Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss?

I write this weekly column, but when it comes to the DN, I'm still an outsider.

I've never had a desk in the office, or a phone. I speak on a regular basis with exactly one staffer (my editor), and while I'm proud of my relationship, I'm not looking for it to grow. Still, appreciating that my ties are somewhat tenuous, I believe that among all those associated with the DN and Inquirer, I was the most excited about the new ownership.

That's because I've known Bruce Toll and Brian Tierney for years, and consider both to be friends. The sort you see occasionally and schmooze, not necessarily the kind you invite to your kid's birthday party. I like them. And they're from my political tribe.

These factors, and the attraction of having local owners in an era of faceless pension-fund types, had me quite excited about the sale. Now I'm concerned that my enthusiasm was premature. I never expected either newspaper to become a conservative voice. I think their politics should be independent, and difficult to characterize ideologically, just like many of those they seek as readers. To be successful, both papers need to reach disparate interests in the city and suburbs. Still, to get to the middle of the road, each newspaper needs to take a significant step to the right. And if the initial pronouncement of the new owners is to be believed, there's no reason to think that will happen.

On the first day with Messrs. Toll and Tierney on the masthead, the new owners reiterated a pledge they made while in pursuit of the newspapers:

"The editorial function of the Business shall at all times remain independent of the ownership and control of the Company, and no Member shall attempt to influence or interfere with the editorial policies or decisions of the publisher."

I'm confounded by the statement and don't understand why they made it, or the logic of reiterating it in full-page ads on the first day of the new watch. I suspect they thought it necessary during the courtship phase of the deal. But repeating it when in control makes me wonder if they're responding to some imaginary clamoring for assurance.

(On the day the pledge first ran, there was a story in the Inquirer about Presidents Bush and Clinton being selected to receive the Liberty Medal. The photos with the story were typical: Clinton looking presidential, Bush looking like someone sitting close to him in church had broken wind. It was a reminder to me that the new owners should demand that editorials be confined to the editorial pages.)

The new owners are correct in saying they'll stand clear of the news reports, but it makes no sense for them to cede control of the editorial pages. They paid $562 million, and if someone's voice is to be heard on the editorial page, why shouldn't it be theirs? Why should they be silenced because they own the newspaper? If Ron Burkle had gained control, would anyone have expected this Clinton confidant to make such a pledge?

And there's a business reason to change course. The circulation of both papers is dropping, no doubt from many factors. But I think one of them is ideology.

Both papers are seen as far left, yet trying to reach a more centrist population. Again, that doesn't mean they need to become the Wall Street Journal, N.Y. Post or Washington Times. It'll still be OK to endorse liberal Democrats like John Kerry. Just not for 21 straight days.

Case in point: On Sunday, in the midst of the controversy over the N.Y. Times, the Journal, L.A. Times and Washington Post revealing yet another of the Bush administration tools in the war on terror, the Inquirer editorialized on the subject. What'd they say?

Exactly what you'd expect. Total status quo. Rap the White House, trash the president.

How refreshing it would have been to open that page and see the Inquirer disagree with the Times decision to out the Bush way of tracking money flow in the war on terror. This wouldn't have required a total embrace of the administration; it could have been handled deftly by challenging Congress to end its dereliction of oversight behind closed doors so the newspapers didn't have to do so in plain view.

Instead, readers got the Inquirer norm: "Should we have a government of secrets, surveillance and fear-mongering, one that Vladimir Putin could love? Or a government that tells its citizens most of what it is up to and stands ready to be held accountable for its deeds, one James Madison would applaud?"

Same old same old. A proven loser for both newspapers.

Into this arena steps an energetic Brian Tierney poised to promote his product. "Bringing Home the News." Great slogan. But not enough to get a return on Ed Coryell's money. First they have to fix the product.

It's as if the new owners just acquired a restaurant with a rich tradition, but where the food has recently received mixed reviews.

No amount of advertising alone is going to alter the fortunes of the restaurant without a little help in the kitchen. A new chef or two is needed - and maybe some new spices.