By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:30 AM

There's more uncertainty this morning for the journalists who work at the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News and San Jose Mercury News, along with nine other papers.

Knight Ridder is selling them, but McClatchy doesn't want them. The McClatchy chain is going to turn around and sell them to someone else. So they are, for the moment, orphans.

This is a sadly symbolic moment in the history of newspapers, with the once-proud Knight Ridder outfit bailing out of the biz under pressure from a major shareholder, having presided over the decline of a number of papers, but particularly the Inquirer, which was once a shining jewel under the editorship of Gene Roberts in the 1970s and 1980s.

There is a terrific piece by Michael Shapiro in Columbia Journalism Review on all the twists and turns and failed strategies to restore the Inky to its former luster in recent years. It happens to include a comment I published in 2001 from Knight Ridder spokesman Polk Laffoon IV: "Our definition of what is good journalism here has evolved from the time Gene Roberts was editing The Philadelphia Inquirer. We put a lot of emphasis on local news and useful or service-oriented features and news that readers tell us over and over that they want . . . health and nutrition, personal finance, personal technology."

Well, that didn't work. Neither did having more suburban zones, having fewer suburban zones, cutting foreign bureaus, concentrating on regional stories, and a bunch of other schemes. Even now, with the Inquirer having eliminated 75 editorial jobs, 15 percent of the newsroom, Editor Amanda Bennett has come up with a reinvention plan that involves ignoring daily stories to which the Inquirer can't add anything in favor of smarter and sharper analysis pieces and deep narratives, as well as breaking more stories on the Web. Unfortunately, much of the staff views this as the paper wanting everything -- fewer reporters doing more work and writing more online stuff that takes away from the supposedly smarter print pieces -- with the risk that it ends up with nothing, or at least no significant journalistic improvement.

And what if the new owner, whoever that is, believes the way to go is to cut even more jobs? That seems to have been the Tony Ridder strategy until now, and look what it's produced. Even if you buy the notion that the Inquirer's profit margins, said to be in the 15 to 17 percent range, were inadequate in an age when Wall Street demands 25 percent or more from this aging business, is slashing staff -- and, inevitably, quality -- the way to go? Isn't that a vicious cycle?

(I'm well aware, as I mentioned yesterday, that The Washington Post is about to reduce its newsroom by 10 percent with the second early retirement program in just over two years, and I hope that won't hurt the editorial product too badly, since we do have a very large staff. Clearly, it will hurt somewhat, no question about it, especially since some of the most talented and employable folks tend to take these buyouts.)

At a time when many people, including those in my profession, are wondering how newspapers can stay relevant, the uncertain fate of fine papers like the Inquirer and the Merc is really cause for concern, and downright depressing.

"The decision to sell 12 newspapers drew immediate criticism from some journalists," reports the New York Times . "James M. Naughton, a former executive editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, said he was dismayed that McClatchy was putting 'growth markets ahead of community responsibility. McClatchy's reputation would be enhanced by retaining newspapers which may not produce margins as high as McClatchy historically has produced but which are vital to their communities,' he said."

The Mercury News has the outgoing boss's reaction:

"Tony Ridder, chairman and chief executive officer of Knight Ridder, spent the past several weeks crafting the best deal he could to sell his company. And he feels terrible about it.

"Forced by dissident shareholders in November to offer the company for sale, Ridder found what looked like a good deal for the Knight Ridder family of 32 papers -- a sale to McClatchy of Sacramento. But it has turned into what Ridder sees as the shocking abandonment of 12 of them."

Rem Rieder , editor of American Journalism Review, says McClatchy is the best of the available suitors, but that for the 12 papers left out, "the agony continues.

"A group of Knight Ridder alumni led by former Philadelphia Inquirer Executive Editor and Poynter Institute President James M. Naughton called on McClatchy to rethink its plan to shed the papers. Let's hope it does.

"But even if it doesn't, this endgame is certainly better than the alternatives. The worst would be seeing all of Knight Ridder's papers in the hands of private-equity outfits that care not at all about journalism's public service component. The result would have been slashing and burning on a scale that would make Tony Ridder look like Gene Roberts."

McClatchy will keep the highly respected K-R Washington bureau, which will merge with the chain's own Beltway reporters. Details here .

Editor & Publisher explores The Post buyout plan, with this comment from a union leader:

"'One concern is that the fewer of us there are, the harder it is to accomplish the core mission of reporting and writing the tough, accountability story,' said Rick Weiss, co-chair of the Post's unit of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, which represents about 600 of the paper's 800 newsroom staffers. 'It is going to have a negative impact on the quantity and quality of journalism we can do.' "

Lots of maneuvering yesterday over that Russ Feingold resolution:

"Senate Democrats refused to allow a vote yesterday on a proposal by one of their own to censure President Bush for his warrantless terrorist-surveillance program. . . . Majority Leader Bill Frist dismissed the proposal as 'political gamesmanship' and said that if the Senate was going to consider such a serious sanction, he wanted an immediate vote on the matter, which the Democrats would not permit," says the Washington Times .

The lefty bloggers love the Feingold move. McJoan at Daily Kos :

"One of the potential benefits to the Feingold Censure Resolution, besides standing up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and our system of government (like anyone in the DC establishment [sorry for the offense to DC citizens] actually cares about that), is an unintentional one -- it will expose the hypocrites and phonies in the DC establishment.

" 'The Rule of Law! The Rule of Law!' How many time have we heard politicians, DC pundits, and partisans pontificating on the 'Rule of Law' and restoring 'Honor and Dignity to the White House'? We know from too many of their actions that they are mendacious hypocrites and sanctimonious suck-ups. And the biggest one of all? Media hero John McCain. What do you think McCain will say about Feingold's resolution?"

Jeralyn Merritt of Talk Left: "Great move by Feingold. I'm against wasting time and energy on a doomed impeachment mission. The censure motion will continue to heap bad press on Bush and his autocratical presidency. More and more Republicans will fear being aligned with him in 2006. It might even sway some voters."

But Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush plays the terror card and turns the tables:

"Given that the only possible beneficiaries of such an action are the terrorist enemies of the United States, I believe that we should urge the Senate to censure Senator Feingold for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I would ask for his expulsion from the Senate, but as that requires a 2/3 vote its a non-starter -- the Democrats, for whom political power is the be-all and end-all of existence, simply would not vote to harm one of their own. Censure, though, only takes a majority vote. There are 55 Republican Senators, and even a few Democratic Senators who haven't driven off the anti-war cliff.

"It is way past time that we started holding Democrats accountable for their actions. For too long they have been able to slander President Bush, the Bush Administration, the American military and our allies in the War on Terrorism with no consequences for their destructive actions. How many people are dead today because the Democrats have chosen to use the war as a partisan political issue? How many more will die in the future because of it?

"Every time a senior Democrats gets up in public and calls for an immediate withdrawal, or accuses American soldiers of abuses, or slanders the motives and statements of President Bush, it encourages the enemy."

Uh, I wonder how many Republicans wondered about the impact on the enemy when Clinton was being impeached?

Can I just grumble a little about this USA Today /CNN poll?

"President Bush's 'approval rating' has sunk to a new low according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll released Monday.

"The latest results show only 36% of those polled saying they 'approve' of the way Bush is handling his job. Bush's previous low was 37%, set last November.

"Sixty percent of those polled said they 'disapprove' of Bush's performance. That matches an all-time worst rating hit last November and again two weeks ago."

Bush is at a new low compared to USA's last poll. CBS has Bush at a new low compared to the last CBS poll. Etc., etc. All true, but they give the collective impression that Bush is sinking week to week. Why do they only compared figures to their own past surveys, when they're fully aware of the others?

This is less than shocking for anyone who has followed the career of George Clooney , but the Oscar winner is using the L-word again:

"I am a liberal. And I make no apologies for it. Hell, I'm proud of it.

"Too many people run away from the label. They whisper it like you'd whisper 'I'm a Nazi.' Like it's dirty word. But turn away from saying 'I'm a liberal' and it's like you're turning away from saying that blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, that women should be able to vote and get paid the same as a man, that McCarthy was wrong, that Vietnam was a mistake. And that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11.

"This is an incredibly polarized time (wonder how that happened?). But I find that, more and more, people are trying to find things we can agree on. And, for me, one of the things we absolutely need to agree on is the idea that we're all allowed to question authority. We have to agree that it's not unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable and to speak out.

"That's one of the things that drew me to making a film about [Edward R.] Murrow. When you hear Murrow say, 'We mustn't confuse dissent with disloyalty' and 'We can't defend freedom at home by deserting it at home,' it's like he's commenting on today's headlines.

"The fear of been criticized can be paralyzing. Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was [expletive]. Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, 'We were misled.' It makes me want to shout, '[Choice expletive here], you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic.' "

So Sandra Day O'Connor says we could be headed for a "dictatorship" if Republicans keep attacking the judiciary and only NPR's Nina Totenberg who was there at Georgetown U.--not exactly a stealth locale) and MS's Keith Olbermann seem to care? The blogosphere is demanding an explanation.

"The bloggers were right, of course," says Slate's Jack Shafer . "A retired justice needn't predict the end of democracy to make news. All she has to do is burp. So, why didn't the U.S. press react more strongly to her comments?

"Obviously, the media should have. The press has its excuses. It doesn't like to form a pack to chase somebody else's story -- until it's damn good and ready. The press is also lazy about breaking news on Friday -- and doubly lazy about picking up a radio story. Your average reporter (and average media) has better things to think about on Friday than work. But if you assume that the press gave the O'Connor story a bye because they're part of the Bush's royal court, you're wrong."

Salon's Walter Shapiro uses that GOP get-together to ruminate on "the Republican fear and loathing of Hillary Clinton in the White House. The New York senator inspires a level of demonology so intense that you could probably have gotten the GOP delegates in Memphis to believe that she wants to model her presidency after the regime of Pol Pot.

"This brings us to the Hillary Paradox. Almost all the doubts that I hear about her political prospects come from downcast Democrats, who are convinced that she will romp to the 2008 nomination and then prove unelectable in November. Republicans, in contrast, seem almost fatalistic in their conviction that she would be a formidable foe, which is why they are so eager to find a champion who could unite the GOP in holy war to smite the Clintonian infidels. Never in modern political history can I recall a time when both parties were equally petrified that the same person (Hillary Clinton) might win a presidential nomination.

"McCain is the face card in the Republican deck. His only potential rival for that honor, Rudy Giuliani, did not deign to come to Memphis. While Giuliani polls well, the former New York mayor will have a swell time explaining to social conservatives why he moved in with a gay couple when his then wife kicked him out of Gracie Mansion for philandering. But McCain offers the Republican Party the political version of that classic hold-up question: 'Your money or your life?' The Arizona maverick voted against most of the Bush tax cuts on the grounds that they were unaffordable, but still embodies the best chance that a GOP president can continue to live in the White House."

And it's ultimately all about winning, isn't it?