|
The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age did something quite rare on their op-ed pages today — they published some rather tough criticism of their own newspapers by one of their former editors. Among the points they extracted from former Age editor Michael Gawenda’s A.N. Smith Lecture in Journalism, to be delivered tonight at Melbourne University, were these:
… There is incessant chatter about the need for a new model for newspapers in the digital age, which might be true, but in the meantime, profitable newspapers are being butchered. Talk of a new model is nothing but empty words.
The editorial cuts announced by Fairfax, publisher of the Herald, in response to a fall in advertising revenue, were chilling. The economic slowdown is the immediate cause, but this was coming for at least a decade. It is a failure of imagination and commitment, a result of a lack of experience and knowledge and love of newspapers. I am not opposed to cuts in editorial staff as a matter of principle. Not every job has to be preserved and protected. I am not saying the Herald and The Age cannot be great newspapers with fewer journalists. They can. And they have to change.
But for real change, courage is needed, as are vision and risk-taking and, above all, a commitment to newspapers and journalism that, frankly, I do not see at the moment.
Pretty strong stuff, you might think, for a newspaper to publish about itself. Until you read what The Age and SMH did not publish today — but The Australian did — from Gawenda’s same speech:
When I was appointed editor of The Age in 1997, the internet loomed on the horizon and the potential threat that this thing had to seriously damage the paper’s classified business was becoming increasingly clear …
… At the same time, the senior management at Fairfax and the Fairfax board lost confidence in the company’s newspapers. The implicit — and sometimes explicit — message was that these managers and board members did not really see a future for these papers.
They were often bemused about what it was exactly that journalists did. They were bemused and disconcerted by passion for newspapers from editors and journalists, and even readers.
They were bemused sometimes by the fact that they were running a newspaper company.
At a time of transition and great challenges for newspapers, Fairfax was run by people who had no experience of the business, no knowledge of its history and role in the communities in which their newspapers operated and, what’s more, no great love of them …
… The editors of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald have no control over their papers’ websites. All the talk of newsroom integration is rendered meaningless as a result. Already the online newspaper sites of the main Fairfax metropolitan mastheads are at odds with what those mastheads long stood for. They are much more popular, much more celebrity and entertainment focused. This is a recipe for disaster. The mastheads are being trashed.
In his lecture, Michael Gawenda has revealed in public what most insiders have known privately for years — Australia’s premier newspaper publisher was (and largely still is) run by people with no experience of or love for newspapers. People who are “bemused” they are running a newspaper company. Editors with no control over their papers’ websites who have allowed their own mastheads to be “trashed” online.
Next week, Fairfax will boot out another 120 journalists from its flagship newspapers. Its classified advertising volumes are collapsing. Its share price is plunging. Meanwhile, its management has no plan, strategy, vision or passion for the future of their quality newspapers, other than to aimlessly cut costs as their revenues keep falling.
I agree with Michael Gawenda. There is a viable model for quality newspapers — smaller but possibly better newspapers — in the internet age. It’s just that the people running Fairfax don’t even know how to start conceiving it.
| 
10 Comments
“Editors with no control over their papers’ websites who have allowed their own mastheads to be “trashed” online.”
Couldn’t agree more, their web sites compete with their newspapers instead of working together, complete lunacy, I din’t know why the place hasn’t fallen over yet.
Complete and utter incompetance, I sold out of their shares years ago and they’ve halved since (before the current crash)
Great article, but strangely you left out the bit about Fairfax management blowing huge sums on the internet. What about a little investigative journalism before you fire up. Questionable as to whether Fairfax has ever understood either media.
And despite blowing $ on the Internet, how little imagination has been shown. Copycatting has prevailed.
It’s a tragedy to have to witness the destruction of two of Australia’s great institutions, the SMH and The Age. It’s not simply that these board members drawn from the top end of town don’t understand newspapers, they actually see newspapers as their enemies. All the things that big business thrives on, back room deals, tax dodges, redistribution of income from the poor to the rich, sweetheart deals with government, upper class welfare, unrestricted corporate power etc. are only ever subjected to real scrutiny these days by an independent press. This makes an independent press a very dangerous thing that needs to be made impotent, dumbed down and eventually irrelevant.
Everything Ron Walker touches turns to dross. Why not The Age?
Quality journalism is important. The reason why people buy the newspaper is to be informed, but the Fairfax board is no future in printing in general.
I do not know the condition of the Age plant but I can tell you the SMH plant is on borrowed time. It’s maintenance section is to be cut by 26% just ask QANTAS what happens when you cut maintenance. The plant needs a massive injection of money. Money which the board says we can not have Our friends at News just put in new Printing presses, meanwhile we are actually buying second hand parts of Ebay yes EBAY to keep the SMH plant running.
In a nutshell the SMH hard copy has a limited life.
Re the fate of the smh online, we were way way ahead before Hilmer slashed the budget by 25 percent. I think it was in 2002 - Tom Burton was the visionary in charge, and moved so fewer people would be made redundant. That disaster allowed the other lots to catch up. Tom had great plans to integrate thepaper an online, as did I. It was not to be. Just another example of the asset strippers in charge of Fairfax under Hilmer. He was the end for a powerful and respected Fairfax brand. He did what many others tried and failed to do. Broke the culture.
I observe the state of Fairfax with a heavy heart. I was a Fairfax executive in the magazine division when Michael Gawenda was editing The Age. Michael was truly one of the last passionate editors of a Fairfax newspaper - I experienced his commitment to quality journalism in the monthly meetings that I would have with him about the insert magazines that were sold with his newspaper. His passion for perfection was relentless – you didn’t have to like him to respect him. I agree that Fairfax has lost its spirit - but I don’t blame David Kirk for that, or the Rural Press guys. The pursuit of quality journalism was already on its knees seven years ago when I joined Fairfax. I doubt that a year has passed without a restructure, and with each one, experience and talent has been axed at every level of the business. It’s almost a badge of honour to have departed Fairfax on bad terms. The Fairfax problem is not a new one but, for those of us who are passionate about journalism, it is an utter tragedy that didn’t have to happen.
I contrast that to the only other major newspaper company in the country, News Limited. I will declare my interest by stating upfront that my career started at News Limited in the days when John Hartigan was the editor-in-chief of The Telegraphs, and my husband was been employed as a journo there since leaving school, some 25 years ago. It is a company run by a man who is passionate about newspapers and the craft of journalism and who makes decisions with a view to adding value to his newspapers.
If you offered me $100,000 of Fairfax share options or half that of News Limited share options, I’d take News Limited every time because I know they’d still be worth something in five years’ time.
I have just come back from an overseas trip, part of it spent in Britain and while I was there I was once again struck by the difference between the voluminous British broadsheets dense with news and the thin, really the only proper term is ‘rags’, that pass for Australian broadsheets.
Again this morning I stared despondent at the few pages that composed The Age’s paper version, a miserable few pages pregnant with Gawenda’s prophesies about the further inevitable decline of Australia’s ‘serious’ newspapers.
Thank Heavens for Crikey and internet access to the quality press of the world. And beam me up, Scotty, no intelligent life in the board rooms of this continent’s newspapers.
This is well worth a look if you are interested in the role of the media -
http://medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php
Catherine, don’t beam up! You forget that Captain Kirk is in charge, and shares the blame for the slow death of Fairfax along with the rest of the incompetents.