While the Conservative Talk Show Host Pulls in $400 Million from Clear Channel, the L.A.. Times Cuts Jobs and Pages

Here’s a sad juxtaposition.

The papers are full today of Rush Limbaugh’s new $400 million contract with Rush Limbaugh, which guarantees him a $50-million-a-year paycheck through 2016. And the Los Angeles Times – knifed once again by its erstwhile savior, Sam Zell — announced that it is cutting 250 jobs, including 150 newsroom staff.

It’s a sad commentary on what modern journalism could become. Limbaugh, who recently accused Michael J. Fox of faking his disabilities from Parkinson’s Disease, panders to the lowest common denominator among his radio listeners.  So does a big chunk of so-called news outlets in the blogosphere.

The moderate voices of traditional newspapers are ever more in danger of being silenced as publishers cut staff and pages to remain in business. It’s hard to imagine the L.A. Times continuing to grind out Pulitzers as its own voice is weakened by lower budgets.

It’s hard to blame publishers for trying to survive. But it’s a shame some of Limbaugh’s millions can’t be diverted to organs of expression actually worth hearing from.

See Also

• Los Angeles Times to cut 250 jobs, including 150 from news staff
  The newspaper cites falling ad revenue in economic slowdown.
• A Lucrative Deal for Rush Limbaugh
  Talk was never cheap for Rush Limbaugh, but now it is getting a lot more expensive.

Posted under 324

On a day when financial woes caused the Los Angeles Times to fire its editor and the Orange County Register to can its business section, I found myself thinking about Amazon’s Kindle.

The Kindle, you’ll recall, is an ebook that allows you to wirelessly download any of 90,000 books over a 3G cellular network — as well as news and views from the New York Times, Time, the Huffington Post and dozens of other outlets.

It’s essentially a computer that downloads stuff from the Internet, the same type of gadget journalists are always complaining is stealing away their business.

The main difference is form factor and readability. The Kindle is about the size of a paperbook book and uses a technology called electronic ink that gives a reader the sensation of reading words on a page.

It exemplifies the best of both worlds: the accessibility of the Internet; and a comfortable reading experience that no computer or PDA can match.

Admittedly, there are plenty of flaws in the first Kindle: monochrome, inability to surf the Internet, no video and a rather ugly design. But those flaws will surely be addressed in future versions of Kindles — and its soon-to-be numerous competitors.

For newspapers, the implications are huge. Their biggest threat, the Internet, is now their delivery boy. They can reach an infinite audience and they eliminate their huge newsprint costs. They can update stories instantly and add video.

Most importantly, the readability of an ebook (or perhaps better, a connected book) mean that the over-30 set, who could never imagine sipping a latte and watching their computer screen, will feel perfectly at home once they’ve gotten used to the novelty.

And even my kids would surely prefer connected books to booting up their computers or squinting at their PDAs every time they want to read something.

We’re talking about a 10 to 20 year span, I’d think, before connected books replace the printed page. But the writing, as they say, is on the wall.

See Also

• O.C. Register to Drop Its Business Section
• Why Los Angeles Times Can’t Keep an Editor

Posted under Uncategorized

Chicago real estate tycoon Sam Zell — flush from buying Tribune Co. — made a fascinating hint yesterday in a Bay Area speech.

"If all the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content for nothing, what would Google do, and how profitable would Google be?" he’s quoted by the Tribune-owned L.A. Times as saying.

Now remove the word "newspapers" from his statement and insert "record companies" or "TV programmers". See why it’s fascinating?

Google, of course, would never outright steal music or TV programs from their august owners. But if pirated music videos end up on YouTube, hey, that’s showbiz.

Now, on to newspapers. So far, the Fourth Estate has made nary a peep about Google getting all that good news copy for free. Nor has it filed suit, like Viacom did last month against YouTube to punish it for letting users upload clips from The Colbert Report, South Park and other Viacom-owned material.

Could Zell, the consummate dealmaker, be considering a middle course? One that let’s him have his cake and eat some of Google’s, too?

Let’s suppose Zell went to Google and said, "Look, guys. It’s been a good run. But we’re being eaten alive. You need to cough up some of the revenue you’re taking from all those little ads on the side of the L.A. Times stories in Google searches.”

And he might just cough politely and mutter "Viacom" under his breath. They’re smart in Silicon Valley. They know a veiled threat when they hear one.

Google, in its own way, is a content pipe –just as T-Mobile and Vodafone are content pipes for the dozens of so-called "off deck” companies who use mobile operators’ air waves to sell everything from sex to silk slippers.

Except T-Mobile and Vodafone are smart enough to recognize a paradigm shift when they see one. They make those off-deck companies pay freight. And they make a fortune in the process.

So I’ll be fascinated to find out if Zell was indeed hinting at  a middle path for reinvigorating newspapers. Google him in a few months and check it out. That’s what I did.

 

See Also

• Papers, Web firms need ‘a new deal,’ Zell says
• Can rich Americans save newspapers?
• Is Google Too Powerful?

Posted under Uncategorized