Washed It!

Newsweek, a 77-year-old magazine that once helped set the national news agenda, is linking its future with a startup website just two years in the making.

Three months after agreeing to buy the money-losing weekly for just $1, audio equipment magnate Sidney Harman has completed on-again, off-again negotiations to merge it with The Daily Beast.

It is not just a marriage between old and new media. Harman will also be getting as an editor for Newsweek Tina Brown, who led both Vanity Fair and The New Yorker before deciding to give Web publishing a try.

Brown said in a posting Thursday on The Daily Beast that the deal was settled Tuesday evening “with a coffee-mug toast between all parties.”

It will create a joint venture called The Newsweek Daily Beast Company. Brown, who was a co-founder of The Daily Beast, will be editor-in-chief.

Harman and Barry Diller, who backs The Daily Beast through his media conglomerate, IAC/InterActiveCorp., will serve as directors on the venture’s board.

Neither side disclosed how they will split up revenue that the company generates.

Although Newsweek has faced a steady decline in both readership and advertising revenue, print magazines still generally take in far more money than their Web-only counterparts.

Even so, the latest tie-up is just one of several instances lately in which Web and print publications have decided they can do better teaming up than remaining apart.

Another struggling but still prominent magazine, Forbes, bought out a Web operation called True/Slant over the summer. Like The Daily Beast, the site was also run by a print veteran, Lewis Dvorkin, who is now remaking Forbes as a more Web-centric company.

Even the staid New York Times is beginning to partner with local startups to expand its coverage at a time of shrinking resources, most recently striking a deal with the nonprofit Texas Tribune.

In the case of The Daily Beast and Newsweek, Brown wrote that it will give her site “the versatility of being able to develop ideas and investigations that require a different narrative pace suited to the medium of print.”

She added that “for Newsweek, The Daily Beast is a thriving front line of breaking news and commentary that will raise the profile of the magazine’s bylines and quicken the pace of a great magazine’s revival.”

Newsweek is certainly in need of a turnaround. The Washington Post Co., which had owned the weekly since 1961, put it up for sale back in May, conceding that it did not see a way to make the magazine profitable. It racked up $30 million in losses in 2009 and is on track to lose more money this year.

Since news of the sale, some of its most prominent talent, including columnist Fareed Zakaria and senior Washington correspondent Howard Fineman, have defected to other publications.

Brown pointed out some of The Daily Beast’s own brand-name contributors, who may be able to help shore up the magazine’s ranks. They include Howard Kurtz, The Washington Post’s former media columnist, and Peter Beinart, who came from The New Republic.

Harman, the 92-year-old founder of audio equipment company Harman International Industries Inc., said in a statement, “In an admittedly challenging time, this merger provides the ideal combination of established journalism authority and bright, bristling website savvy.”
Daily Beast, Newsweek reach deal to join

Jerry Brown returned to Sacramento on Thursday as California’s next governor, forging relationships and crunching numbers as he anticipates his first budget, which will set the tone for a new administration that he says will be characterized by his trademark frugality.

The former two-term governor has little time. He must present a spending plan within days of taking office in January, when the state will probably be grappling with a new deficit as well as with the new restrictions that voters placed on how revenue can be raised and used. Throughout his campaign, Brown offered few specifics on how he would balance the state’s books, focusing instead on an “exhaustive” collaborative process that he says will include all stakeholders, including labor unions and business.

The spending plan is typically sent to the printer in late December, meaning Brown won’t even be governor by the time his initial draft must be finished. Brown said his transition team is working with the staff at the state Department of Finance.

On Thursday, Brown met with the state budget director, Ana Matosantos. Addressing reporters, Brown described the meeting as “very sobering” and vowed to start working full-time on a budget after he returns from a weeklong vacation.

“I think the problems we face are as bad as anyone could imagine, and it’s going to take a lot of very tough decisions,” Brown said. “It’s very daunting. It’s certainly as bad as it’s ever been, and it’s going to take people in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party” to produce a viable budget.

He added: “The people of California, they’ll have a chance to see in great depth what it is we’re doing and what kind of money we have to do it and what the gap is. And it’s certainly considerable.”

By next Tuesday, Brown’s transition team will probably be sitting in on a key meeting that takes place at this time every year, when leading state economists come to Sacramento to offer revenue projections. The governor’s office uses those projections to come up with its own forecasting model, on which the proposed budget is based. One of the economists, Stephen Levy, director of the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto, said all the early signs suggest no major improvements.

“The budget will include some very difficult revenue numbers,” he said. “We’ll be back in the soup.”

Legislative leaders have estimated that the state will face a deficit of at least $12 billion.

Brown flew with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to Sacramento on Thursday from San Diego, where the two attended the funeral of a police officer. Later, Brown worked the halls of the Capitol, meeting with Matosantos, Assembly Speaker John P

The political center, where swing voters reside and compromise happens, is suddenly a much smaller part of the Washington landscape.

There were the usual kind words and olive branches extended on Wednesday. But nothing could hide the fact that the two parties have deep and abiding differences on nearly every issue facing Congress. The composition of the House and Senate may have changed, but not Washington: The place may be more polarized than ever.

That could make it exceedingly difficult to accomplish anything of great magnitude between now and the next presidential election in November 2012.

The clearest indication of the growing partisan gap was Tuesday’s rout of the Blue Dog caucus, a group of moderate and conservative Democrats who urged the party to adopt a more business-friendly and fiscally conservative agenda. Fewer than half of its 54 members will be returning next year after incumbents were ousted in Pennsylvania, Ohio and a few Democratic pockets of the Deep South. Their absence will likely push the 190 or so remaining House Democrats even further left.

On the Republican side, the victory of dozens of insurgents backed by the “tea party” movement means the emboldened GOP majority will be even more conservative and confrontational than the one that harried President Obama over the last two years.

These lawmakers, and the legion of activists who plan to monitor their performance, have called for drastic changes, including eliminating the Department of Education, privatizing parts of Social Security and repealing the healthcare law just now starting to take effect.

After the presidency, the most difficult job in Washington may soon fall to Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader who will likely be the next House speaker. He must balance an agenda that satisfies his fervent tea party caucus without scaring off the voters — politically independent, largely nonideological — who delivered the GOP its big win Tuesday.

It was something Newt Gingrich, the House speaker after the last big GOP landslide in 1994, failed to manage when he led a similar class of zealously partisan freshmen. President Clinton, who had to argue after the so-called Republican Revolution that he was still relevant, romped to reelection just two years later.

Extensive polling, including thousands of voter interviews conducted Tuesday, shows that neither party is well regarded. The election was the third in a row in which 20 or more House seats changed hands, a level of upheaval unseen in more than half a century; these days, voters seem willing to discard unwanted politicians like so much used tissue.

But that hasn’t stopped both sides from claiming to speak for a majority of Americans. A mandate is in the eye of the beholder, and Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, an online conservative network, seemed to speak for many when she suggested compromise was a good thing — so long as others were doing the compromising.

“We hope that rather than having the gridlock, that the House and Senate will work together to find a way to be responsible with our money again and the other side will move to the center,” Martin said. “Because our side is the center.”

Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who may soon be dueling each day on Capitol Hill, said much the same thing. Both nodded toward the notion of compromise, with qualification.

“We hope President Obama will now respect the will of the people, change course and commit to making the changes they are demanding,” Boehner said. “To the extent he is willing to do this, we are ready to work with him.”

Reid, fresh off reelection in Nevada, said “the time for politics is now over.” He then suggested Republicans “must take their responsibility to present bipartisan solutions more seriously. Simply saying ‘no’ will do nothing to create more jobs, support our middle class and strengthen our economy.”

None of which bodes well for a new era of comity and bipartisan cooperation.

“If you’re a betting person, I would bet on less rather than more being accomplished in Washington,” said Geoff Garin, a longtime Democratic strategist.

If politicians look to the people for guidance, as they presumably should, they are likely to come away confused.

Voters say they hate gridlock, but many also seemed to hate the prolific legislative output of the Obama administration and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Asked what lawmakers should make their top priority in the next Congress, nearly 4 in 10 said reducing the federal deficit. A like number said spending money to create jobs, a move that would increase the deficit. (Two in 10 said cutting taxes, which would also increase the debt.)

On a more fundamental level, voters sent similarly contradictory signals. Nearly 8 in 10 said in a Pew Research poll that lawmakers’ unwillingness to work together was a major problem. But in a subsequent survey, nearly half said they admired a politician who sticks to principle rather than compromising.

Clearly, voters are conflicted. More than ever, they have a government in Washington to match their mood.

mark.barabak@latimes.com

kathleen.hennessey@latimes.com
Midterm election’s big loser is the political center

So long, “Sesame Street.” And probably “NewsHour,” “Antiques Roadshow,” “Nova,” “Masterpiece” and ” Frontline” too, at least for many Los Angeles TV viewers.

After months of fractious negotiations, KCET, the flagship public broadcasting station in the Los Angeles market for 40 years, abruptly announced Friday that it would exit the PBS network effective Jan. 1. The move, which caught PBS officials in Washington by surprise, marks the first time a major-market station has left the network and will make KCET the largest independent public TV station in the nation.

“This is not a decision we made lightly,” Al Jerome, the station’s president and chief executive, said in a statement.

“We have been in discussions with PBS for over three years about the need to address challenges that are unique to our market as well as our station.”

In a follow-up interview, Jerome said the station would assemble its own programming, a plan that would take roughly two years to implement fully. KCET is expected to keep airing locally produced public-affairs shows such as “SoCal Connected.” Last month it announced a new Sunday-night movie show hosted by KTLA entertainment reporter Sam Rubin. Jerome said the station was also exploring news, documentaries and other programming from providers in Japan, Canada and other countries as well as the Hollywood community.

But Jerome acknowledged that some longtime viewers face the immediate prospect of losing favorite, nationally recognized shows. “There are going to be some disruptions,” he said. According to Jerome, KCET would remain a nonprofit enterprise mostly reliant on funds from viewers and corporate donors; the station’s FCC license does not permit it to become a commercial, for-profit outlet supported entirely by the traditional 30-second spot.

Station officials have complained they could not afford to pay member dues that rocketed 40% after KCET in 2005 won a landmark series of grants from oil giant BP and other sources totaling $50 million for two series aimed at preschoolers. Those grants came with the stipulation the money could not be used for paying dues to PBS. But PBS has defended the dues structure as necessary to maintaining quality programming and argued KCET was asking for special treatment.

Talks aimed at ending the impasse have gone nowhere. The door is still open for KCET to remain tied to PBS through a proposed consortium with Southern California secondary public stations: Orange County’s KOCE as well as KVCR in San Bernardino and KLCS, which is licensed to the Los Angeles Unified School District. The group would share certain programming, fundraising and marketing functions to save money and operate more efficiently. But Jerome said KCET would still remain independent under that scenario. It’s also possible that the station and PBS could reach an 11th-hour settlement, but those hopes seem to be growing dimmer with each passing day.

Friday’s move left PBS officials scrambling. In a sign of how badly relations have frayed with the dissident station, a network spokeswoman was not aware that KCET was about to send out a news release announcing the split until a reporter called to ask about it.

“PBS was notified today of KCET’s intention to withdraw its membership,” PBS said in a statement. “At issue were KCET’s repeated requests that it be allowed to operate as a PBS member station without abiding by PBS policies and paying the corresponding dues.

“PBS’ goal is to have a financially stable service in the Los Angeles market,” the network added. “PBS fully supports the idea of a Southern California consortium of stations and continues discussion with KOCE, KVCR and KLCS, PBS’ additional stations serving the Los Angeles market.”

Their divorce could wind up being painful for both KCET and PBS — not to mention local viewers.

The station faces the challenge of trying to raise funds without invoking name brands such as “Sesame Street” and “Antiques Roadshow.” Such famous PBS series are frequently cited as reasons to donate during ubiquitous on-air pledge drives. Without such brands, KCET may find it much harder to persuade viewers to open their wallets, especially during a time of economic uncertainty and reduced corporate giving.

However, KCET’s prospects for viability could greatly improve if KCET secures funding from the federal government. In a statement released Friday by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which receives Congressional funding and distributes it to public media, KCET will still be eligible for federal monies as long as it is — as it plans to be — an FCC-licensed educational television station, providing noncommercial and general interest programming.

In the meantime, the loss of its largest West Coast station casts a dark cloud over the future of PBS, at a time when many TV analysts are already questioning the relevance of a federally mandated broadcasting entity that dates from the 1960s.

“PBS certainly does not play the essential role it once did in the nation’s media landscape,” Jeffrey McCall, a media professor at DePauw University wrote in an e-mail. “For years, PBS provided things that couldn’t be had from the traditional networks. Public affairs, educational programs, dance, fitness, crafts, kids shows, documentaries and all that were found on your local PBS affiliate and perhaps no place else.

“Now, with cable outlets, not to mention the Internet, the public doesn’t rely on PBS for such fare,” McCall added. “Those multichannel entities are rooted in corporate vision, but they only need a niche audience to make a go of it these days. Not to mention that PBS has taken on some of the corporate vision itself, with lengthy, enhanced underwriting announcements, corporate partnerships, etc.”

Now that KCET has taken the plunge as an independent station — PBS will have to write a new chapter for its network in Southern California.

Local attorney Gordon Bava, chairman of KCET’s board of directors, said in a statement: “While separating from the PBS mother ship is daunting, the potential of providing a media platform for the creative, scientific, and cultural communities of Southern California to create informative and entertaining non-commercial programming with a fresh perspective is very exciting.”

scott.collins@latimes.com
Los Angeles affiliate KCET is leaving the PBS network

Meg Whitman’s record-breaking spending in the race for governor has enabled her campaign to blanket California with more TV ads and mailers than any other in state history, while also tapping new technologies to further broaden her reach.

With nine weeks left until election day, Whitman has donated $104 million of her own money to the campaign, more than any other candidate in California history and within striking distance of the national record for a non-presidential contest, the $109 million spent by businessman Michael Bloomberg to secure a third term as mayor of New York City.

Those donations have allowed her to target her campaign mailings to the smallest subsets of voters and sort out which television shows are popular among independent voters. (It turns out they are big fans of “Bones,” the crime show rife with romantic tension, on which Whitman has aired ads.)

Dozens of outside consultants and a paid staff the size of some presidential campaigns run an operation that seems to be the living embodiment of Whitman’s book title: “The Power of Many.” After record amounts spent on television advertising, mail and ground organization, there has even been enough money left over to sponsor a youth soccer team.

“She has the money to do everything,” said Garry South, a Democratic consultant who ran Gray Davis‘ campaigns for governor, “and she is doing everything.”

The heart of the race is still to come, yet Whitman’s personal donations already represent more than twice the amount Arnold Schwarzenegger spent in the last gubernatorial election from all sources of money.

Her campaign spent $25 million on television over the summer, more than what Schwarzenegger spent on TV in his yearlong reelection effort. By the beginning of July, she had spent $7.5 million sending mail to voters, almost double Schwarzenegger’s 2006 tally and a figure that does not count the more recent flurry of mail against her November rival, Democrat Jerry Brown.

Overall, she has nearly tripled the previous California record of personal donations to a campaign, set in 1998 by Democratic businessman and gubernatorial candidate Al Checchi.

Still, for all the spending, polls show Whitman and Brown in a competitive race. Although her campaign points to the millions of dollars organized labor is pouring into the contest on Brown’s behalf, that spending pales in comparison to Whitman’s.

Whitman campaign officials say her personal donations were needed to introduce the former EBay chief and first-time candidate to California voters, to whom she was a mystery a year ago.

“We’re doing things much more aggressively than they’ve ever been done before,” said spokesman Tucker Bounds. “The frequency of the activity and the size of the political organization is an enormous investment, but we believe it will pay off on election day.”

In its ability to do more of everything, Whitman’s campaign most resembles that of President Obama, who was able to translate his immense fundraising operation into a deep use of traditional campaign tactics and a broad reach into new ones, including those harnessing the Internet for his political benefit.

Much attention has been drawn to Whitman’s television outlay, but her spending in less-visible political arenas is eye-opening as well.

Through June, Whitman had spent more than $1.2 million on polling and research, dolling out nearly $227,000 to two firms in June alone.

Democratic consultant Darry Sragow said a typical candidate might spend $300,000 on polling in the primary and a like sum in the general election. Whitman’s figures suggest a sharply different strategy than anything seen before.

“They know as much as anybody could know about the mind-set of the California electorate,” he said.

Allan Hoffenblum, a former Republican consultant who runs the Target Book, a nonpartisan compendium of political races, said Whitman was “doing stuff that is on the level of what an incumbent president would be doing running for reelection.”

Whitman’s research contributes to a detailed voter file that identifies voters by their issue interests and then targets them through an aggressive direct-mail program. Whitman’s mail effort, and her simultaneous television barrage, was devastating to her primary election rival, Steve Poizner. His campaign estimates she sent as many as 20 mailers to Republican homes in the last month of the campaign.

Whitman is now unloading on Brown, releasing ads and mail pieces almost weekly. According to the Brown campaign, Whitman’s ads showed up at least 170,000 times in state media markets from the primary through third week of August, even as multiple mailers were arriving at selected voters’ homes.

Whitman demonstrates the power of her money

It was the kind of phone call you might expect a worried mother to make.

Latice Sutton sounded concerned, confused and a bit embarrassed as she talked to the sheriff’s deputy, trying to figure out whether to make the 80-mile middle-of-the-night drive to the Malibu jail to pick up her 24-year-old daughter, Mitrice Richardson.

“It’s dark and she doesn’t have a car and I don’t want her wandering about,” Sutton said. “The only way I would come and get her is if she is going to be released tonight…. She’s not from that area and I would hate to wake up to a morning report: Girl lost somewhere with her head cut off.”