‘Technology Review' Has Major Shakeup, Gets Mixed Notices

John Benditt’s arrival as the new editor of Technology Review, reported in the Summer 1997 issue of ScienceWriters, has been quickly followed by remarkably swift editorial changes and more than a few cries of outrage. Very nearly the entire editorial staff was notified that their positions were considered open, to which they could now re-apply—in competition with other applicants attracted by display ads in the Boston Globe and the New York Times. Responses to the event on the nasw-talk listserve were almost uniformly hostile, as was the fuse that set it off: an item in “TGIF,” a column by Alex Beam in the November 14 Boston Globe. His column attracted its own response a few days later in a letter to the editor from a staff member directly affected, also reprinted below. Finally, SW invited Benditt to make his case. It all follows:

Alex Beam’s column in the November 14 Boston Globe:

By way of proving that not everyone at MIT is a genius, the administration has made an awful hash of “reengineering” one of the jewels in the ‘Stute crown: the magazine Technology Review.

TR is what the alumni magazines at Harvard and Boston University dream of becoming—a real national magazine with more than 90,000 paid subscribers, half of whom have no connection with MIT. About two years ago it started generating some serious red ink, and the then-editor, former New York Times journalist Steven Marcus, urged the Institutchiks to hire a full-time publisher for TR.

Enter Bruce Journey, former New England advertising director for Fortune magazine. Within less than a year, Journey and Marcus weren’t seeing eye to eye; sayonara, Mr. Marcus. Not long after that managing editor Sandra Hackman found her job eliminated. Then came last Friday’s bloodbath: Everybody got fired. More precisely, two jobs were eliminated and everyone else was invited to reapply for their old jobs. One hitch, though. They’d be competing with the readers of The Boston Sunday Globe and The New York Times, where MIT took out display ads inviting wannabe science scribblers “to help us re-launch our award-winning magazine.” New editor John Benditt explains that he didn’t actually lay anyone off, it’s just that no one’s job figures in “the new structure.” ...

In a nutshell, the new crew plans a big direct mail campaign to boost circulation to 200,000, sign up lots more ads, and change the editorial focus from “policy” to “innovation.” That’s all very nice, but how’s Benditt going to put out the next issue with no staff, I inquired. “That will be a challenge,” he allows.

To be fair, the TR talent dump showed neither fear nor favor. One job eliminated belonged to much-decorated art designer Nancy Cahners (as in the wealthy, philanthropic Cahners), who is a trustee of the Museum of Fine Arts and of the Beth Israel-Deaconess Hospital. Ambushed at her home, Cahners exhibited the Fatal Flaw: a sense of humor. “I have to be careful what I say to you,” Cahners mused. “I might lose my job.”

Letter to the editor from Nancy Cahners, senior designer, Technology Review, published in the Globe, November 20.

Alex Beam’s column on recent events at MIT (“Staff is chaff at MIT mag,” Living/Arts, Nov. 14) was gratifying, but in fairness to the new managers of Technology Review I would like to shift its emphasis. As painful as the layoffs are, some of us close to the situation can understand - if not relish - their logic.

For some time, TR has not been able to improve its circulation and advertising results. MIT cannot, and should not, place publishing and business risks above its central mission of research and education. If TR is to exist at all, it needs to reverse its business trends quickly. John Benditt has an editorial vision that may do that, but speed will be a key ingredient. Starting with a new staff enables him to amend the editorial focus without struggling to disabuse individuals of established notions.

Losing one’s job hurts, but just as we share the credit for the intellectual and visual success of our fine magazine, we now share responsibility for its business problems. There is a fairness to this outcome which is characteristic of the collegial, merit-driven environment in which we have all flourished professionally. I trust that my colleagues join me in wishing TR the success it deserves, and we depart feeling gratitude for having played a role in an era when success was measured by standards other than dollars.

Response to SW from John Benditt, editor of Technology Review

Technology Review has had serious financial problems for almost a decade. Ultimately, the owners of the magazine (the MIT Alumni/ae Association) came to the conclusion that the losses could no longer be tolerated. At that point, they concluded there were only two options: the magazine could change dramatically to capture a larger readership and advertising base—or it could cease to exist as a national publication.

If the magazine ceased to exist, of course, no one at TR would have a job. Radical change is never easy. But the way the process was carried out at Technology Review is fair, transparent, and above board. Every member of the staff has been given the opportunity to apply for jobs in a reorganized Technology Review. Some members of the staff have decided to reapply; others to forego that opportunity; still others are making up their minds. For those who have decided not to reapply, MIT has very fair severance policies.

Furthermore, I’d like to point out that a revitalized and reinvigorated Technology Review will provide employment not only for editors but also for many more freelance science writers. And, since one of the things I demanded—and got—on coming here was an augmented budget for writers, those who write for us will be compensated at competitive rates; in the past that was not the case.

As I mentioned above, significant change is never easy. It hasn’t been easy at TR. But, as the dust settles, it will become clear that the changes at Technology Review are good for the magazine, good for its readers, and good for the community of science writers.

Return to ScienceWriters table of contents.