GACK on Suzanne Bellsnyder

 Per communication I've seen, she's peddling an op-ed by Hawk Dunlap for other newspapers to use.

Problem? Oh, just one.

He's a currently active candidate for the Texas Railroad Commission.

So, you're offering free advertising to a political candidate, assuming you're doing this in your own newspapers. That means you're managing them as badly as the farm and ranch, which if it's like the rest of your county in the Panhandle, is overdrawing water from the Ogalalla Aquifer. 

As for Dunlap the candidate? He's almost certainly better than GOP incumbent James Wright. Doesn't matter. 

To me, this is cardinal rule No. 1 of newspapers — not giving away free advertising in general and certainly not to state-level political candidates. 

As for the election? Dems have a candidate for the general. Greens? Nobody. Alfred Molison, who ran in 2024, move over to the Ag commissioner race. 

(I am guessing that for Bellsnyder, the primary IS the general election. That's fine as a personal decision, but, beyond giving away free advertising to a political candidate, as an editor, or unofficially an editor/general manager, I would never do that for readers, unless it was a Q-and-A, which many papers do, of ALL primary candidates, or in the general, ALL candidates there.) 

Another voice of semi-concern about Hearst's growing semi-monopoly in Texas

 At the Texas Observer, Justin Miller has a fair amount of skepticism about the long-term fallout from its acquisition of the Morning Snooze, more than did Dick Tofel, whom he references. It wasn't quite as skeptical as my take here, in part from not mentioning Hearst's private ownership.

Miller was also, in his brief reference to the Texas Tribune, not at all skeptical of it, though its various "sponsors" likely have influenced the Trib's lackadaisical at best coverage of environmental issues. 

Someone at the Observer should know better. 

Ballantine Communications is not THAT nice

 It's a good newspaper company, but having a single reporter split between Cortez, Colorado and Farmington, New Mexico? Or so I understand the advertisement? If you want reporters for each city separately, shouldn't you advertise them separately?

Actually, I think they are separate, as Ballantine's original first newspaper's town, Durango, Colorado, is almost squarely between the two. And, if you are doing partnered reporters, why wouldn't it be Cortez and Durango, in the same state?

And, also, if these are for separate papers? Yes, I am sure Journalism Jobs charges for listings. But, do they charge that much? 

What's next for Hearst?

Richard Tofel, founding general manager and eventual president of Pro Publica, interviewed Hearst CEO Steve Swartz in early October about why the company was buying newspapers. It was decent-good on the corporate side, but didn't ask about further buys in Texas and was also a bit of turd-polishing on Hearst as a company. I posted a link to my own reporting of about two months ago, shortly before Hearst closed the deal to buy THE Dallas Morning News; it didn't draw comment or a "like" from him. (I get a "like" about half the time.) 

On the turd-polishing? This Q and A:

RT: Do you think it’s an advantage for Hearst to be privately rather than publicly held in today’s news business? 

SS: We think we’re better off being privately held. We try to hold ourselves to high standards in terms of performance in every way, and we benchmark ourselves against whatever relevant public company is out there, in whatever space we’re operating in, to say, are we keeping up, whether it’s in terms of quality or financial performance. But I think the ability to have a long term focus is an advantage when you’re privately held. 

RT: I’ve seen reports suggesting that if you were to sell all your news holdings, that your overall profit margins would rise. If that’s true, does it matter to you, or does the history of the company that you talked about at the outset outweigh that? 

SS: We think it’s important that every business of ours be able to stand on its own two feet. We wouldn’t be in a sector, or we wouldn’t have a division, that was purely losing money and unable to generate enough cash to take care of its employees, to take care of their benefits, their retirement. You have to be able to invest. Sometimes you even have to replace the printing press. So I think having some profit margin is important for each individual business. 

There is no question that our journalism businesses, particularly our newspaper businesses and our magazine businesses, run at a much lower profit margin than a number of our other businesses. If we were publicly traded, that could be more of a focus for outside investors. We’re a strong company. We have a very strong balance sheet. We believe in the magazine and newspaper business. We understand that those businesses do not run at a very high profit margin, but we believe they contribute a lot to society and help make us a more special company.

There you go. (Emphases added.) Greenwashing?

Commenters called out Swartz for his take on nonprofits, which I don't think was entirely wrong, but also did seem a bit stereotypical. Tofel agreed on split-the-middle on this. They even more called out Swartz for his claim about how much local presence Hearst still has. Having a degree of familiarity with Beaumont today and Midland in the past, this call-out is totally correct. Tofel didn't really comment on that. 

With Hearst, already owning Houston, San Antonio, Austin (I forgot that they bought the Stateless earlier this year, somehow) Laredo, Beaumont and Midland, along with a few yet-smaller properties, is its purchase of the Dallas Snooze good for journalism in Texas? Michael Hardy discussed that a little while back at Texas Monthly.

Among things of note? That Monthly piece belies Swartz on one thing. Here in Tex-ass, the company already had Nancy Barnes as executive editor of all papers. 

My thoughts?

It is the tough issue above, tougher for the Snooze's employees yet, and I'll get more below.

I can say that, at a minimum, it's better than vulture capitalist Alden owning the Snooze, Michael. On the other hand, especially seeing how the SA Express-News is treated as not much more than an appendage of the Houston Chronic, and suspecting that's started happening at the Austin Stateless, and knowing that it's surely happened to Beaumont, which is otherwise in the crapper, I can understand worries about how other papers outside Houston will lose, or have already lost, individual identities.

But, that's a lesser issue than the future of journalism. Even if the Chronic itself hasn't been gutted, the Stateless acquisition shows Hearst is no white knight overall:

Some journalists at Hearst’s Texas papers have a less rosy view of their employer. When Hearst bought the Statesman this spring, it declined to ratify the contract that the paper’s union had signed with Gannett just a few months earlier. Hearst and the union are in negotiations over a new contract; in the meantime, the company has laid off the paper’s copy editors, eliminated job protections, and cut some employee benefits. In May, the Austin News Guild filed an unfair labor practices charge against Hearst with the National Labor Relations Board.

I mean, yes, with more and more of a truly digital first world? Those copy editing positions are dead in the water. Do you want to pick up a reporter's notebook or microcasette player?

But? Some are still needed, and laying them ALL off sure as hell looks like union-busting. It does so to the unionized in Dallas, and at Hearst papers elsewhere:

In July, the union issued a statement on X expressing alarm at the paper’s sale: “The experiences of our colleagues at other Hearst papers have left us with concerns that we look forward to addressing with Hearst leadership.” This was followed by an open letter to Hearst from unionized journalists in California, Connecticut, New York, and Texas urging the company to refrain from “intimidation tactics and inappropriate discipline meant to scare journalists into silence or complacency.”

Ugh.

An additional problem is that Hearst is privately owned, so it can say it needs to bust unions for the bottom line, but, unless somebody leaks some financials, who can tell, and there's no shareholder pressure anyway. Swartz notes this as a value of being private.

Now, how does this play out in the longer term?

Beyond Hearst? Craphouse (sic), the half of the post-merger company that is the tail wagging the dog of the new Gannett, owns El Paso, Amarillo, Lubbock, San Angelo, Abilene and Corpus Christi, and continues to implode. In other words, outside of Odessa, two chains own all dailies in West and West Central Texas, and Hearst making a bid for Odessa and a consolidation with Midland wouldn't surprise me. CNHI, a chain that's the crappiest one not owned by a hedge fund, owns many newspapers in Texas that were dailies before COVID. It's not quite imploding, but just falling apart more and more. 

The StartleGram is owned by hedge-fund controlled McClatchy, or McLatchKey, which also continues to implode.

Papers inside or near the Triangle, since, setting aside Cowtown, Hearst will now pretty much control all points? Temple remains privately owned by the Mayborn family and won't be sold. Waco and Bryan-College Station are both part of Lee Enterprises, whose flagship is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. They might sell.

Per a piece I wrote 10 months ago, if this David Hoffmann still owned, as of September 2025, a slice of the Snooze, since he also owns a slice of Lee, at least looking at Waco and BCS, if not far beyond that?  (As of of early September 2025, per this story, Hoffmann was now one of the top two Lee investors and was still trying to buy the company outright, and still owned his slice of the Snooze.)

In the Valley? Hearst, if the price is right, might look to move further south from Laredo. It wouldn't need to buy everything, just one or another of Brownsville, Harlingen etc, and then use its growing clout. (The partial carcass of FreeDumb Communications owns both those plus McAllen.)

That leaves East Texas, east of where CNHI trails off, as more competitive for now.

Handing Harper's magazine a mirror

Harper's runs a piece about why people don't trust the media any more and fails to mention the infamous Harper's letter of 2020. 

The whole piece is not bad. Jelani Cobb at CJR has good insights, as does the oft-curmudgeonly Jack Shafer. Taylor Lorenz focuses too much early on, on Gaza, though we've seen how fair chunks of the MSM, although they've moderated giving blank checks to Zionist Israel, still have not officially retracted old stories. Max Tani of Semafor cites COVID coverage as a big issue. He's right to fair degree, though Cobb pushes back on some of that with this:

I’m not sure that there’s a correlation between the mistakes the media has made and the distrust the public feels toward it. Here’s what I mean: every one of us has been in a conversation in which someone says, “What the media won’t tell you . . . ” There are certain sentences that, when you hear the first half, you should immediately ignore the second half—and that’s one of them. The reason is that, 99 percent of the time, when someone says, “The media won’t tell you this,” it’s because the thing they’re talking about is either not true or is not true in the way they conceive it to be. Or they have a pet conspiracy theory that no one else shares, and the media won’t validate their viewpoint.

He goes on to connect that with declines in the trust in institutions in general. 

Shafer notes that capitalist owners have led to a retreat in pushback against Trump, although he adds exceptions like the New York Times.

At the same time, Lorenz and Cobb note the financial costs in fighting Trump for smaller outlets. 

Next, Harper's facilitator asks the four about AI. Lorenz, especially, notes that, by cutting entry-level journalism jobs, it may raise the barrier to entry even higher, even as the type of people Cobb references will double down on AI slop.

Then, we get to the future. Shafer rightly, in line with what I have long thought, calls out print media for fucking up for decades:

The newspaper industry, again and again, has flubbed its chance to propel itself into the future. This started in the years following World War II, when newspaper readers increasingly turned to television. In the mid-Seventies, the media critic for the Los Angeles Times, David Shaw, wrote a big page-one story about how the thing that you’re holding in your hands is an endangered species. Newspaper publishers and editors were all aware that papers were losing their moxie. 

In one of his shareholder letters in the early Nineties, Warren Buffett said something to the effect of: “I love the newspaper business. I’ve been a great investor in Buffalo News and the Washington Post. But these properties are not delivering the return on investment they once did.” This was before the web. He’s not saying newspapers are dying because of the web. He’s saying that other transformations, including greater consumer choice, were already taking place. 

The newspaper industry has had warning for seventy-five-plus years that an end is coming and that it either needs to create, innovate, and discover or step aside. When you look at what happened to newspapers in the web era, just about all of them got it wrong. 

The incumbent media is not always the best vehicle to propel journalism into the future. The future is going to require innovation and ideas that we’re not privy to in this conversation. It’s going to require people finding the ability to attract audiences, hold on to them, and give them some value that they didn’t have before.

Amen.

The other three? They strike me as way too optimistic about new media in forms such as Substack. Frankly, I think they're engaging in some form of availability bias or similar. They see people they know, who have abandoned legacy or semi-legacy, print media, or who have like them, started new outlets on their own, but only after they built up credibility and audience at a legacy or semi-legacy site, and think, "that's easy."

It is true that new media for targeted audiences, mentioned especially by Cobb, is growing. But, general-audience new media that's trustworthy? Not really. 

Yes, CNHI actually does sell newspapers

 I guess that the Retirement System of Alabama has enough asset diversity, and has seen its other assets grow enough, that it can sell individual newspapers at something at least approaching today's market values and let the rest of the chain mark to market on its asset value.

Anyway, last year, per a Google for other reasons, the main reason being to wonder if CNHI was still doing its mandatory quarterly furloughs, last year it sold 10 newspapers to Carpenter Media. These were in its heartland — Alabama, Georgia and one Mississippi.

Carpenter itself is "interesting," per Poynter, which notes its apparent "Chainsaw Al" type operations, which make it currently the sixth-largest US newspaper chain by number of papers. In addition, its acquisition of Black Press, besides US papers, gave it a massive Canadian presence in Alberta and British Columbia. More on that acquisition from the Seattle Times.

Per its own website, their papers include a pair of semiweeklies that I had applied to, as ME, a year ago. They made their acquisition just months after I made the first round of cuts but didn't get the job. Per this longform piece, and per the Times, it's probably good I didn't. 

What is UP with newspapers wanting a job application?

 As in job application in addition to a resume for something like an ME position?

Look, if you're hiring a receptionist, or a newspaper delivery carrier, I get it.

But, for something like an ME spot, especially at what appears to be two different semi-weeklies combined, where the ME is managing reporters? Come on.

Yes, I've only run across it twice in two years, but it's stll irksome.

Both were in Aridzona.

The first literally wanted a paper application, like going to work for Walgreens, as I've noted before. And, they only wanted it after initial interview. I refused, because I could already tell they were doing a mix of lowballing without specific numbers and slow-walking giving me numbers, on financials.

The second, recently? It was online, so there is that. But, it wanted references and all that jazz before an initial interview, or before even indicating you might make the cut for an initial interview. I didn't even get to the part about where they might ask me about my academic background, including dates of attendance, which is why you don't fill out such things.

Hard pass and I stopped completing it on page 2. 

I don't know how good or bad they are overall, but actually, I kind of do.

I applied long long ago at their flagship, then a seven-day daily in print. Copy editor position. I know that means nights. I also know that means one or both weekend nights. 

I still thought that I might have a five-day straight workweek and a "weekend" of some sort, as I had already applied a year or two prior for a copy desk slot at a similar-size paper here in Tex-ass.

Nope!

Five days scattered throughout the week.

Worse?

Could change from week to week.

Fuck that shit, and I'll name a name — Prescott. (I won't say which one I applied to this time.) Pay was also a wash after I allowed for cost of living differences.

I see the parent company, which I didn't know back then, has partner ownership with Wick on a couple of papers. Wick about whom I've written more than once before.

That's the third strike and you're out and I'm out of there before going there, I'm sure. It's been a full week since I emailed my resume and no response. That said, given that there's a reporter opening in Prescott, almost brand new?