'Tribune' publisher gives his verdict on the media

PATRICK MCGARVEY/YH Steven Smith, SY '73, talks about the role of the Internet in media and how he handles his high-pressure job at the 'Chicago Tribune.'

Scott Smith, SY '73, took the helm as president and publisher of the Chicago Tribune in March 1997. Following Smith's Thurs., Dec. 2 lecture in Linsley-Chittenden Hall, the Herald sat down with Smith to discuss the impact of the Internet on print journalism and the implications of the consolidation of the media industry.

Yale Herald: What would you say is the most important change brought on by the growth of the Internet? How has it affected the way you approach things at the Chicago Tribune?

Scott Smith: The Internet has broken down the sort of geographical boundaries that traditionally have applied to most media and it has created this open access—in effect, free distribution—that has a dramatic impact on what can effectively compete in the Chicago market. You don't need to buy a TV station or buy a newspaper or buy a cable system. It has opened up a competitive landscape in a dramatic way.

YH: How can the Tribune counter this competition and proliferation of news sources? Do you think credibility will win out?

SS: Credibility is very high on the list of key attributes that we believe we have and that we need to keep building. We also have an advantage in terms of how comprehensive we are. There still are few sources on the Internet that will give you in one bundled package what your daily newspaper will give you. There's context. In our case, that's the sort of Midwestern vantage that we bring to our news reporting and opinion writing that some news service that's imported from somewhere else won't bring. Also, the Internet is a medium that's very good if you know what you want, you'll go find it. But there's a serendipitous element of reading a daily newspaper where you don't know what you read on the front page every day.

YH: Switching gears a bit, you alluded to the wall between the business and editorial side of newspapers. What is the state of the wall today and why don't you think it is necessary?

SS: The old version of the wall was that journalists wouldn't com-municate with business people, that they wouldn't know what the other was up to. In terms of protecting journalistic independence, that was effective, but to the consumer, it's still one organization and how we market effectively to the consumer involves a need for journalists to get together with marketers. Our belief is it's important to have dialogue and plan some things jointly without compromising the fundamental premise: at the end of the day, the journalistic judgment is an independent judgment that is in the company's business interests and if we have to write a tough story on a key customer, we'll write it. We've never asked journalists to compromise any of that vital integrity and credibility.

YH: This month's Brill's Content features a cover story on the dangers posed by the ownership of the media by fewer and fewer companies. Do you think the consolidation of the media is a danger for a healthy free press?

SS: I don't see a danger in consolidation just in terms of numbers of competitors, because if you look at any market in the country, even with consolidation, you have at a minimum, five really strong news sources—and you might have 10 or 15. It's not like when these rules were created 50 years ago, when there were four TV stations in town or one newspaper and that was it. There are more choices today than there ever were. So I don't think consolidation limits choice. I think the issue more with consolidation is, will there continue to be a real understanding and sensitivity to local markets?

YH: How do you go about balancing the needs of a newsroom with the needs of a Fortune 500 company?

SS: Our fundamental belief is that if we're strong financially, that both funds great journalism and reinforces our ability to take an independent view journalistically. Those go hand in hand; they're not opposing forces. That being said, the challenge in today's world, where you need to be cost-competitive, is that we have to make decisions every day about whether we invest more in our international news coverage or local news coverage, more in sports or in entertainment. I think the discipline of asking what is of the greatest value over the long haul to our readers and what will allow us to continue to be distinctive is a healthy one. Journalists are not writing for themselves, they're writing for their audience. We take a long view of that, so they'll write something unpopular—we're not just trying to write for the people meter—but a great story that's read by no one has little value.

Back to News...