Tribune looking to buy Sun-Times - a delayed reaction
It says something about how tough the past three weeks have been that I'm only now getting around to reacting to something that I normally would have responded to within days.
On May 15, the news broke that Tronc, Chicago Tribune's parent company, is formally making a move to buy Shicago Sun-Times, Chicago Reader and, presumably, a few other Wrapports assets like Aggrego. Unless another buyer emerges by June 1, both of Chicago daily newspapers will be owned by one entity.
Chicago Tribune Media Group already collectively controlled a pretty decent chunk of Chicagoland media market, and this would only cement it further. And, just as importantly, there would be no real competition for the city news, at least as far as daily newspapers go. There will still be Daily Herald, but the focus of its coverage is firmly on the suburbs, not the city. Ditto the unrelated Northwest Herald and The Times of Northwest Indiana. There is DNAinfo Chicago, but the digital media outlet have seen some dramatic cuts in recent months as it continues to struggle to be profitable, and... lets just say I have very strong reasons to believe that its in even worse shape than people realize. There is Cook County Chronicle, but it's a weekly paper and, like the Daily Herald, its focus is more on the suburbs than the city.
Executives in both Tribune and Sun-Times are saying all the right things about how the Bright One is going to be able to retain its editorial independence while getting the benefit of Tronc's greater financial resources and national coverage, but I don't think anyone entirely buys it. At least not on the long term. In Chicago history, there has never been instance when two newspapers survived under the same ownership for very long. Sun-Times shut down Chicago Daily News 19 years after buying it, and Tribune shut down Chicago Today 18 years after it bought it.
In fairness, the two were afternoon newspapers and the 1970s saw most afternoon newspapers shut down all across United States because they simply weren't as profitable as their morning counterparts. But even with that in mind, it's hard to avoid the comparisons. Tribune and Sun-Times shut down the afternoon papers because they were losing money, and while Tribune is just barely managing to stay profitable (though staff reduction and cost-cutting), Sun-Times hasn't really been profitable in years.
The only example that comes to mind of two newspapers surviving under one ownership is Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News - but I don't know all that much about what they are like, so I have no idea how much editorial independence the two have.
As it has been pointed out elsewhere, there are still instances of two newspapers owned by different companies competing against each other. New York City is unique as having three (or arguably four, depending on whether you count Newsday competing against each other. Los Angeles has Tronc-owned Los Angeles TImes and Digital First Media's Los Angeles Daily news, Boston has Boston Globe and Boston Herald. In many cases, the city have two papers in a joint operating agreement - where they share advertising and circulation, but still have separate newsrooms and are owned by separate entities - Detroit's Detroit News and Detroit Free Press, Fort Wayne's Journal-Gazette and News-Sentinel, etc. There is also an interesting case of Madison, Wisconsin, which used to have two daily newspapers with a joint operating agreement - Wisconsin State Journal and Capital Times, but over the last few years, the later went to three-times a week, then to twice a week, then to weekly.
In any case, the question must be asked - why would Michael Ferro, who owned Wrapports before he got the majority stake in Tribune, want to buy a money-losing newspaper in a market where Chicago Tribune already has a bigger footprint? Especially since, back when he owned Wrapports, he made no secret that what he really wanted was Tribune? And, perhaps more pertinently, how long would he be willing to keep it going?
While, as I said earlier, there have been assurances that Sun-Times would have editorial independence, I don't buy it. When Wrapports bought the Chicago Reader, its since-retired media columnist Michael Miner was originally not afraid to call the company and Ferro out when he saw fit - but as years went on, we saw him take a softer tone, and trying to justify some of the company's more controversial decisions. And we know that Ferro in particular has no reservations about interfering with the editorial process - see the Dave McKinney incident for the most notorious example. And, as the sale was announced, an online Chicago Reader article that was very critical of Ferro mysteriously disappeared, eventually reappearing in an edited form a few days later.
Which brings us to Ferro himself. When he was in Wrapports, he tried a number of initiatives and investments to make Sun-Times more profitable, but none of them really went anywhere - and part of the problem is that he never stuck with even some of the more potentially promising ones long enough to see whether it would work on the long run (except for the ill-fated Sun-Times Network and the Splash magazine). And, since assuming control of Tribune, he hasn't shown that he has any better ideas, hinging his strategy on vague notions of artificial intelligence assisted content and advertising, putting in more videos and hiring more foreign correspondents to increase cultural coverage.
On one hand, one can rightfully pointed out that no one has been able to figure out how to survive as a newspaper in an age of shrinking print ad revenue and digital ad revenue not bringing in nearly the same profits (New York Times strategy - increasing print and digital subscriptions - can't be replicated across the board, because few other newspapers and digital media outlets have the same kind of national recognition, as well as breath and depth of coverage). But all of Ferro's strategies hinged on the idea that the key to profitability was producing as much content as possible while putting as little effort into it as possible - a strategy that failed again and again (see Aggrego's suburban sites, the Sun-Times Network, Rankommend, Sanibel Captiva News, Chicago ViewsMix, etc). And a strategy that he continues to try to implement. And that, combined with his aforementioned penchant for interference and the times he used the publications he owned for personal gain (spending Tribune money to cover corporate jets when he could have just as easily cover them out of his own pocket, taking Oscars tickets meant for Los Angeles Times reporters for himself, etc) means that, even if Chicago Sun-Times long-term prospects are bleak, look even more bleak under his leadership.
As I've written before many times, Chicago Sun-Times deserves better than that. Even in the face of diminishing resources, it still does some great reporting on the city, especially city government, education and social issues. It provides a more liberal alternative to Tribune's more conservative-leaning voice. Just by existing, it forces Tribune not to rest on its laurels, to be better. And, in spite of all the cutbacks, it still devotes more pages to the issues affecting the poor and disenfranchised, and it still writes more about the minority neighborhoods than the Trib. It's still the paper that I usually see people reading on buses and trains that serve the South and West sides. It is a perpetual underdog, a bit tough around the edges, a bit less formal, than the stately Tribune - and it has a voice that no other Chicago paper can ever hope to replicate.
Having the same company control two city newspapers did lead to some anti-trust concerns. As Crain's Chicago Business pointed out, back in 2016, FFC denied Tribune Publishing's attempt to buy Freedom Communications newspapers because it would give the company virtual print media monopoly in South California media market. But the article also rightfully points out that this was during Obama Administration - and under Trump administration, FCC is more likely to let the sale happen. It did require Sun-Times to run ads soliciting other buyers, but the consensus has been that it was little more than a formality.
That hasn't stopped the Chicago News Guild from launching a petition to try to give Wrapports more time to find another buyer. As the guild officials themselves would probably tell you, it's a long shot - but it's still better than doing nothing.
Speaking of the News Guild - long-time Pioneer Press reporter kaffyr, who has seen Ferro's leadership first-hand both under Sun-Times Media and Chicago Tribune Publishing Group, gave her own take on the matter. If you are a Chicagoan - or even an ex-Chicagoan - I suggest you give it a read.
As I said - I am not optimistic. But even if worse comes to worse, it's better to go out fighting than to fade away.
On May 15, the news broke that Tronc, Chicago Tribune's parent company, is formally making a move to buy Shicago Sun-Times, Chicago Reader and, presumably, a few other Wrapports assets like Aggrego. Unless another buyer emerges by June 1, both of Chicago daily newspapers will be owned by one entity.
Chicago Tribune Media Group already collectively controlled a pretty decent chunk of Chicagoland media market, and this would only cement it further. And, just as importantly, there would be no real competition for the city news, at least as far as daily newspapers go. There will still be Daily Herald, but the focus of its coverage is firmly on the suburbs, not the city. Ditto the unrelated Northwest Herald and The Times of Northwest Indiana. There is DNAinfo Chicago, but the digital media outlet have seen some dramatic cuts in recent months as it continues to struggle to be profitable, and... lets just say I have very strong reasons to believe that its in even worse shape than people realize. There is Cook County Chronicle, but it's a weekly paper and, like the Daily Herald, its focus is more on the suburbs than the city.
Executives in both Tribune and Sun-Times are saying all the right things about how the Bright One is going to be able to retain its editorial independence while getting the benefit of Tronc's greater financial resources and national coverage, but I don't think anyone entirely buys it. At least not on the long term. In Chicago history, there has never been instance when two newspapers survived under the same ownership for very long. Sun-Times shut down Chicago Daily News 19 years after buying it, and Tribune shut down Chicago Today 18 years after it bought it.
In fairness, the two were afternoon newspapers and the 1970s saw most afternoon newspapers shut down all across United States because they simply weren't as profitable as their morning counterparts. But even with that in mind, it's hard to avoid the comparisons. Tribune and Sun-Times shut down the afternoon papers because they were losing money, and while Tribune is just barely managing to stay profitable (though staff reduction and cost-cutting), Sun-Times hasn't really been profitable in years.
The only example that comes to mind of two newspapers surviving under one ownership is Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News - but I don't know all that much about what they are like, so I have no idea how much editorial independence the two have.
As it has been pointed out elsewhere, there are still instances of two newspapers owned by different companies competing against each other. New York City is unique as having three (or arguably four, depending on whether you count Newsday competing against each other. Los Angeles has Tronc-owned Los Angeles TImes and Digital First Media's Los Angeles Daily news, Boston has Boston Globe and Boston Herald. In many cases, the city have two papers in a joint operating agreement - where they share advertising and circulation, but still have separate newsrooms and are owned by separate entities - Detroit's Detroit News and Detroit Free Press, Fort Wayne's Journal-Gazette and News-Sentinel, etc. There is also an interesting case of Madison, Wisconsin, which used to have two daily newspapers with a joint operating agreement - Wisconsin State Journal and Capital Times, but over the last few years, the later went to three-times a week, then to twice a week, then to weekly.
In any case, the question must be asked - why would Michael Ferro, who owned Wrapports before he got the majority stake in Tribune, want to buy a money-losing newspaper in a market where Chicago Tribune already has a bigger footprint? Especially since, back when he owned Wrapports, he made no secret that what he really wanted was Tribune? And, perhaps more pertinently, how long would he be willing to keep it going?
While, as I said earlier, there have been assurances that Sun-Times would have editorial independence, I don't buy it. When Wrapports bought the Chicago Reader, its since-retired media columnist Michael Miner was originally not afraid to call the company and Ferro out when he saw fit - but as years went on, we saw him take a softer tone, and trying to justify some of the company's more controversial decisions. And we know that Ferro in particular has no reservations about interfering with the editorial process - see the Dave McKinney incident for the most notorious example. And, as the sale was announced, an online Chicago Reader article that was very critical of Ferro mysteriously disappeared, eventually reappearing in an edited form a few days later.
Which brings us to Ferro himself. When he was in Wrapports, he tried a number of initiatives and investments to make Sun-Times more profitable, but none of them really went anywhere - and part of the problem is that he never stuck with even some of the more potentially promising ones long enough to see whether it would work on the long run (except for the ill-fated Sun-Times Network and the Splash magazine). And, since assuming control of Tribune, he hasn't shown that he has any better ideas, hinging his strategy on vague notions of artificial intelligence assisted content and advertising, putting in more videos and hiring more foreign correspondents to increase cultural coverage.
On one hand, one can rightfully pointed out that no one has been able to figure out how to survive as a newspaper in an age of shrinking print ad revenue and digital ad revenue not bringing in nearly the same profits (New York Times strategy - increasing print and digital subscriptions - can't be replicated across the board, because few other newspapers and digital media outlets have the same kind of national recognition, as well as breath and depth of coverage). But all of Ferro's strategies hinged on the idea that the key to profitability was producing as much content as possible while putting as little effort into it as possible - a strategy that failed again and again (see Aggrego's suburban sites, the Sun-Times Network, Rankommend, Sanibel Captiva News, Chicago ViewsMix, etc). And a strategy that he continues to try to implement. And that, combined with his aforementioned penchant for interference and the times he used the publications he owned for personal gain (spending Tribune money to cover corporate jets when he could have just as easily cover them out of his own pocket, taking Oscars tickets meant for Los Angeles Times reporters for himself, etc) means that, even if Chicago Sun-Times long-term prospects are bleak, look even more bleak under his leadership.
As I've written before many times, Chicago Sun-Times deserves better than that. Even in the face of diminishing resources, it still does some great reporting on the city, especially city government, education and social issues. It provides a more liberal alternative to Tribune's more conservative-leaning voice. Just by existing, it forces Tribune not to rest on its laurels, to be better. And, in spite of all the cutbacks, it still devotes more pages to the issues affecting the poor and disenfranchised, and it still writes more about the minority neighborhoods than the Trib. It's still the paper that I usually see people reading on buses and trains that serve the South and West sides. It is a perpetual underdog, a bit tough around the edges, a bit less formal, than the stately Tribune - and it has a voice that no other Chicago paper can ever hope to replicate.
Having the same company control two city newspapers did lead to some anti-trust concerns. As Crain's Chicago Business pointed out, back in 2016, FFC denied Tribune Publishing's attempt to buy Freedom Communications newspapers because it would give the company virtual print media monopoly in South California media market. But the article also rightfully points out that this was during Obama Administration - and under Trump administration, FCC is more likely to let the sale happen. It did require Sun-Times to run ads soliciting other buyers, but the consensus has been that it was little more than a formality.
That hasn't stopped the Chicago News Guild from launching a petition to try to give Wrapports more time to find another buyer. As the guild officials themselves would probably tell you, it's a long shot - but it's still better than doing nothing.
Speaking of the News Guild - long-time Pioneer Press reporter kaffyr, who has seen Ferro's leadership first-hand both under Sun-Times Media and Chicago Tribune Publishing Group, gave her own take on the matter. If you are a Chicagoan - or even an ex-Chicagoan - I suggest you give it a read.
As I said - I am not optimistic. But even if worse comes to worse, it's better to go out fighting than to fade away.