• Home
  • About me: Jim Fitzpatrick
  • Contact

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

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« The Star, the nation and the world
Plums & Prunes (4) »

“Punch” Sulzberger speaks — from out of the past

April 21, 2010 by jimmycsays

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.”

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments

15 Responses

  1. on April 21, 2010 at 11:05 am Willie

    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…


  2. on April 21, 2010 at 2:45 pm jfitzpatr

    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


  3. on April 21, 2010 at 11:33 pm Marty R

    Fitz –
    Is this the Punch of Punch and Judy fame? A puppet of fate. Good find.


  4. on April 22, 2010 at 9:15 am Snarl

    Yes. He got the nickname as a child because his sister was named Judy.


  5. on April 22, 2010 at 9:53 am jfitzpatr

    Thank you, Snarl. I didn’t know what Marty was alluding to? Jim


  6. on April 22, 2010 at 10:09 am Agha

    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


  7. on April 22, 2010 at 10:37 am jfitzpatr

    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


  8. on April 22, 2010 at 10:40 am Neil Reisner

    The more things change, the more they remain the same.


  9. on April 22, 2010 at 10:54 am jfitzpatr

    In what context here, Neil? Jim


  10. on April 22, 2010 at 4:10 pm robin

    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.


  11. on April 23, 2010 at 9:49 am Aaron

    Stopped reading ‘professional’ press long time ago, after finding that 99% of the time their ideas or language make me cringe.


  12. on April 23, 2010 at 3:02 pm Teresa

    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.


  13. on April 23, 2010 at 3:57 pm Larry Rasczak

    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.


  14. on April 23, 2010 at 5:25 pm jfitzpatr

    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


  15. on April 23, 2010 at 7:48 pm Evil Pundit

    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.



Comments are closed.

  • Pages

    • About me: Jim Fitzpatrick
    • Contact
  • Archives

    • June 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • October 2021
    • September 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • September 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • February 2017
    • January 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • September 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 544 other followers

Blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


  • Follow Following
    • JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC
    • Join 544 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: