Death of Newspaper Critics Feels Like a Metaphor for the Industry

A journalist friend of mine last week recalled a quote about the newspaper industry I found funny: No other industry defines its premiere product -- quality investigative news and substantive hard news reporting -- as broccoli to be choked down by a readership which doesn't get it.

I found myself thinking of that quote while reading this piece about the disappearing newspaper TV critic at major regional daily newspapers. It dovetails with stories here and here about the vanishing movie critic at major dailies. And let's not forget this wordy but comprehensive piece by Eric Alterman at the New Yorker about newspapers.

I am obvious the most biased of biased sources. But both these trends seem bassackwards as the broccoli=serious news attitude. There is obviously loads of interest in movies, movie stars, TV, TV actors and the evolution of modern media. So why are newspapers firing, laying off, reassigning or buying out the people who have covered these beats for years?

Reason #1: It saves money -- True enough, most people in these beats are older employees with big paychecks. But look at what happened at the Tampa Tribune when they eliminated longtime movie critic Bob Ross. After trying to develop a squad of average people to do his job, they've turned to TV critic Walt Belcher, asking him to step in and review movies or write trend pieces about films and stage shows, proving it isn't so easy to replace a critic with wire copy as it might seem.

Reason #2: Readers don't care about the content -- This is the toughest argument to gauge. While it's true there isn't a clear cause and effect relationship between critics and audience, critics can do a lot more than evaluate entertainment product. We explain, verify, outline trends, dig up news, start conversations and amplify them. How can you measure that in a poll or box office receipts?

Reason #3: It's old fashioned -- This is argument I understand least. At a time when digital technology is revolutionizing media, why would you eliminate the person whose job involves tracking all of that? If critics are writing boring stuff, then editors should be helping them energize their work, not figuring out how to make them take a buyout. One look at the websites started by pushed-out TV crits Ed Bark in Dallas and David Bianculli in New York shows how little the newspapers which employed them actually allowed these guys to do. In these times, cutting a pop culture arts critic feels like eliminating the cops reporter's job because stories out of the police department are boring. Shouldn't you just improve the performance of your cops reporter?

Yeah, I've got a vested interest in this one. But I wouldn't have spent nearly 20 years honing my abilities as a TV/media critic if I didn't think it was also an important beat to cover well. Hope more newspaper editors start believing that, too...

 

Comments

[Jeff]

Excellent and interesting post on print media trends. Print publishing is following the new technology mediums to circulate the publications. Companies like http://www.pressmart.net helping the print publishers to circulate their publications through web, blog, social media, Pod cast, RSS, mobile, etc… I think this is the good idea to increase the circulations.

[joe hillman]

oh, and you're welcome.

[joe hillman]

>>>Unless you work in newspapers, which keep expecting peopel to pay the same price for less content, less coverage and less expertise. Doesn't make sense to me... <<<

exactly.

i understand from a beancounter's perspective why paper's shrink. the cost of paper and ink is skyrocketing. but anyone in any two-bit business knows the trick is offering more for less; not offer less for more.

(in theory) at least move the copy that would normally get whacked with smaller papers to the web.

sadly, with papers in financial peril, it's hard to justify to the beancounters paying a columnist (like tv/movie critic) decent coin to "develop" their voice or niche when you can pull copy from the ap or a syndicate.

[Eric Deggans]

Thanks Joe!

But in a weird way, you made my point for me.

I don't understand eliminating a job because the person who is doing it isn't performing well. You either help that person get betteror you replace them -- you don't just conclude you can do without the coverage altogether.

Unless you work in newspapers, which keep expecting peopel to pay the same price for less content, less coverage and less expertise. Doesn't make sense to me...

[joe hillman]

>>>So why are newspapers firing, laying off, reassigning or buying out the people who have covered these beats for years?<<<

or, why should i read, for example, bob ross when i can just as easily read richard roeper or stephen hunter? or why should i read walt belcher when i can just as easily read tom shales?

unless a critic really stands out (such as the aforementioned roeper, shales, hunter), there's really not much of a compelling reason for a paper to keep said critic when readers can just as easily get insight from top-shelf columnists.

now if a tv critic/columnist sticks to solely local angles like a bob feder, that's a different... er, story.

you eric, unlike belcher, have carved out a niche that you are well-enough known nationally (thanks to cnn et al) you wouldn't/shouldn't be expendable.