The Front Page – Does Survival Overtake Editorial Policies?

Philip Stone April 14, 2009 Follow on Twitter

There was a hue and cry from the Los Angeles Times’ newsroom last week because the newspaper sold, for six figures, a L-shaped front page ad in which half looked like editorial copy, and the other half a display ad. The journalists said what the publisher did was sacrilegious to the newspaper’s traditions. The publisher says the newspaper needed the cash. Who’s right?

The sad fact of life is that Publisher Eddy Hartenstein did what he had to do to make new money and it’s time the journalists understood that in these dire times one does what one has to do. Would they prefer that a couple of journalists get laid off or the newspaper brings in six figures for such an ad? It’s all a matter of priorities these days.

The newspaper distinguished the ad from editorial copy – a legitimate debate could be whether the distinction was enough, see our picture and you decide -- and while it’s possible some people might have thought the copy was editorial rather than advertising, the fact is The Times’ readers for the most part are smart enough to differentiate between the two – so the battle really boils down to whether the front page should be given up for such lucrative revenue?

It seems everyone in the newspaper business gives lip-service to the fact the current newspaper business model is broken, yet when someone comes up with a creative way of bringing additional money to print we start hearing about how traditions are being broken. Well, traditions are fine and dandy, but they don’t pay the bills!

And just so there is no misunderstanding, this writer hates to see prime editorial space on a newspaper’s front page given over to advertising – although if we want to talk about traditions then don’t forget many newspapers started with their front pages being entirely advertising and that changed only over generations. But if you want the original tradition it’s advertising-only on the front page.

Good for The Times’ journalists and editors that they objected so strenuously to that front-page advertising – great for the conscience -- but, frankly, it’s time for them to get real and come in from the cold. It’s time they recognize newspaper economic facts of life – do the Times’ journalists need reminding that the newspaper’s owner, Tribune, is in bankruptcy?

Publisher Hartenstein told The Times’ newsroom that he wouldn’t offer any guarantees that similar would not happen again. “Because of the times we are in, we have to look at all sorts of different, some would say innovative, new solutions for our advertising clients,” he told unconvinced staff and, of course, he is right.

The journalists were passing around a petition that read in part, “The NBC ad may have provided some quick cash, but it has caused incalculable damage to this institution. This action violates a 128-year pact with our readers that the front page is reserved for the most meaningful stories of the day. Placing a fake news article on A-1 makes a mockery of our integrity and our journalistic standards.”

And readers did complain to the newspaper’s reader representative – at least they still have kept that post going – and they talked of canceling subscriptions and of their disappointment, but doubtful in financial terms any of those cancellation losses came anywhere close to the money the Times’ made off the ad.

And if that wasn’t enough for the journalists on Sunday its popular Calendar magazine section, that tells just about everything that’s going on in the Arts for the next week, was wrapped in a four page ad for the move The Soloist. It looked very editorial – particularly since it included an interview with Times columnist Steve Lopez whose book and columns were the movie’s inspiration.

And to show how Tribune thought through this promotion, the advertising deal included an online contest and promotion spots about the supplement on KTLA, its Los Angeles TV station.

In both cases, apparently, it was the newspaper that approached the studios to make such deals, so obviously the business side is waking up to new ideas while the journalists cry “foul”.

But if the journalists really feel as strongly as they seem to then perhaps what Publisher Hartenstein could have done was to summon his editor, Russ Stanton (who opposed both deals),  and said something like, “Russ, we do these deals worth well into six figures so we can bring new additional monies into this newspaper, but if editorially you think that violates certain principles then I understand and instead you give me now your list of the 5-10 journalists we can lay off to make up for this revenue shortfall.” In such a situation, where is the editor’s priority – jobs or traditions?

It’s time for publishers and journalists to get real with one another. Publishers need to do everything they can to maintain and increase revenue. Journalists need to do everything they can do to maintain the finest editorial product possible. The two do not always have to be in conflict. Surely better for a newspaper to improvise on its 128-year old traditions than sweeping away journalists? Publishers and advertisers are not so stupid as to not understand that they need to ensure advertising is easily distinguishable from real editorial copy.

Because that’s what print boils down to these days – saving people’s jobs. When a company like Hearst, for instance, tells its newspapers they need to make 20% savings how do you think that’s going to be done? With job losses, that’s how. So if L.A. Times journalists are truly worried about keep jobs and maintaining quality, then it’s time to lose some traditions and to work with publishers to achieve their intended goals.

Ultimately, the readers will make the final decision. If they truly believe the newspaper has sunk to such new lows that they don’t want it any more then they will walk, but even readers understand that these are tough newspaper times and things that may not have been done before may have to be done now. And if that means giving up prime editorial real estate for advertising then so be it – just make sure the distinction is clear enough to separate advertising from editorial.

Incidentally, publisher Hartenstein is also making savings on the cost side that don’t include job losses or editorial. Each year the newspaper holds a Festival of Books at the University of California, Los Angeles, starting with a big free dinner and open bar for its book prize ceremony. But this year the dinner and reception is moving to the newspaper’s own downtown Los Angeles offices -- and you can bet the cost for doing it there will be a whole lot less. 

Not only that, but is going to be a private event, the public is not invited to attend the awards. Yet another Times tradition hits the dirt.