Updated: Get A Life, Hugh

Update: via Hugh:

(Small update: Apologies to Dan Riehl for misspelling his name, but not for calling him on the sloppy read he made of my original post, or on his unfamiliarity with E.B. White, or on his failure to grasp that those of us that love newspapers don't have to stand by and cheer when they do stupid, stupid things.  It is possible for papers to thrive in an online world, just like the WSJ.com is proving.  But not by exiling your best talent, especially the talent with a national reach that brings attention from across the country to your paper's online edition.  See Dave Barry above.)

Apology accepted. I've no desire to see this devolve or even continue. There's a real war to go read up on. I am quite familiar with White and comfortable with what I've maintained. The WSJ is irrelevant to this entire conversation, excepting that it helps make my point. What local community exactly is it WSJ.com is tasked with serving to attract revenue? That's rhetorical, of course. Not every newspaper can be global in reach and I've no reason to suggest they try. As for Barry, there's nothing there to counter anything I have said. "He" likes Lilek's column - great. Then this:

Sometimes I don't understand the newspaper business.

He'd be correct. The terrific irony here I haven't pointed out is that many of those now suggesting the Strib should capitalize on Lileks by going to the web, which requires a global reach, would be screaming about the lack of good old hometown news if all the papers did. Too many locals stink, or are dead, already. It isn't a new trend. For the Strib to survive it must have local readership and local advertising. If Lilek's or anyone's column's do not attract enough readership "within" that demographic, it becomes an imprudent expense. That does not mean that a national or global outlet wouldn't or shouldn't snap him up. I am advocating going forward as regards Lilek's and don't believe it is bad advice. I suspect there are some good old ink people at the Strib and other places who feel they are fighting for an institution they love, too - local newspapers. Going global, or to the Internet is in no way a fix for all of them. Not an avid reader, I am looking this as a businessperson, not a writer. I've seen no data to suggest the Strib is making a bad move. It isn't about Lilek's talent - it's about his talent's current market worth to a basically local newspaper. That's capitalism, folks. And that's all.

Pardon the McCain-ism, but when Hugh Hewitt links and writes:

Dan Reihl(sic) has a point --I just don't know what it is.

Evidently, neither business acumen, nor editing are among Hugh Hewitt's many skills. It's "Riehl," if you'd care to look. Call me anything you wish, but please don't misspell the name is something of an old media cliche, I believe.

Reihl(sic) betrays two things.

First, that he wasn't reading closely this morning, as I did not compare Lileks to White, but rather the Strib's reassignment of Lileks to a hypothertical(sic) reassignment of White by The New Yorker, followed by a couple of other hypothetical reassignments.

The only one betraying anything here, Hugh - is you. And, unfortunately, it appears to be due to your ignorance of many things, or your willingness to cast aside logic for a friend. That may be noble. But as you are a political media presence, it's a betrayal of the trust I assume someone on the Right out West places in you. As well, it's as (much) a betrayal of capitalism assuming you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

Suggesting The New Yorker re-assign White to, well, let's just quote you, to be clear:

Imagine The New Yorker asking E.B. White to manage the restaurant listings

The New Yorker's restaurant listings weren't their stock in trade. It isn't how they made a buck. The Strib makes money reporting local news, so they've taken one of their quality writers and asked him to do just that. Your comparison to White is totally off the mark. And if you can't comprehend that being pointed out, you're either dumb, or blinded by crony-ism, as I said.

You are, I assume, a media guy and a capitalist. Great! Take James Lileks, offer him double what the Strib pays him, give him a web site and sit back and rake in the bucks while he types up blog posts from his home. What the heck are you complaining about, my friend? Oh wait, that won't work? What? You might actually lose money on the deal? Well, hell, you can't have that. Better to try and thrust it onto the Strib because you don't like their politics and James dances better to your tune.

What the hell kind of free market capitalism is that? Hot Air is, in my estimation, the most successful new media effort on the Right in the last year. And I hope and trust Michelle and whomever else do quite well with it. But guess what? Roll it into the bottom line at the Strib and it wouldn't cause a burp from someone in their accounting department. Or do you really not get serious business at all.

You foolishly post:

Let's see.  Your circulation is crashing.  The value of your paper has plummeted.  Everyone in the industry recognizes that the the future is online, and most realize that the byline has become the brand and that writers with followings will be a crucial part of the rescue of the bottom line.

I see, Hugh. Let me translate that into business speak which, I appreciate you might not be able to understand. Next time up before the board the Strib folks say, hey, look at this. I know we're strapped right now, but, starting tomorrow, we are going to call out The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time.com, the Atlantic Monthly and, oh, only about half a million other medium and large media outlets already established, yet still stumbling and bumbling around losing money on the Internet. But, not to worry, we're putting the whole thing on James Lilek's back and old Hugh Hewitt assures us we'll be fine.

Good luck with that, Hugh - don't look for your advice to be invited back into the Board Room anytime soon.

This is the new media age, but far from all large and medium-sized companies are positioned to play that game. Where was the concern for your friend when you and some notable companions were most likely running the Strib down day after day. I doubt that did much for the advert dollars James Lileks ultimately collects in form of pay. That doesn't mean I don't agree with you re the Strib. But, geesh, you and, in a sense, Lileks himself cut the thing to shreds more than most. Now you want your readers to go begging back to them to save his same old job. Where's the dignity in that? More importantly, where's the conservatism or capitalism, because it looks more like some pathetic, whiny liberalism to me.

You should be celebrating, Hugh. You as much as anyone took the Strib head on, as I think you should have. Pardon the unintended consequences, but, congratulations, in a sense, you've won.

Finally, thanks to new media and blogs - I get to celebrate, as well. I may only be a second rate, or third tier blogger ... but I truly am enjoying the hell out of pointing out that one of new media's bright lights is either not really all that bright, or more interested in perpetuating old media-type crony-ism, than he is in standing up for what he has pretended to believe in for some time.

Sorry, Hugh, I genuinely have a great deal of respect for what you have accomplished. But on this one, in a word, you are wrong. And your comment toward me was flippant and rude, not something I am quick to overlook, no matter the source.

Comments

[ss]

Um, I don't think the disagreement has anything to do with whether the Strib is within its rights to can Lileks. We're all capitalists here. We're talking about intelligent asset management. A smart management would attempt to leverage Lileks' blogosphere knowledge and fanbase into ad dollars or subscription dollars. No? Rather than demote such an asset to janitorial duties or landscaping or beat reporting?

The outrage here is not simply fighting to defend a friend, but rather gob-smacked shock at the apparent foot-shooting stupidity of a newpaper's demoting its strongest internet personality in order to compete in the internet age. Your contrarianism here seems, well, dumb.

[Dan Riehl]

ss - See, I don't agree at all. As I pointed out in a comment somewhere else - the Internet is not the Strib's business. Just because the I is there, doesn't mean the Strib can capitalize on the opportunity. They need local advertising to survive. The local business people dont' care if someone half way around teh world is seeing their add copy. In all these protests, I've yet to see one person cite the percentage of Strib readership who reads on line "only." Hewitt is simplifying the argument until it has no real meaning whatsoever - as if there is this pot of gold simply waiting for the Strib to grab up and only because Lileks is good. That ignores so many of the greater ramifications, it's hardly worth entertaining as an idea, let alone a good one.

[jdm]

Good call, Dan. I'll admit that when I "arrived" here, I was nonplussed - perhaps even a teensy bit angered - but between this and the previous post on this topic, I'm convinced.

I don't know how many actions the Strib's new owners intend on taking to make the paper (more) profitable, but this phase of the plan to put columnists "on the street" seems somewhat shortsighted - for all concerned. Especially because I don't see how these writers will provide a coverage that will translate into more ad dollars. It may just be a way to get them to quit, but who knows?

BTW, I think you'll get off easy now that some lefty linked by Surber has done the obligatory snark-filled post about Lileks. From Surber's comments: "Save the trouble of going to that Nall person’s website. She REALLY doesn’t like Lileks’s "politics” or “self involvement” so she spends all this time telling us how these events affected her."

[ss]

Okay. Your point seems to be getting lost in the contrarian tone. Again, I don't think there's any hypocrisy or disingenuousness on the part of Hugh or anybody here. There's the honest issue of whether this is a bone-headed business move.

If there is a way to harness writing talent and a ready-made fanbase for money on the internet (or into increased paper subscriptions, or increased ad revenue) then the demotion of Lileks is a laughable waste of resources. But if nobody has really figured that out, then the Strib can hardly be blamed for not harnessing Lileks into a cash-making machine. So, a cooled-off version of the debate may be: Just how can publications make money on the internet? And is there, or can there be, money made off eyeballs passing through a newspaper's domain? Are eyeballs worth anything? Would adding a popular conservative voice to the Strib opinion page be worth anything in increased or retained subscriptions? Etc.?

Good questions.

[Martin]

Good job Mr. Riehl. For all you pork barons, if Lileks has such earning potential, why, praytell, has he not been hired away from the Strib yet?

[Jim Treacher]

"For all you pork barons, if Lileks has such earning potential, why, praytell, has he not been hired away from the Strib yet?"

Well, it's only been 12 hours...

[Dan Riehl]

Well, it's only been 12 hours..."

Personally, I'd like to see one of the msm on line sites bring him on if they think it's a good move.

[Martin]

I meant recruiting him before he got canned. It happens to talented people.

[Jim Treacher]

How do you know nobody did? Maybe he likes where he is. Er, was.

[Tom]

If Lileks was leftish, wouldn't his role have been seen by Hewitt types as the definition of useless old media?

Some smug guy, delighted with his easy upper-middle class life, filing a couple of hundred words a day, inserting his lefty views suttly into otherwise everyday observational humour - and getting well paid to do it, without ever coming in to the office and you know...working?

I like his blog and I guess his columns were cool - but this seems like the textbook example of the kind of work that no longer justifies a big salary, benefits, healthcare etc. The fact that his far better, far more popular, and much larger body of work was done for free, in his spare time, speaks volumes about how much his day job is truly valued at these days...

[Simon]

Good call Dan.