Should I stay or should I go?

The resignation of Steven A. Smith as editor of The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Wash. last week doubtless got other top newsroom editors asking whether leaving was the best course while firming up the resolve of others to stay. Smith, whose newsroom faced major layoffs, said he left to free his voice and to look for other ways to fight for journalism. One of his top deputies also resigned, saying she had lost heart.

Roger Plothow, editor and publisher of the Post Register in Idaho Falls, offered one response—urging top editors to stay because their talents are needed more than ever in newsrooms. Plothow may have meant well, but I thought his response offered a “one-size” solution to a resignation question that has more than one answer—an answer that, as Smith said last week, “is always personal.”

I want to examine a couple of phrases that Plothow used (for context, read the full post here)—“the good fight” and “easy way out.” We use them a lot in different contexts, but I’m not sure we agree on what they mean when we talk about today’s newsrooms and traditional news organizations.

1. Plothow urged editors to stay in the newsroom “to fight the good fight.”

The “good fight,” I think, is for the pre-digital values of journalism that will help citizens understand their world in the digital era. It is not necessarily for all of journalism of the late 20th century. Some news organizations may be worth fighting for, but the good fight most certainly not is for news organizations that want to cut themselves out of the future.

When I hear the phrase, I think of all the editors who steadfastly fought a version of “the good fight” that helped lead the news industry to its current state. I am talking about those who ignored or resisted the Internet well into this decade, those who scoffed at efforts to make journalism more relevant (remember how the traditionalists pounded civic journalism in the 1990’s?), those who simply rejected change out of hand as bad for journalism they know, love and recognize.

Hindsight is 20-20 and other factors have brought the industry low. But it’s impossible for me to hear the phrase “good fight” without asking “whose good fight?” and “which one?” In one high-profile case, John Carroll and Dean Baquet epitomized the “good fight” during their tenures at The Los Angeles Times—They fought for staff numbers they wanted to produce prize-winning national journalism. But they arguably failed to pay enough attention to fundamentals (local news) and innovations (the Web) that might have prolonged the tenures of the journalists who lost their jobs this summer. Whose “good fight” was that?

2. Plothow’s letter fails to recognize that the “good fight” is taking place outside newsrooms as well as inside them. Walking away from the newsroom does not mean walking away from the “good fight” for journalism. The “good fight” is to deliver important and relevant news and information to citizens and their communities. That is happening all over the world and all over the Web. The idea that news will come only from traditional newsrooms is an arrogance we cannot afford. That is not to say print newsroom have not and are not still important sources. But the model is evolving. Many experiments are in play. Many people are taking risks. Journalists and news organizations should be part of this, and many journalists who have left their newsrooms are. News organizations that favor draconian cuts for short-term profitability risk taking themselves out of the future news game.

The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation has recognized this by shifting considerable funding to programs and individuals that stress innovation in gathering and delivering news and information. The Knight News Challenge and the Knight Community Information Challenge recognize that individual innovators and entrepreneurs are a likely (or perhaps more likely) than a hunkered-down, slow-to-change news industry to serve critical information needs in a democratic society.

That doesn’t mean everyone should leave. I applaud the many newspaper editors who are pushing to innovate quickly across platforms—even when they take grief from all sides for doing so.

3. Plothow says: “In a way, resignation is the easy way out.” Easy? It is never easy to acknowledge that you can no longer contribute to an organization you love.

Here’s my experience: I left The Oregonian in 2003 after 19 years. (Economic problems were just beginning, buyouts had not been considered so there was no pressure to help the organization financially.) I simply no longer felt I could contribute as significantly to the journalism that newsroom was producing as I had in the past. I needed to contribute in a different way, in a different place. I left behind a great news organization and people I loved. Easy? It might have been easier to stay in my comfort zone, collect my six-figure salary, build my job seniority, enjoy the gorgeous Pacific Northwest and hope that my motivation returned. But what about my colleagues who would have to dig deeper because I was contributing less? What about the editors who were ready to do my job better than I could? Easy to leave? No. But it was fair and right.

Carla Savalli, the Spokesman assistant managing editor who resigned shortly after Smith last week, expressed a similar loss of passion following the latest cuts (about 25 percent of the newsroom staff for a total of 50 percent since 2000). Savalli had led many of the newsroom’s innovation efforts that were part of a push to develop new revenue streams that would save journalists’ jobs. In an interview with Columbia Journalism Review., Savalli said:

“I didn’t resign to send a message. I resigned because it was the right time given the volatility of the industry and of the cuts in this newsroom. It’s a devastating cut and I didn’t feel like I had as much heart as I used to to keep going.”

I don’t assume Smith or Savalli or any other editor is taking the “easy way out.” And there is no shame for any editor (or any journalist for that matter) who does not feel he can lead to step away and make room for someone who will bring more passion to the task.

In 2007, Eric Newton, vice president/journalism programs for the Knight Foundation, offered this advice to journalists in his introduction to ”News, Improved,” a book I coauthored with Tim Porter:

“If you are a good journalist, stuck at a news organization that doesn’t seem to believe in its own future, what should you do? Leave? Yes, actually. If reasonable efforts - such as those described in this book - are not being tried, train yourself as best you can and go. The 20th century killed 1,000 daily newspaper newsrooms and 1,000 radio newsrooms. Media evolution doesn’t favor the big or strong. It favors the nimble. Be nimble.”

Newton was talking about professional development for journalists. Today, I would apply his words to larger questions that newsrooms and their leaders face. Here are questions I would ask myself:

1. Is the ownership of my organization looking forward, investing in the future? Can I see this in an R&D budget, in staff time devoted to innovations, in rewards for successful new ideas?

2. As a leader, am I moving the organization forward in spite of the business reality my organization faces? Am I a skilled enough leader or am I willing to learn to be one? Am I open to innovation or am I willing to be more open?

3. Can I bring passion to the job every day and move my newsroom into the future with fewer staff and other resources?

I hope as many committed journalists as possible stay in newsrooms and bring the best values of yesterday’s journalism into day’s world. I hope your answers are: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes.

If not? You can find better places to “fight the good fight” for journalism.

Should you (not the other guy) stay or should you go? What factors do you (not the other guy) consider in making this choice? Please share your ideas in the comments.

Update: David Westphal, who recently left McClatchy for USC, offers his take on this topic in post at OJR.

Westphal asks:

“Do newspaper editors have a special obligation to stay in their depleted newsrooms and continue the fight, even as staff cuts threaten to shrink legacy news-gathering operations? Or will newspapers and their Web sites be better served by new leadership that’s less wedded to the past and more inclined to see the future as hopeful?”

Here’s the full post.