the operating return at Knight Ridder averaged 11 percent. Between 2000 and 2004, the operating return averaged 19 percent.
As soon as Knight Ridder began to reach into 18-20 percent [profit margins], they virtually stopped winning. This is ominous, and not just for Knight Ridder. The Big Five are relatively protected from market forces, except for AP, which is a different category. The numbers aren't just the decline in Knight Ridder's performance. The scary thing is that all other newspapers also are being hurt [by profit pressures]. It doesn't prove anything, but it is interesting to look at.
To read the complete interview, click on the headline above.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A MUST read of the entire article, I think. Sad, but telling, truths.
From the article:
"At Knight Ridder, they went from purely journalistic to almost purely financial. That was the Ridder influence."
My comment: Amen! The worse thing that happened to the Knight newspapers, journalistically, was hooking up with the Ridders.
The article:
"Family members who held that stock back in the 60s are gone and the stock is now all held by institutional investors. Institutional investors don't care about good journalism, they care about profits."
My paraphrase, with the math intact:
In the 1980s Knight-Ridder newspapers won 1 out of every 4 Pulitizers and the profits were 11 percent. Between 2000 and 2004 KR won only 6 percent of the Pultizers but the profits were 19 percent.
So Pulitzers dropped 74 percent and profits increased 73 percent, almost a corresponding ratio.
If THAT isn't a scary thing for a democracy, I don't know what it.
Post a Comment