This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

"Wake up and smell the coffee."

Those were Ann Landers' words in these newspaper pages to befuddled and betrayed advice-seekers who would not face unpleasant facts.

Words in these newspaper pages ... which are disappearing.

Of course, Ann Landers has gone on to her reward and was replaced in these pages by Carolyn Hax. Earlier this month, Hax's syndicated column was axed along with many other features due to cost-cutting measures imposed upon The Salt Lake Tribune.

The general tumult in the newspaper industry got the blame for these disappearing pages. Undeniably, the fortunes of most legacy news publications are in decline as advertisers who historically subsidized newsgathering now use other means of reaching customers. (We appreciate and try to patronize those advertisers who remain.)

But that is not the half of it.

The current and future cuts to the Tribune must be viewed in the context of the "Joint Operating Agreement" between its New York owner and the Deseret News. Negotiated and executed in secret, the 2013 deal slashed Tribune print revenues in half at the stroke of a pen.

The Deseret News paid up to $25 million to the Tribune's hedge-fund owner for the new JOA, which also gave Deseret control of the joint advertising and production business founded by both Salt Lake dailies 64 years ago. What's more, the deal granted the News a unilateral veto power over who can buy and manage the Tribune, its larger-circulation competitor.

The JOA is not legal under the Newspaper Preservation Act's limited antitrust exemption, which is why we are challenging it in court and the Justice Department continues to investigate.

The hedge fund took the millions back to New York, leaving the local Tribune to the fate prophesied for it in the very language of the secretly inked deal: smaller newshole, earlier deadlines, reduced circulation area, cutting days of publication, and finally part(s) — "suspending or ceasing to publish The Salt Lake Tribune."

Attentive Tribune readers know that a number of those actions outlined in the JOA's "Reserved Matters" section have already come to pass. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee before all are implemented and an indispensible voice in our marketplace of ideas is silenced.

Some readers may shrug at these changes as simply a sign of the times. After all, newspapers are a deeply disrupted industry requiring innovation.

Indeed, news publications innovate like crazy these days. They modify websites; they podcast and live-stream video; they swarm social media; they sell memberships; they stage community events; they hawk digital ads.

The Tribune does all of the above and more — including the activity that actually generates most revenue: watchdogging the government, gathering information and packaging the news.

The company now controlled by the Deseret News then prints it up, delivers it to your driveway, and collects your payment.

Salt Lake newspapers' joint print revenue comes not just from subscribers and advertisers, but also from such endeavors as Comic Con, niche publications, home shows, real estate ... anything to make a buck for the agency partners.

Over six decades, the Tribune has done more than its share to build this joint business, once called Newspaper Agency Corp., then MediaOne, and now Utah Media Group. Under the new JOA, 70 percent of income from its many enterprises goes to the News and 30 percent to the Tribune. It's the same lopsided split with advertising and subscription revenue, even though the Tribune accounts for 60 percent of the papers' combined circulation.

The defendants in our public-interest antitrust litigation claim the JOA merely positions the Tribune for the inevitable digital-only future. That is a canard for a number of reasons.

Primarily, how does cutting Tribune revenues in half do anything but hamper the paper's newsgathering and ultimately shortchange its readers? It doesn't.

The JOA denies the Tribune resources to finance newsgathering today; it denies the Tribune resources to evolve and finance newsgathering tomorrow on whatever publishing platform proves financially viable.

Newspaper readers are regarded as older, wiser, wealthier and more politically aware. They are not apt to be befuddled. But it's time they face the fact they have been betrayed by this deal.

Everyone in our community should wake up and smell the coffee, whether they drink it or not.

The authors are board members of Utah Newspaper Project/Citizens for Two Voices. The nonprofit organization representing Tribune subscribers and advertisers has filed a public-interest antitrust lawsuit challenging the new JOA.