Randy Michaels: International Man of Mystery

So the late shift at the Chicago Tribune was putting the paper to bed in the newsroom last night when they were surprised by a guest visitor: Randy Michaels, chief operating officer of the Tribune. Michaels was leading a group of people on a tour. Apparently wishing to amuse the unidentified gawkers, the ex radio deejay decided to crack some jokes about his reporters and editors.

"Oh, look--they're just making up the news,'' he said, walking by one editor's desk. He told the group that the editorial staff were too "serious" and that "things will lighten up soon"—a reference that some took to refer to the impending layoff and buyouts.

Michaels, who has made only a few appearances in the newsroom, continued to lead his group around, wandering through graphics and finally leaving through metro. As he left, he was heard to say: "Why is it so quiet up here? You all need to be having more fun."

One copy editor had enough. She stood up and confronted Michaels. The Retch was given the following account of the brief clash, which left Michaels slinking sheepishly into the night:

One of my co-workers--who has volunteered to be laid off--happened to be sitting next to Michaels at the time. She brought up that a) we were working and b) 100 of us were going to be jobless next month. He made some crack about how it wouldn't be so bad.

When she continued to press the issue, bringing up such obscure facts as how it sucks to live without income and insurance, he basically made an exaggerated sad face and told her to cheer up.

What a jackass. What pomposity. What kind of reaction did he think he was going to get--especially when he waltzes through during production and acts like we're just objects of entertainment? It's all a joke to him.

As if that wasn't enough, the Retch also got another ring from Jenny Erin, the young Chicago Tribune reader who got into an Alice-in-Wonderland email exchange with Lee Abrams.

After the Retch posted her exchange, she got an email from Michaels, nee Benjamin Homel (is it not a little strange, by the way, that a newspaper company devoted to transparency has somebody with a fake name running it?)

Michaels/Homel, who folks have seen as one of the saner Zellots, showed his true colors. Who cares, he says, if the Tribune fires a couple of hundred journalists: "The fact is that we can hire as many great journalists as we like because almost all papers are letting them go," he tells her. Criticism is unwelcome: "Pointing out problems is not helpful."

There is a grand scheme behind Zell's pell mell job cuts. "Of course we have a plan. We just don't feel compelled to share it with every competitor." Umm, how about sharing with us "partners." Don't we get the chance to know what the fricking plan is?

He acknowledges that the LA Times continues making money in a sort of strange, damn-the-truth way: "The fact is that if it weren't for movie advertising, the LA Times would be unprofitable today." Isn't that like saying, if it weren't for drivers, the automobile industry would be bankrupt? The point is, we are profitable.

And, finally, he seems to be a pseudo intellectual, with the emphasis on pseudo: "It's not to late for you to become an unreasonable revolutionary and help us save print," he tells Jenny. Who responds with, "What is he, Emperor Palpatine? Jeez."

Finally, this post could not fail to comment upon two great Zell profiles. The first is by Allan Sloan, who has long dogged tax dodges involving the Tribune by the Chandlers and now by Zell. Sloan predicts the IRS will fry the Newsday deal. That's the one where Zell sold Newsday for $650 million, but paid no taxes. Huh?

The second article, Sam Zell's Deal from Hell, shows that Zell is, indeed, in over his head. Business Week's premise is that Sam has taken on too big a debt, and cannot pay it off without permanently damaging the Tribune papers. But Randy Michaels, to bring this full circle, has the quote of the day:

"An animal with his leg caught in a trap will chew it off…At the moment, we're doing some leg-chewing."

What Randy doesn't say is that most such animals later die.

Here's his exchange with our fair young reader. I have slightly altered the order to make it easier to follow:

Michaels, Randy to Jen
show details Jul 26 (3 days ago) Reply

Jim O'Shea sure did have it right. This is a revenue problem. Any idea where we can get an extra 500 million in revenue? If not, we are going to have to do what it takes to survive.

Did you know the Colonel McCormick cut the Tribune back to 83 reporters during the depression? Even with cuts, we will have the two largest local news gathering organizations in America with over 500 in the newsroom in Chicago and over 600 in LA. That is much larger than the staffs those papers had during the "golden age" of newspapers, before TV or the internet.

The afternoon papers are mostly gone. Morning papers are headed that way unless we change the business model. The fact is that we can hire as many great journalists as we like because almost all papers are letting them go.

I would be happy to hear any helpful suggestions you might have. I understand your frustration, but just complaining doesn't help. If it makes you feel better, that is something I guess. We have a business model to fix before I feel better.

All the best,
Randy Michaels

Jen to Randy
show details Jul 27 (2 days ago) Reply

Mr. Homel,

Here's a link to an article on Mr. O'Shea's remarks about the "business model" you're pursuing, made when you fired him earlier this year. You seem to have forgotten their general jist -- understandable, as you've fired so many people lately -- and I thought perhaps it would help to refresh your memory: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/business/media/22paper.html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin

(You know, memory loss can be a bad sign in people your age. You might try doing more crossword puzzles, my grandmother finds they really make a diff-- oh wait, have you gotten rid of those too?)

If he "sure did have it right," then why is it he's not there helping you right now?

<<>>

"The Colonel"? Are you thinking of the guy in the white suit who sells chicken wings? Our McCormick was just plain Colonel. And it's Depression, not depression. Maybe you folks should hire back a few copy editors to answer your fan mail.

But look, as a native Chicagoan, I think it's sweet you've tried to do a little reading on our city. Since you're interested in this stuff, here's your next reading assignment: Everything Mike Royko ever wrote.

<>

We both know you're not going to be hiring any journalists. (Unless they live in Bangalore, and you try to outsource reporting through there.) And we both know that any journalist with two brain cells to rub together will not be submitting a resume while you three are at the helm.

<>

What a coincidence -- I *do* have a few helpful suggestions, as it happens. Just say the word, and I'll gladly swing by the Trib tower to share them with you. And let me add, my apologies for
underestimating you. Here I had you pegged for the kind of aging coward who talks a big line about audiences, but has too delicate a constitution to actually grow a pair and face anyone he can't fire.

Gee, my bad.

All the best to you, too,

- Jen.

P.S. <>

Actually, you know what makes me feel better? : "Lee got bitch-slapped with a 2x4, methinks."
( http://www.tellzell.com/2008/07/lee-abrams-confronts-actual-reader.html )

Michaels, Randy to me
show details Jul 27 (2 days ago) Reply

You need to check your facts. Mr. O'Shea was not fired.

He's not here helping because it's obvious that the problem is revenue. That isn't much help. Pointing out problems is not helpful.

If you have solutions, send them. They would be far more welcome than your condescending criticism.

Michaels, Randy to Jen
show details Jul 26 (3 days ago) Reply

WP boss: Papers spend a lot of time covering their demise (http://www.observer.com/2008/media/katharine-second-begins-reign-washington-post)

New York Observer
"We never see Katie Couric doing a 20-minute segment on the evening news talking about the audience that the nightly news is losing," says Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth . "We write a little obsessively about our own industry, I think. But when you look at the real story with what's happening with newspapers, is there a seismic shift going on? Absolutely. Are ad revenues plummeting? Absolutely. But there is still a very good story. We still have a lot of readers, we still have great products and a lot of opportunity."

jen to Randy
show details Jul 27 (2 days ago) Reply

Funny you should choose to forward me that story --

1. The Washington Post Co. has been one of a few media companies to come up with forward-thinking strategies that don't just involve devaluing their product or relentlessly gutting staffs. They've diversified with other business ventures-- i.e. Kaplan-- and used that to help offset the transitional pains the newspaper industry is experiencing right now.

They've also done a pretty good job creating a visually appealing, user-friendly website, and setting it up so as to gain access to customers' demographic info. Plus, you know, it doesn't hurt that their company includes some folks who know what the fuck they're talking about when it comes to journalism.

2. A couple months ago, Josh Marshall gave a talk in which he mentioned that privately, network news people are talking about a five-year horizon for what they do. That they don't expect there to even be network nightly news shows beyond that.

So, you know, I can't read Katie Couric's mind any better than you can, but if they've already thrown in the towel, I'm not sure why they'd spend 20 minutes talking about it. They seldom spend that long on anything substantial these days, anyhow... which is part of the reason they're now facing that shortened horizon.

3. You can't have it both ways -- is the business model in such dire trouble that you have to do whatever it takes to survive? Or is all this talk about dying newspapers just a bunch of overblown, obsessive navel-gazing? Make up your mind. I don't even know what you hoped to
prove by forwarding that.

Michaels, Randy to me
show details Jul 27 (2 days ago) Reply

I intended to prove nothing. Your mind is apparently made up.

The Washington Post is the fine journal that suggested Sam Zell should be in jail for cuts and then fired 100 people.

Let's hope there are clearer thinkers working on the problem of reinventing newspapers.

Have a nice night Jen. I'm going back to work.

Jen to Randy
show details Jul 28 (1 day ago) Reply

<<>>

"Mr. O'Shea said repeatedly that he was forced out; other Times executives said he was fired."
"Mr. O'Shea argued in the memo that The Times had shown several times... that it could generate more revenue and higher profit by offering more, not less."

Check yours. I'm not a media person, that kind of garbage doesn't rattle me. You know he disagrees with what you're doing. And he's in good company.

<>

Do you expect me to believe you genuinely want or think you need advice from me? You just made those poor people at the Trib spend hundreds of hours coming up with plans, only to scrap them all.

It should be obvious from my original query that my mind *wasn't* made up. If unconvincing explanations have since driven me to read more on this subject, well, whose fault is that?

<>
*shrugs.* Okay, pal; you're the one who e-mailed me a quote from that fine journal's publisher.

Due credit: you clearly had quite a knack for taking media deregulation and running with it in past years. But the operative word is "past." You don't seem to have updated your own M.O. very much since then. You must realize that between technological advances and distinctive aspects of the newspaper business, you're facing a different kind of playing field.

A smart man once said, "Change is inevitable. Lead it." Other companies are blowing Tribune out of the water in that regard right now -- the Post and the NYT among them.

If you want to get away with calling others condescending or arrogant, you need to stop discarding perspectives that diverge from Sam Zell's or your own past precedent.

Michaels, Randy to me
show details 8:39 PM (23 hours ago) Reply

I am sometimes amused, sometimes sad when I read that we don't have a plan. Of course we have a plan. We just don't feel compelled to share it with every competitor.

I am happy to take advice from anyone who is constructive, and not just carping and bitching. You have indicated that you have ideas, and if that is true, then yes I am serious.

I am skeptical because your response is typical of the complainer group. You criticized my use of "Colonel McCormick" when Richard Norton Smith, historian and author of the book "The Colonel" uses it frequently starting on page 1. You lambasted me for not capitalizing "Depression" in an email.

I understand that you don't like what is happening to newspapers and at the Tribune in particular. I don't like it either. The fact is that if it weren't for movie advertising, the LA Times would be unprofitable today. Because of the SAG conflict, there is a de facto strike in progress with no movies being made. This does not portend well.

I did not sign up to shrink the newspaper, but plummeting profits require it. We will not cut as far as "The Colonel" did during the "Depression". (Now that I have conformed to your style reference perhaps you can react to the content and not the words I have capitalized or not.)

I appreciate your passion. I understand it and share it. If you have helpful suggestions, we would appreciate hearing them. We have a very tough job to do, but we intend to do it, even if it means that I won't be winning any popularity contests any time soon.

We ARE leading change. We can't make it 1978 again, but we can build a business model for print that will work in 2012. (By the way, if we could make it 1978, the LA Times would have 525 newsroom employees. It has over 700 after the recent cuts.) I'm sorry that the process makes
you, me, and a lot of other people uncomfortable. Change is like that. Reasonable people go along, and don't rock the boat. Change is brought about by unreasonable people who accomplish things that go against conventional thinking. It's not to late for you to become an unreasonable revolutionary and help us save print. Gannett and McClatchy (among others) aren't going to do it.

RM

Michaels, Randy to me
show details 8:37 PM (23 hours ago) Reply

PS: The NYT recently ran an article about the fact that they were running out of money. The post is barely profitable. Neither is blowing anything but shareholder value from a business perspective. I do not know upon what you base your subjective declaration, but it's not business related.

For newspapers to have a social mission, they need to be in business. We are on the first rung of Maslow's hierarchy in the print business.

Jen to Randy
show details 1:22 PM (8 hours ago) Reply

I never said you didn't have a plan. But what I'm seeing looks like a repeat of moves I've read about from your Jacor/Clear Channel days.

"The complainer group." What do you mean by that?

And "business perspective" can be subjective, too -- if you're only looking at shareholder value, fine; but I would argue that's hardly a comprehensive, forward-thinking perspective (at least from a newspaper industry standpoint) at this moment in time. Particularly for Tribune Co. As far as the platforms of tomorrow are concerned, I mean... if you compare competing news companies to the space race, the aforementioned guys are Sputnik and you seem more like, well,
sub-Saharan Africa.

<>

I wouldn't be so quick to write off McClatchy, if I were you -- they were smart enough to work with Verve Wireless, and they're far from perfect, but they haven't been tarnishing their own company image as publicly as Tribune has.

What is it you want from me, precisely, and more importantly: why?

Michaels, Randy to me
show details 1:50 PM (7 hours ago) Reply

You wrote a complaint note. Are you just complaining, or do you have ideas you'd like to share? Here is a quote from your email of 7/27. "What a coincidence -- I *do* have a few helpful suggestions, as it happens." If you are just complaining please know that your complaints have been registered. If you have ideas, what are they?

As for why, you are passionate, and I'll take help from anyone who is passionate about fixing the newspaper business.