Press: Who's Running the Newsroom?

In the heyday of yellow journalism at the turn of the century, powerful publishers such as William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer did not hesitate to draft their newspapers into the service of a pet cause. Remember the Maine? But as papers strove for more credibility with readers and advertisers, publishers were banished from the newsroom, establishing a firm division that was often compared to the constitutional separation of church and state. These days, however, with economic and cultural changes wrenching the newspaper industry, many journalists are concerned that the once sacred boundary between business and editorial departments has begun to blur. "Editors are facing a harder task maintaining their virginity," says former Boston Globe editor Thomas Winship. David Burgin, editor of the Houston Post and veteran of five other dailies, is more blunt: "The whole notion of autonomy in the newsroom is extinct. Today, if you had Watergate, you would have to check with the marketing department."

Last week, in a dramatic example of this conflict, Christian Science Monitor editor Katherine Fanning, managing editor David Anable and assistant managing editor David Winder all resigned. The immediate cause: the announcement by the managers of the 80-year-old church-owned paper of plans to reduce the Monitor's size, run less breaking news and cut the staff by one- fourth. Earlier this month, Atlanta Journal and Constitution editor Bill Kovach quit in a dispute with owner Cox Enterprises over the control of budgets, staffing and Washington reporting. Although the two cases differ in specific respects, both boil down to a single issue: management's role in determining the editorial direction of the papers.

Kovach, a highly respected New York Times bureau chief, was recruited by Cox two years ago to revive the flagging fortunes of the Atlanta papers. After beefing up the staff and running hard-hitting stories on such powerful local institutions as Coca-Cola and the Georgia Power Co., says Kovach, the papers' managers began urging shorter, softer stories in the mold of USA Today. Finally, following a showdown with the publisher over control of the papers' Washington bureau, Kovach quit.

His departure sparked a high level of emotion. Some 200 Kovach supporters staged a mock funeral in downtown Atlanta, protesting the "death of a free press." Last week assistant managing editor Dudley Clendinen announced his resignation, complaining of the "continuing collision" between corporate and editorial factions. Management, he said, "sees readers as a market, as opposed to people who need information."

At the financially troubled Monitor, which has spent millions in recent years developing a radio service, a worldwide shortwave operation, a cable TV program and a monthly magazine, the editors were shocked when a cost-cutting proposal they had developed at management's behest was rejected outright in favor of a vastly different plan that would eliminate some of the paper's prized international bureaus. "No self-respecting editor could accept such a downgrading of the importance of the daily newspaper's content and such a compromising of its editorial control and integrity," wrote Anable of the new plan in his letter of resignation. "The decision-making process," says Fanning, "seems to exclude editorial input. The business side seems to be calling all the shots."