VOICES
What's So Crazy About A Board
That Knows Journalism?
BY
GENEVA OVERHOLSER
Should the board of directors of
a newspaper company have anything to do with the journalism in
the company’s newspapers? “God forbid,” seems to
be the sentiment among some newspaper ceos. “Of course they
should,” is the view of others. This split became evident
recently when nine former newspaper editors (Hodding Carter, Bob
Giles, Max King, Bill Kovach, Dave Lawrence, Jim Naughton, Gene
Patterson, Gene Roberts, and I) sent a letter to chief executives
and board members of the nation’s fourteen largest publicly
owned newspaper companies. Our hope, as we wrote, was “to
encourage a re-examination by newspaper companies of the degree
to which they are sustaining their commitment to journalism.”
We urged the executives and directors to consider several steps
(see box) that seemed to us “in keeping with the unique,
constitutionally protected, public-trust mission of your companies.”
The recommendations were drawn primarily from Taking Stock: Journalism
and the Publicly Traded Newspaper Company, by Gilbert Cranberg,
Randall Bezanson, and John Soloski, and from a speech that Peter
Goldmark, chief executive officer of the International Herald
Tribune, gave at an Aspen Institute seminar a couple of years
ago.
The letters carried assurances that we took this approach in a
spirit of shared convictions and without fanfare, though we might
want to encourage public discussion of these issues. We invited
responses. Three ceos and the representative of a fourth wrote
back. All these ceos are respected leaders of solid newspaper
companies, yet their thoughts could hardly be more varied —
raising thought-provoking questions about the role of newspaper
company boards. (Some of the executives asked not to be identified,
so the quotes are unattributed.)
One executive wrote that he shared our concerns, and that his
company recognizes the importance of strong journalism and thus
has several directors with journalism experience. Another said
that, while our suggestions raised complex issues, his company
“is aligned philosophically with a number of the ideas imbedded”
in the suggestions and hopes our efforts “yield positive
results.”
Then there were the other two: “Are you guys out of your
minds?” wrote one good friend of journalism. Board members
should play no role in journalistic policy, he said. “They
tend to be financial, legal, technology or business experts who
can help a company make business progress.” Another wrote
that he felt his company would not be well served “by having
anyone on our Board of Directors responsible for monitoring the
quality of our journalism. The Board of this company knows very
well that its mandate does not extend into journalism.”
If the latter two views are in any way representative, it seems
that the old “wall” between the newsroom and the business
offices has moved. Journalism must, in essence, be protected from
the board. But wait. Business literature has some differing views.
Here are some examples: Boards “govern the organization by
broad policies and objectives — including to assign priorities
and ensure the organization’s capacity to carry out programs”;
boards “account to the public for the products and services
of the organization”; a board “helps management develop
business plans, policy objectives and business strategy.”
Since the Enron collapse, concerns about corporate governance
have only increased, and sentiments such as “a board’s
top priority is the development and implementation of a balanced
philosophy concerning the corporation’s constituencies”
are gaining strength. The old notion that in a board’s eyes
the only stakeholders that count are the stockholders is on the
wane.
But what about newspaper companies? The executive who found us
loony suggested we “take a look at who serves on such boards.”
Indeed, board members do tend heavily toward financial expertise.
But is that the only way to run the show? What if boards better
reflected the value of the journalism to the public and indeed
to democracy? What if they brought together First Amendment lawyers,
political activists, civic leaders — and journalists? Mightn’t
journalism’s place be strengthened among the companies’
broad policies, priorities, capacity to carry out programs, and
implementation of a balanced philosophy — to borrow a few
of those biz-school phrases?
Dan Sullivan, a University of Minnesota media economist, remarked
at a recent gathering at the Poynter Institute that the tension
in newspaper companies these days between journalists and business
leaders is not a clash of values but “a disagreement about
the business we’re in.” We have different ideas about
who the customer is, he said. Journalists believe the citizen
is the customer, but as long as the advertiser foots the bill,
that is an illusion. The business is about serving advertisers.
Certainly, the idea that the board should focus on anything but
the journalism would seem to confirm that. A few family-controlled
companies whose leaders have journalistic responsibility bred
into them may be able to focus on public service (at least at
their flagships) while keeping the board away from the journalism.
But what about the rest — the majority — of the companies?
Couldn’t making the health of the journalism one of the board’s
focuses — and rewarding executives for journalistic as well
as financial success — offer some hope for a greater emphasis
on the newspapers’ responsibilities to their readers and
to their communities? Dan Sullivan thinks that “the real
alternative to the current situation is not a business that values
profits and good journalism, but a business where good journalism
is the business.”
Maybe Sullivan is right. It may be that not until the customer
we seek to serve becomes the one who pays will we make journalism
our primary business — and something to be invested in, rather
than drawn down upon. But that is a big debate, and a long way
out, if it ever it comes at all. Meanwhile, a board of directors
that actually cares about the journalism, and is expected to shape
policies that help the whole company care about it, seems not
so crazy a notion to me.
Geneva
Overholser is a regular columnist for CJR.
