JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC

Today, I have a special treat for you. It’s the transcript of an amazing speech that Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, known as “Punch,” gave in Kansas City on May 25, 1994.

In the speech, Sulzberger essentially dismissed the “information superhighway” that was careening full speed at print journalism’s front end. He comes off, alternately, as naive, confused, insightful, smug and wary. As an example of his naivete, he refers twice to America Online (now AOL Inc.)as American Online.     

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger

At the time of the speech, Sulzberger was chairman of The New York Times Company. Two years earlier, he had stepped down as publisher of the newspaper that bears the company name, passing the publisher’s mantle to his son, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., who remains publisher of the paper and also is chairman of the company. 

The elder Sulzberger, now 84 and retired, was the guest speaker at Midwest Research Institute’s 50th annual dinner, held at the Westin Crown Center hotel. 

I got a copy of the speech from an old friend and former Kansas City Star colleague, Julius Karash, who covered the speech for the business desk and wrote an article for the next day’s paper. Julius had the presence of mind to save the speech, and the subject came up when we had lunch last week. I got it in the mail today. (Thank you so much, Julius.)

Here’s the speech, as taken from the transcript.   

“Thanks you for that generous introduction.

“A number of years ago, in a speech at the Rochester Institute of Technology, I noted that a disproportionate number of this country’s fine newspapers were family owned. My conclusion was simple. Nepotism works.

“This evening I should like to try out another old-fashioned view. It is my contention that newspapers are here to stay. They are not going the way of the dinosaur – rendered extinct, in this case, by the wonders of a new technology that will speed us down an interactive information superhighway of communications.

“I’ll go one further. I believe that for a long time to come this information superhighway, far from resembling a modern interstate, will more likely approach a roadway in India: chaotic, crowded and swarming with cows. Or, as one might say, udder confusion.

“While this information highway remains ill-defined, there are, nevertheless, many players wanting to become involved. Such companies include regional and long-distance carriers, cable companies and newspaper organizations, to name a few. But the risks can be high and some big players such as Cox Enterprises, Bell Atlantic and Southwestern Bell recently announced grand schemes only to later call them off.

“There are few, if any, clear road signs, and many would-be players share in the dilemma of not knowing which way to move, while, at the same time, fearing to be left behind. The costs of entry can be heavy and many organizations still remember being badly burned by betting on the wrong technology.

“James Batten, chairman and CEO of Knight-Ridder, owners of the ill-fated Viewtron Information System, recently was quoted in Business Week as saying Knight-Ridder still remembered and wasn’t ready at this time to take any mega-multimedia gambles. “If we were enthusiastic about one of these technologies,” he noted, “we would not be afraid of stepping up to the plate.”

“It’s a dilemma. Some years and many dollars ago, my company struck a deal with Mead Data Central to take over The New York Times Information Bank, our money-losing retrieval system. Mead had by that time developed a retrieval ability with its Lexis System used by law firms. For years our relationship was a sound one, rapidly turning us a profit after many years of loss. Suddenly, to our surprise, the electronic part of Mead is put up for sale, confusing the scenario.

“Like young bucks we had felt a springtime urge to participate in the new information-based explosion. Like others, we were fearful of seeing competitors speeding down the information superhighway as we were left stranded on a service road. But, like Knight-Ridder, we see no clear path at this time which calls for a major commitment to a single technology.

“We have, therefore, hedged our bets. We cut a deal with an old protagonist – Dow Jones, publishers of the Wall Street Journal – to distribute via p.c. The New York Times News Service with theirs. At the same time, we are working on a service with American (stet) Online to make available our cultural and entertainment report. CBS and The Times are working together on an interactive CD-ROM of the Vietnamese War. Our sister paper, the Boston Globe, is having discussion with American (stet) Online. And Prodigy is talking with our Magazine Group.

“But as we search and hope that some of these technologies, alone or combined, will click, we realize that we are a long way from saying goodbye to our newsprint suppliers.

“To the contrary. We have renewed our faith in the written word by acquiring for more than a billion dollars in stock one of the country’s great newspapers – The Boston Globe.

“But let me at the same time assure those among you who…may be shareholders. We are not complacent in our belief. We recognize that a newspaper to survive must meet the needs of readers and advertisers. In a world filled with information and almost unlimited reader and advertiser options, one can no longer rely on customer understanding and goodwill (to allow) for poor quality or early deadlines and incomplete stories. Nor will the advertiser long sit still if his ad does not pretty quickly jingle the cash register.

“Frankly, neither the reader nor the advertiser is particularly interested in our problems. Nor should they be. They just want results – the kind of results that basically flow from good journalism rather than technology. Alas, one thing is clear: new technology alone won’t improve a lousy newspaper. Only an editor can do that.

“Nor do I see news on demand substituting for a daily newspaper. Reader Jones might well have a deep interest in ice hockey, grain futures and foreign policy issues affecting China. A computer can easily assemble such information from many sources. But this compilation is a far cry from a newspaper.

“When you buy a newspaper, you aren’t buying news – you’re buying judgment. Already in this low tech world of instant communications there is too much news. That’s the problem. Raw news will do just fine if you’re a computer buff and want to play editor. But I, for one, would rather let a professional take the first raw cut at history and spend my leisure time fishing.

“And while you’re thinking about newspapers, don’t forget serendipity. How many times has one opened a newspaper to discover some fascinating tidbit you never would have had the wit to search for in a computer?

“Judgment, serendipity and something left over to wrap the fish, all neatly folded, in living color, and thrown at no extra cost into the bushes. All for just a few cents a day. It’s called a newspaper. And when you add a wee bit of ink for your hands and top it with a snappy editorial to exercise your blood pressure, who needs that elusive interactive information superhighway of communications.

“Just point me to the fishing hole! Thank you.”