Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Matt Gurney's avatar

I don't normally comment on our articles here, but I wanted to just note (as I probably won't have time this week to do a full, proper reply) that I generally agree with Clarke, but I think something that isn't clear to outsiders is how much of what has hobbled the traditional media isn't our fiscal status per se, but the trajectory of that status. I remember years ago going over budgets and staff with my then-boss, the editor-in-chief of a major newspaper, and it was really grim. We didn't have enough money or people to do all the things that we were SUPPOSED to be able to do. As I like to say, expectations were a problem. And for centuries, newspapers did A, B, C, D and E, right? And it wasn't possible to do that anymore with any degree of quality. So the choice, broadly and simply, was to do A, B and C, but no longer do D and E, or to do all five things badly.

And you there was no "right" choice or "good" choice. We were going to disappoint the customer either way. As frustrating, there really wasn't even any certainty that whatever plan we came up with would ever be implemented, as there was the issue of "upselling" the proposal to the bosses upstairs, who might react with horror to the notion that we should just stop doing D and E.

But I also remember looking at the numbers — personnel and budgets — and thinking that, my God, if we were starting from scratch, unencumbered by debts and expectations, we could do incredible work with this. This many people and this much money could REALLY kick ass. But it's not possible, realistically, to pivot organizations that much. I wish it was. I know better. I've tried!

Expand full comment
Ryan and Jen's avatar

I vote for Clarke as a guest contributor whenever G&G feel the need to talk about the state of "the media".

Expand full comment
53 more comments...

No posts