Honey, They Shrunk the Book Review Section … Again

The downsizing of America’s newspaper book coverage continues. The Philadelphia Inquirer recently pared its Sunday book coverage to one page of reviews included in the newspaper’s arts and entertainment section. This is just the most recent in a series of reductions, according to Frank Wilson, who has edited the Inquirer’s book section since October 2000. At that time, Wilson told BTW, the book section was reduced from a six-page stand-alone section to a four-page stand-alone section. In February 2001, it was cut to two pages in the arts and entertainment section. And, as of March 3, 2002, one page.

In a March 13 piece in the independent Philadelphia Weekly, Jonathan Valania writes that "sources close to the Inquirer say the book review section was gutted in response to corporate parent Knight Ridder’s demand that the paper immediately reduce annual newsprint costs by $500,000. Reportedly, the Inquirer responded with a counter-offer to reduce newsprint costs by $350,000, which Knight Ridder agreed to."

Although the Inquirer’s executive editor Walker Lundy did not respond to BTW’s calls, the published circulation numbers tell a stark story. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulation, the Inquirer’s daily circulation dropped 8.8 percent for the six-month period ending September 30, 2001, placing it second in decline among the nation’s 50 biggest newspapers. Since 1990, Inquirer circulation has plunged almost 30 percent to 365,154. Some of Valania’s sources at the Inquirer attributed circulation losses to cutbacks in the circulation department, an increase in the home delivery price, the combining of three local Pennsylvania sections into one, deadline changes affecting the reporting of late sports scores, and drastic reductions in newsroom staff.

Ann Gordon, deputy managing editor of the Inquirer and a proponent of extensive book coverage, noted in the Philadelphia Weekly article that "our hope is that when the recession lifts, we can find more room for things like books." She also said in the piece that the decisions to cut newspaper content were made in Philadelphia and disagreed with reports that Knight Ridder demanded a reduction in the newsprint costs. According to the Inquirer’s Wilson, Gordon has also recently confirmed to staff that the paper will continue to run as many reviews and features about books as possible and will not substitute syndicated, or "off the wire," reviews.

However, Knight Ridder, the second-largest newspaper publisher in the United States, with ownership of 32 daily papers and 58 regional Web sites, has been criticized for giving "greater priority" to higher profit margins than to journalistic quality. That comment, made by Jay Harris, who resigned from Knight Ridder’s San Jose Mercury News in March, was included in a November 7, 2001, article by Dave Shaw in the Los Angeles Times, reporting on Walker Lundy’s unexpected appointment to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Lundy was replacing popular editor Robert J. Rosenthal, a 22-year Inquirer veteran, who said he was leaving over longstanding disagreements with publisher Bob Hall about strategies for increasing readership. Rosenthal was the second top Knight Ridder editor to leave since the company announced a 10 percent staff reduction in 2001. In July 2001, Martin Baron of the Knight Ridder-owned Miami Herald left as executive editor to become editor of the Boston Globe.

While in his previous position at the Knight Ridder-owned Pioneer Press in St. Paul, Lundy also oversaw the cutting of its book section. David Unowsky, owner of Ruminator Books of St. Paul and Minneapolis, pointed to the removal of Pioneer Press’s primary book critic, Mary Ann Grossmann, after "40 years covering books," adding that "she was very much a part of the book community." In an interview with BTW, Grossmann stated firmly that the Pioneer Press and Lundy were quite generous with her early retirement deal and she is now given much latitude in covering books as a contributor with full office support.

Unowsky describes the current book coverage in the Pioneer Press as consisting of many wire service reviews, greatly diminishing local angles to the paper’s book and author coverage. In the Twin City’s other major daily, the Star Tribune, owned by the McClatchy Company, Unowsky said that book coverage has increased.

For booksellers in Philadelphia, any decrease in book coverage can affect readers negatively. Michael Fox, owner of the 51-year-old Joseph Fox Bookshop, said, "I think it’s a travesty that we are one of the largest cities in the country, with people who read news and who like print media … of which books are the highest form," Fox told BTW, "and we are losing book review space."

Fox noted that his store has recently expanded, with 30 to 40 "big events" planned a year. "We are advertising in the weekly free papers. There isn’t a focused book section in the Inquirer and [advertising costs] are more expensive. Without a stand alone book section, [our ads] won’t attract enough attention." Book features are helpful to sales, he said, "We have noticed in the past that whenever the Inquirer likes a book -- it has a boost in sales," citing Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress.

Ruminator’s Unowsky posited that "the less information people have about books [through book reviews or features stories], the more bestsellers we will sell rather than the more interesting titles. But that’s not based on empirical evidence."

"Why wouldn’t a newspaper want to cater to people who read?" Wilson of the Inquirer mused. Then, taking a broad view of the situation, he noted the necessity for newspaper companies to answer to their investors and to seek maximum profitability.

He noted to BTW: "But whatever the business decisions are -- you can bet the house that the people in the newsroom aren’t going to like them. I’d be worried about a newsroom where everybody’s happy. But things here are looking up. We are continuing to publish eight reviews a week, from Sunday through Thursday. The reviews are shorter but still interesting. Even though we have less space, we will continue to offer wide and deep coverage. These are like government cuts -- once something is cut, you don’t expect to get it restored…. Only if the literary community makes their wishes felt. It’s about time the people who care about the life of the mind stood up and made noise."

Standing up and making noise was exactly what readers of the San Francisco Chronicle did last spring when that paper cut its book section. "The response was furious," Chronicle book critic David Kipen noted in the Philadelphia Weekly article.

"The paper received more than 500 e-mails complaining about the move, there were canceled subscriptions, and the local literary community was up in arms." On October 7, the headline of a box on the front page of the Chronicle signed by Executive Editor Phil Bronstein read, "Okay, we blew it, " and he went on to announce the restoration of the book section. (For more on this subject, click here.)

In the Philadelphia Weekly article, Kipen spoke forcefully about maintaining book coverage. He called the Inquirer’s cuts a "dereliction of a newspaper’s duty to foster intellectual curiosity of the city it serves." In his remarks at the National Book Critics Circle awards in New York City on March 11, he said, "Since we gathered here a year ago, shortsighted management has gutted newspaper book coverage in at least the following cities: Portland, San Jose, Boston, Philadelphia … and San Francisco. In San Francisco, only a spontaneous outpouring of public support succeeded, after six long months, in making our book section whole again. Some of you contributed to that outpouring with letters, with e-mails, even with the occasional deeply appreciated advertising buy. Please, please do as much for the other endangered regional book review outlets around the country…. If you don’t want to look up here some year soon and see 24 of Amazon’s Top 500 Customer Reviewers, please find a way to help." -- Nomi Schwartz