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.
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.”
Nostalgic, of course. A definite love for business model that worked for the speaker, and his family, of course. But prescient: clearly no.
Like many institutions, print media have lost an entire generation. How many of our children actually read a paper? None, that I know of. They browse CNN.com, watch TV, or look at web sites that offer snippets of news, or, (if we want to be truly honest) talk to their friends to “hear the news”.
Fewer and fewer people today actually read a paper. And no, I’m not a prophet who is able or willing to predict what that means for the future…
Unfortunately, Willie, Mr. Sulzberger didn’t understand that his words would fall into the nostalgia category so soon. And newsrooms around the country were filled with people who felt the same way he did in 1994. All I knew about the new technology was how to navigate the Kansas City Star software progam in which we wrote our stories. I, along with many other reporters and editors, operated mostly with blinders on. Maybe it wouldn’t have made any difference, but I sure wish I would have ripped them off.
Jim
Fitz –
Is this the Punch of Punch and Judy fame? A puppet of fate. Good find.
Yes. He got the nickname as a child because his sister was named Judy.
Thank you, Snarl. I didn’t know what Marty was alluding to? Jim
The Dow Jones deal, of which he speaks, was for first 24-hour distribution only. They were still under their incredible 1983 contract with Mead in which they surrendered their rights to the entire NYT electronic archive to Nexis. Because, really, who would want a bunch of old text.
Around Dec of ’94 they started to come to their senses:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/03/business/times-co-regains-control-of-electronic-rights-to-paper.html
Good information, Agha. I really didn’t understand what the Mead deal was all about. Fortunately, as you noted, a light bulb went on at The Times. I’ll bet the company that bought Mead — Reed Elsevier — made out well on The Times’ buy-back deal. You wouldn’t know it from the 1994 story, though, which says: “In general, analysts said yesterday that it was a good deal for the Times Company but that the financial implications for Reed Elsevier seemed less clear.”
Jim
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
In what context here, Neil? Jim
very interesting, thx for the effort to dig this up.
speech was in ’94, huh? reminded me of this article:
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/
where saliently the author remarks:
“Back in 1993…One of the people I was hanging around with online back then was Gordy Thompson, who managed internet services at the New York Times. I remember Thompson saying something to the effect of “When a 14 year old kid can blow up your business in his spare time, not because he hates you but because he loves you, then you got a problem”….”
seems the news never got upstairs to mr. sulzberger, nor for that matter a substantial segment of the newspaper industry.
Stopped reading ‘professional’ press long time ago, after finding that 99% of the time their ideas or language make me cringe.
Interesting. If newspapers as a whole had exercised GOOD judgement, screening out wild rumors but giving the full backgrounds of all political candidates, perhaps they would have remained viable. But most chose to be PR agencies for socialism and the DNC.
Two points.
1) Willie is right. About a month ago my family was watching an 80s movie on cable. I think it was on G4, perhaps it was Movies that Don’t Suck. Either way it was one of those movies that was hosted by a cute blonde who was so young her only knowledge of Ronald Reagan came from history class. Well this movie (Superman?) had a hero that worked for a newspaper, and (half as a gag) the blonde says “… and coming up after the break, we’re going to do a segment for you younger viewers explaining what exactly a newspaper was.”
The funny thing was, they actually DID the segment, showing a newspaper and how you read it, and how it was pretty much worthless after it got wet.
2) Punch was half right. His remark about judgment is not totally off the mark. One of the most important features of news (as opposed to data, or propaganda) is that the information is placed in context.
The thing is, if you want judgment, newspapers and journalism majors are the LAST place you will find it. Take a look at an academic catalog. It really doesn’t take a lot of smarts to get a degree in communications, and you don’t really learn much about anything doing so. So, when you want “judgment,” who are you going to trust? Some communications major who got the job because of who they hooked up with in college, or someone who is actually an expert in the field?
The irony here is that what is killing the news business isn’t that the new technology is superior, it is that the new technology is full of individuals who can write news, and most of them are smarter, better educated and simply better at doing it than the people Punch hired.
Thanks for the comment, Larry. I have to disagree with you, however, regarding your assertion that most people writing in “the new technology” (such as me!) are smarter, better educated and superior “reporters,” if you will, than The New York Times staff.
I think newspapers, generally, provide the best content available anywhere — print or web. They hire either professional writers and news gatherers or people with the potential to become professionals. And, just like I’d want professionals building me a new house, I prefer to have professionals reporting and writing the news I read. That’s not to say that newspaper reporters’ and editors’ judgment is always correct, but when it comes to providing credible information, I think the pros do it best.
Jim
Punch: “I noted that a disproportionate number of this country’s fine newspapers were family owned. My conclusion was simple. Nepotism works.”
That is the funniest part of the speech. Just look what Pinch (AOS Jr.) has done.