I’m going to admit, this is a part of capitalism that I just don’t understand. Yes, I know you have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value, but it seems to me obvious that hollowing out your newspaper in order to maximize shareholder value actually means Gannett is now at a moment where… if we view The Tennessean as now a hollow paper mache egg (perhaps made out of the paper itself) as opposed to a solid paper mache egg, you can stand on a solid paper mache egg (I guess I’m thinking an egg suitable for pinata use) and it will support you. A hollow paper mache egg? Probably not.
So, it seems obvious to me that we are at a weird moment where Gannett is saying “Look, look, there’s still more to hollow out beneath you and the paper will still hold!” But it just can’t be so. There comes a point when the paper gives way and everyone who was using the egg as their foundation is now fallen on the ground.
How can gutting the very thing you’re supposed to be maximizing the value of be good business sense? If I were an investor in Gannett, I’d be pissed that I was being sold this zombie fairytale, this undead thing still lurching around like it’s got life and promise.
Do publicly-held companies not have some obligation to the long-term value of their company?
I mean, don’t get me wrong. I don’t know what newspapers will look like in ten years. But I know imagining that we’ll need fewer reporters as the world gets more complex just can’t be right.
I don’t know. It really bothers me. We live in the state capitol, in a town of half a million people. If you count everyone who lives in the area, it’s over a million people. We need healthy newspapers.