voiceofsandiego.org: James Goldsborough... Saying Goodbye to a Morning Ritual
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

Saying Goodbye to a Morning Ritual

By JAMES O. GOLDSBOROUGH



Wednesday, April 8, 2009 | I have a brother who lives in Marin County, and he called the other day to complain about the fate of the San Francisco Chronicle.

The Chronicle, like the San Diego Union-Tribune and a great many other newspapers around the country is sinking, and my brother was asking if there was something I could do. He thinks I'm more important in the newspaper world -- or what's left of it -- than I am. He knows I once wrote for the Chronicle -- and for the Examiner before it owned the Chronicle -- and he wants me to intervene.

James O. Goldsborough

He's afraid of losing the Chronicle, a real possibility since it is losing $1 million a week. My brother is one of these creatures of routine, and his routine since he was about ten has always started the day with a newspaper.

He's a kid brother, and at home he used to hog the newspaper, looking for his name in the box scores in the days the L.A Times still printed high school box scores, or at least line scores which were enough if you were pitcher or catcher, and my brother was always a catcher, that is, a little slow.

As he got older, he moved beyond the sports page to other pages like the front one, and his newspaper habit was joined by a coffee habit and then a running habit so that his entire daily schedule was thrown off wherever he lived if he couldn't start the day with a jog, a joe and a journal before heading off to work.

It wasn't always the Chronicle. He's a businessman so he's moved around a lot, and over the years he's had the Tribune in Chicago, the Times in New York, the Sun in Baltimore and the Times in Seattle. Wherever it was, the paper was always on the breakfast table, where it remained until everyone had risen, read it and moved on.

For him, the problem with the Chronicle involves more than just the news. It is a matter of personal metabolism, circadian rhythms and yin-yang equilibrium, all of which will be at risk if the newspaper disappears. Despite my lack of influence with the Hearsts (are there any left?) I want to help. It does no good to tell him that other people are experiencing the same symptoms, that San Diego, for example, has just sold its newspaper to a private equity company, and look what happened to our good old L.A. Times when a private equity guy bought it.

As a businessman, he knows what private equity companies do, and not just to newspapers, but his position is that San Franciscans will be hurt more than people in cities like San Diego and Los Angeles because they are more sensitive.

So I tell him that the Chronicle hasn't been what it was for years, and the newspaper he will miss isn't worth missing any more. I tell him that his nostalgia goes back to the days when I was working up there, and he was still in college at San Jose.

We talk about Charlie McCabe, who always wore a derby and could be found evenings with his elbow on the green icebox at the entry to the Buena Vista Cafe; and Herb Caen, "Mr. San Francisco," whose column you bought the paper for even if you didn't like anything else about it. We remember Art Hoppe, and Lucius Beebe and Count Marco and Stan Delaplane, guys who wrote columns every day and never ran out of ideas.

You could not live in San Francisco without reading the Chronicle in those days. I remind him that Caen named the city "Baghdad by the Bay," and ask him if he thinks that name would work anymore.

There are many people like my brother, and they're all wondering what to do without newspapers. Most of them are people of "a certain age," and so it's possible they will disappear before the newspapers, which would solve the problem. But in cities like Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, Baltimore, Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, Austin, Miami and Tucson newspapers have already won -- or are winning -- the race to extinction.

The problem is larger than anyone's personal routine. The other day, a former colleague of mine was in town for the Revelle lecture series at UCSD, and I was asked to introduce him. Bob Kaiser is an investigative reporter for the Washington Post, and was speaking about his new book, "So Damn Much Money," the story of what lobbying is doing to our democracy. Kaiser spent four years at work on the project, producing 24 articles for the Post and then writing the book.

There may be a day when a website, blog, cable news channel or magazine can assign a reporter to a single story for four years, but I doubt it. Newspapers have always been unique in what they did because they alone had the time, income, audience and commitment to do it. It was the right medium for it. Electronic news stories -- even on very good programs like "See It Now," "60 Minutes," and "Frontline" -- don't have legs. No electronic show could do what Kaiser's stories did.

Everyone has a solution for the problem: Newspapers are a public good and should be supported by government, says my erudite friend Richard Farson of La Jolla. He would free the press of its dependence on advertising to become print versions of the BBC or PBS. Yale academics David Swensen and Michael Schmidt are joined by New Yorker writer Steven Coll in arguing for philanthropic foundations to save newspapers. Surely Bill Gates and Warren Buffett can put a little of the money now going to eradicate AIDS and malaria in Africa into saving American democracy.

There are those of us, however, who believe that even if the medium changes, the message will not. If newspapers disappear -- as network news is disappearing -- it's because something else has come along, and it's not government's job to interfere with the evolutionary process. The Huffington Post just received a $1.75 million grant for investigative reporting; ProPublica is privately endowed, and voiceofsandiego.org is set up much like public radio. All three, and others like them, are on-line.

Daily newspapers will out-live my brother and me, but maybe not by much. As long as they depend on advertising, and advertising depends on circulation, they will be vulnerable. If people don't want them anymore, it's because tastes are changing. It's tough for my brother to have his coffee without a newspaper, but as I tell him, at his age he shouldn't be drinking coffee anyway. And better skip the running, too.

James O. Goldsborough has written on foreign affairs for four decades, both from the United States and abroad, where he worked as a foreign correspondent for The New York Herald Tribune, International Herald Tribune and Newsweek magazine for 14 years, reporting from more than 40 countries. Visit his website here. Submit a letter to the editor here.




24 Comments so far on this story...

There are many factors that explain why papers' circulation is down, and I'm not sure which one is the dominant one. But I would thrown into the fray the fact that journalists and journalism are not what they used to be. By that I mean that they used to be relatively reliable to give readers balanced analysis and objective reporting. The sixties and beyond have seen the emergence in many redactions of people like Goldsborough whose extremely biased and tendencious views have helped make a mockery of the concept of reliable journalism. People of his political persuasion have shown both an insufferable arrogance in their conviction that their narrow views of the world are the only one worth mentioning, and a corresponding refusal to acknowledge, let alone see and analyse, views that didn't match their Stalinian ones. No wonder consumers canceled their subscription and gratefully turned to the Internet.

Posted by J.J. Surbeck | reply to this comment
April 8, 2009 8:23 pm

Of course, Goldsborough was biased. He was a columnist. It was his job to give a certain perspective. He was very critical of the invasion of Iraq, even before it began. He argued against it to no avail. I would like to see his columns of those years run beside the U-T's own editorials and those of conservative writers and see which ones stand the test of time. Incidentally, Scott Ritter was trying desperately to get across the point that there were no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He got zero air time on TV--or so it seemed--and the newspapers ignored him, too. Personally, I miss Goldsborough's columns. (He resigned on principle when a column was spiked.) However, I still subscribe to the paper--right to the bitter end! But it is not because it is liberal.

Posted by Dick Stratton | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 12:23 pm

"Stalinian?" What a moronic comment...

Posted by jim | reply to this comment
April 17, 2009 2:35 pm

"Stalinian?" What a moronic comment...

Posted by jim | reply to this comment
April 17, 2009 2:35 pm

The newspapers have changed their mission and have lost the trust of the readers. They are now controlled by idea logs whom shape the news. I paid for the Ut for 40 years and have been totally disgusted by thier lack of objective reporting. The entire paper became editorials. I fired them and now get my news from the Internet and cable news. The network news will also go the way of newsprint. We can't trust the content of either media.

Posted by lee | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 7:40 am

This is nothing but an attempt to defend the indefesible. The digital page can never replace the one we hold in our hands and can read at our convenience - with a cup of coffee in the morning (my ritual as well) or whenever it suits a person. Digital information sites by their very design appeal to people with specific interests that may not involve other areas. Thus the sort of broad based news information that one gets from a newspaper - even if only from skimming the headlines - is eventually eliminated. And the elimination of the daily newspaper also contributes to the lack of reading and thinking that has become all too common in our culture. Digital is by design more visual and photo oriented than print. That is not good for an adult society. It is contributing to the Dumbing of America - our nation's biggest problem.

Posted by Ernie Barrera | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 8:40 am

You can tell that J.J. Surbeck and Lee are not newspaper people: they are troglodytes who can't spell worth a damn -- probably they blame it on their public schools -- and they misuse the language. "Emergence in many redactions?" "Tendencious?" "Idea logs?" Plus, they clearly have it in for James Goldsborough's alleged "insufferable arrogance" and "Stalinian" point of view. How did the voice harvest these Union-Tribune stalwarts? I agree with Dick Farson that this country needs a government bailout or blind trust set up by public-spirited billionaires so that we don't lose this absolutely essential element of our democracy. No on-line start-up or weekly journal, however interesting or enterprising, can match the sustained investigative firepower or general interest of a daily print newspaper. This situation is as serious as any facing the banking and investment industries, and I believe it is more dire.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 8:47 am

This sounds like a personal attack. I think Scott lewis should ban responses like that and or the writer from the Voice. Excuse me from being in a hurry and using spell check. Just so you know Francis I did go to public school here in San Diego and graduated fron SDSU. I spent 6 years in the Marines and 35 years working in management for one of Americas largest corporations. The public schools here in San Diego were among the finest in the nation, then. It seems they have slipped a lot, and really suffered while you were on the school board. My Kids had terrible experiences in SDCS. We paid many private educators to get them through. My daughter has ADD, but has an IQ above 160. She is now a published author. City schools just ignored her issues. Whom are you to call names.

Posted by lee | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 5:05 pm

Newspapers died because they failed the public. The publishers failed because they sided with the Few, to aid their own interests, against the Many who did not share those interests. The editors failed because they become managers. The reporters failed because they obeyed their bosses and became mere stenographers to Power under guard, often failing to ask the most obvious questions needing answers. Newspapers became boring, useless, trite and too obviously the mouthpiece of the politicians----and the little runts who own them. "Journalism" became PR, or BS. As for reporters, editors, publishers and pressmen; they're gone for good, replaced by gutless, clueless wimps who have no idea what newspapers' job number one was. That job was to raise hell, stick up for the people, and get the news in detail, daily. As for the web, that's "journalism" lite; just perfect for the grey age we live in.

Posted by Vic | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 10:40 am

Great newspapers like the LA Times did not fail their readers: the family members who owned it sold it for a lot of money. Newspapers like the New York Times have not failed their readers: the family that owns it struggles to keep it afloat and excellent. Afternoon newspapers in multiple-paper towns started folding a long time ago because former readers turned into evening TV news viewers. Single papers are failing now because their advertisers have moved to freebie on-line sites like craigslist. Newspapers have always been imperfect and some, like the Union-Tribune, did fail their communities by identifying with special interests over the commonweal -- though even today the U-T retains a cadre of first-rate reporters. Journalism is called the Fourth Estate because it is the cornerstone of any democratic system, and the daily newspaper remains the best single source of important information, amusement and amazement.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 11:57 am

Yes, the failure of advertising revenues to keep these papers afloat is glaring. Check out any newspaper and there just are fewer and fewer ads. But it's also because the quality of news for the most part is crap. They regurgigate bland AP stories after we have already heard about it on the evening news or read it online. They have failed to do good local investigative reporting and failed to be unbiased news sources. Having said that, I love having a newspaper in my hands. I hope they can all stay in business and of course 'new' newspapers like online only VoSD continues to thrive.

Posted by Coast Watcher | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 4:50 pm

Vic summed it up for me in about 10 lines. I never liked Goldsborough's journalistic compass, though I believe he is a good writer and I read him for that reason. That was the beauty of newsprint for me; you could navigate through a hundred pages and be besotted by dozens of things you didn't know or didn't agree with. Wonderful. Now I find myself checking this damned thing--and others like it-- too often, just to see if anyone has something new, interesting or different to say. As was said about LA--there's no there, there in E-news. Readers are constricted by our own investigative habits; we isolate on what is familiar and over time, the field of intellect will narrow and we will be a far less critical and free society. Wouldn't it be great to read something on this from Neil Morgan?

Posted by Linda Tegarden | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 6:50 pm

What "sustained, investigative firepower" would that be, Frances? The WMD in Iraq? Jessica Lynch? The Patriot Act? The NYT sitting on a story for a year because Bush & Co. told them to? The lead up to the economic crisis? Investigative firepower got quenched a long time ago when newspapers became publicly traded and went from being investigative to servile---then vile---in less than a generation. People abandoned newspapers for the same reason they abandoned networks---they realized they were being duped and weren't going to pay for the privilege anymore. If newspapers want circulation, they need to stick up for the people, raise hell with the malefactors of great wealth and power, hold the pols' feet to the fire and get the news in detail, daily. They also need to learn to live and run cheaply. If they don't, well...we're seeing what happens when they don't, aren't we?

Posted by V | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 1:34 pm

Jim and I were colleagues at the U-T editorial page when he was writing those trenchant columns condemning "Bush's war." Those who despise him for doing so, including a couple of editors, one of whom called him "Baghdad Jim," behind his back, of course, still nurse a grudge against him. As page editor of the Tribune, he wrote daily edits in the run-up to Persian Gulf I supportting Bush's father kicking Saddam out of Kuwait.

Posted by alan miller | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 3:04 pm

It is wonderful to see Alan Miller's name on a voice post. I am sure he is saddened to see the state of newspapers today and to read the vitriolic comments here of people who, like those chicken-hearted editors at the U-T (apologies to all chickens), slander James Goldsborough. If anyone really thinks Twitter or cell phones or the internet or cable news are going to adequately replace daily journalism (even at its U-T worst), they are polyannas or ostriches beyond help. "Change" per se isn't bad, but it certainly doesn't necessarily guarantee growth or improvement. As for super-critic "V", I don't dispute your list of journalism's recent failures: they stand as testament of the need to do more and better, not less and less. I am sure you know that daily journalism's triumphs on behalf of the public interest are powerful and more numerous.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
April 11, 2009 10:09 am

Doesn't evolution play a role here? Don't we continue to change and to grow? How many years ago did we eat only with our hands; now we use utensils...mostly. We used to transport ourselves only by foot, then horses, and now assorted vehicles. There seems to be a lot of blame spread by the commenters. I really don't think that is necessary, because the newspaper is clearly leaving (at least in my view). Just watch how the younger people use their cell phones to get news, to text, to talk, to Twitter (don't even know what that is,but will probablly find out soon). We still have to have reporting, because that is so important. The reporters work very hard to keep truth flowing. The truth just may be transported by a different vehicle.

Posted by Jay Hyde | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 3:18 pm

Henry Mencken "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." Some papers have behaved responsibly over the history of our country and some haven't. Personally, I have found the availability of information and the opportunity to make informed decisions has greatly improved with the internet. I never watched TV news; sound bytes are useless. I used to be a print journalism and am mindful of how "objective" reporters can slant the news. On many occasions, I was there, and what was reported was not what happened. The U-T is one of the worse examples of a biased view. They loved all Republicans, developers, rich and power people, right wingers. Fine to give them equal time, but all the time?

Posted by janet | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 4:04 pm

I get three papers a day and used to love reading them all. I'm dropping the U-T because it no longer fills my needs. Local news is now convered by VOSD, and the reviews of movies, concerts, theater, and books were deemed by the owners to be expendable. That, especially dropping movie reviews, led to a serious loss of movie advertising, but that's no problem; I can get movie listings on line. What really bugs someone like me, who spent 20 years in the newspaper business, is the sloppy production -- papers poorly folded or ripped, misprints and careless or absent editing, oversize pictures to fill space cheaply and little follow-up of important local stories. As for my other subscriptions -- the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, they cost more than $800 a year; a laptop would cost less.

Posted by Alice Goldfarb Marquis | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 4:43 pm

I am a similar age as Mr. Goldborough's brother and rarely pick up a paper anymore despite my past love affair with the printed page. Why, because too many journalism schools forgot to teach crucial aspects of a good writer: creativity and humor. As a result most columns are boring. I think it even goes deeper than that. Basically our society has become so homogenized it rarely produces the interesting writers and actors such as Herb Caen, Humphery Bogart, Art Buckwald, etc. These folks came from an era that emphasized story telling and written word. People who spoke face to face without having to compete with some electronic device stuck in their ear. It didn't hurt that many of these people grew up during some really rough times in our country and had to be creative about survival. I showed in their craft.

Posted by Steve | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 6:22 pm

It isn't often I agree with you ... well, actually never until now ... but, times change. That doesn't mean, however, : a) that I have to like it, or b) that such a change is "progress." Like you, my routine will be severely disrupted by the coming change, but I am resigned to the inevitable. Government sponsored newspapers?? That would have all the appeal, or interest, of either the BBC or PBS. I'd rather just sleep the extra half hour in the morning. Well, let's hope that whatever replaces newspapers is up to the task. Media such as the Voice are trying mightily, but the baton handoff is not complete and the mission is not yet sufficiently defined to determine how successful they will be. And, lordy, what about the comics?

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
April 9, 2009 7:02 pm

I subscribed to the LA Times for 50+ years, through its right wing and left wing phases, but finally gave up the subscription. Even though reading the morning paper was a deeply ingrained ritual, l found I can do without it. Over the years, my impression is that reporting (however inaccurate) has been replaced by features and commentary and opinion...all of which I can easily do without. Of course, now we have Goldsborough in the Voice. But I can always ignore a single Bush Basher if the tradeoff is some decent focus on the local scene.

Posted by josil | reply to this comment
April 11, 2009 8:42 pm

This post is for voice correspondents "josil," whom I would encourage to renew his/her longtime subscription to the still-excellent daily Los Angeles Times; and for "V" who rightly indicted newspapers for failing to adequately report Bush administration lying and spin; and for Alice Goldfarb Marquis who misses culture coverage. See Easter Sunday's Page One of the Los Angeles Times. Times investigative reporter William Heisel discloses the total failure of federal authorities at Housing and Uban Development (HUD) to properly manage 62 foreclosed properties in San Bernardino on behalf of people who needed affordable housing -- to the benefit of banks, real estate speculators and developers. This was a local snapshot of a 2,300-house nationwide HUD dud-program called "Dollar Homes." Also, Times music critic Mark Swed reflects on the development and remarkable contributions of retiring LA Philharmonic conductor Esa-Pekka Salonen. Pretty wonderful, I'd say.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
April 13, 2009 10:21 am

I have enjoyed these blogs tremendously. But Frances, I think you are saying that one or two good stories should encourage us to subscribe to newspapers. I don't think you can justify that. Many of us don't have the luxury of spending hundreds on LA Times, etc.to enjoy one or two good stories a week. We have to make do with local newspapers, online ones like VofSD, and other online and televised news. I still love to have a newspaper in my hands though. Sadly, I have given up the morning routine to check my email and websites first, then the paper. Sometimes I go days at a time without reading it. At first I felt guilty..now I figure it's just like an anwering machine. I pay the bill for the service and will read it when I want to without guilt. I didn't even need therapy.

Posted by Coast Watcher | reply to this comment
April 14, 2009 9:48 am

I believe was in 1998 when a supreme court verdict was passed down saying that a faux news station in Florida could direct their news castors to project into the public information they knew was wrong and or misleading. I think it was a story about a growth hormone and how it affected children who ate the meat from cattle who had been given that growth hormone. From that time to this date – it appears to me that so called newspapers and news programs (however they may be based [hardcopy, internet, TV, radio]) misinformation, false data, and a representation or lack of inclusion of events in the community which has directed public opinion and behavior in our North American Community. It seems that these media outlets often reference groups going along with the plan (go along to get along) while groups attempting to make real change? Nothing.

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
May 6, 2009 7:16 am


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
020349b



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.