Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

Richard Aregood: Why the Philadelphia Daily News has to change with the times

A WHILE back, in a previous lifetime at another newspaper before space for stories was everything, I went to the editor to try to get rid of a remarkably lousy column.

A WHILE back, in a previous lifetime at another newspaper before space for stories was everything, I went to the editor to try to get rid of a remarkably lousy column.

"If you put something in the paper," he said in his best bewildering Delphic manner, "somebody's going to like it." Even though that statement led to a bad decision, he had a point. A newspaper at best is a serendipitous blend of everything from the daily number (mob and state) to a heavily researched expose that changes the way readers look at their city.

It's also the reason that change is so painful for both editors and readers. In the current newspaper environment, it's agonizing. Noncapital expenses for newspapers amount to two things - paper and people. That's where the money goes and where to find money if you're looking for cutbacks.

So the recent changes in the Daily News had what Editor Larry Platt describes as "two contradictory things." A redesign attempted to make the paper, Platt said, "more inviting and cleaner," recognizing that the modern newspaper "competes with everything, every second."

It also meant making the newshole (space devoted to non-advertising content) smaller by about four pages a day, a sizable whack made necessary by the business climate. That's a lot of space and finding it required cutting into the muscle that makes a newspaper the broad experience it needs to be. (The fat is long gone.)

The redesign looks good, although my tabloid mind recoils at the inch of space above page-topping headlines. Half of that would provide some airy space above the headlines and provide enough cumulative space-saving for, say, a Harry S. Gross column or a Signe Wilkinson "Family Tree" comic strip.

Which brings us to the cuts. And an admission of personal interest.

I liked Harry's column and was a regular reader, sometimes to marvel at the haplessness of some of the people asking him questions and the gentle, helpful responses he offered. He is also a seriously nice man. I also like Signe's strip and have been her friend since the days when she was very young and riding around the city on a bike with freelance art rolled in a tube. As an old editorial page editor, the loss of op-ed space makes me twinge. As a former feature buyer for the Daily News and lover of comic art, losing a page of comics turns the twinge into real pain.

Twenty full columns a day is a lot. Some of the choices aren't the ones I would have made, but I don't have the responsibility for making them.

It's not a question of preference. For instance, I don't really care whether the local anchordude and the anchorchick beside him are fiercely feuding or enthusiastically canoodling. As an editor, though, I have to acknowledge that a lot of people who buy the paper do care. Some of them can even tell one Kardashian from another. So space devoted to gossip is probably well-spent.

If I were making choices for any newspaper these days, I'd be seriously looking at some traditional pillars of the paper. Stock listings are a thing of the past. TV listings take up a lot of space and need a survey to determine how useful they are to readers. Personally, I haven't used them in decades, but it's important to know how many people still find them essential. Does anybody care about the horoscope? If the newspaper business can't evolve, it will go the way of the woolly mammoth. In the last month, the Daily News evolved.

The current business climate for newspapers is brutal. It began years ago. I had to take reader calls back when the DN dropped its bridge column. You wouldn't think people who play bridge would be that fierce, but they were. The calls about the "Phantom" and "Mary Worth" comic strips were less polite. The artist who drew the "Ghost Who Walks" organized a campaign for his restoration (it didn't work) and even meddlesome Mary had her devoted fans.

IT'S PERHAPS fortunate that the Daily News made itself more attractive at the same time the cutbacks were made. Giving customers less while charging more is probably not a sustainable business model. The newspaper is now better, with a more open look. But it's missing some things that people liked.

It's my hope that the economics finally stabilize for newspapers generally. The Daily News local news coverage is essential. The reporting is probably the best it's ever been. Sports remains a must-read. It's been a long time since the Daily News was "the dime of your life," but it's still a bargain.