It came as no surprise that the Star Tribune’s new ownership, Avista Capital Partners, dismissed a call from its Guild for an independent investigation into the rather serious charges asserted against publisher, Par Ridder. The presumption is that it did do knowing full well that the legal process is both glacial and unlikely to produce the kind of cleansing transparency appropriate for a high-profile business allegedly committed to reporting fully and fairly.
The Guild’s request was as appropriate as it was entirely futile. Both the Guild’s orginal letter and Harte’s response can be read here.
Publicly-traded companies regularly dodge initial calls for thorough, independent investigations into appearances of executive impropriety. So there was almost zero reason to think a privately-held concern like Avista would consent to something that holds the prospect of way too much transparency … perhaps even into such intriguing questions as, “Who really IS Avista?”
But even in an era when boardroom arrogance seems to know no bounds, it is discouraging that Chris Harte, Avista’s “journalism face”, doesn’t see the merit in an aggressive, public display of probity. The machinations of Avista are one kind of distraction, the pulpy travails of Par Ridder are another thing entirely, and allowing the legal process to run its course means a constant trickle of mocking and titter-worthy bombshell-ettes, none of which does anything to enhance the integrity of these cities’ major media player.
I asked Star Trib Guild officers, Pat Doyle and Chris Serres, if they had given any thought to suggesting that in lieu of a full, complete and open independent investigation, Ridder should at the very least be asked to recuse himself from his publisher duties … until the legal process has run its course? That would do something to mute skeptics and critics who will otherwise snicker at the appearance of a righteous news organization, committed to fairness, being managed by a guy accused of both petty thievery and clumsy conniving.
First though, the matter of their letter to Harte.
Said Doyle, “We thought the request was reasonable, no matter what the odds,” then adding, “but Harte’s response was not very satisfying, no.”
“What I also found interesting, [in Harte’s response], was that he didn’t make any defense or endorsement of Par. I don’t know what that means, but I thought it was interesting.” (Ironically interesting coming in the same week as George Bush offering a vigorous, unconditional endorsement of Alberto Gonzales).
Serres also thought the request was worth making, and insisted it wasn’t purely symbolic. A big part of the basic problem with current interaction between the Guild and management is, as he says, “Quite frankly, we don’t know who Chris Harte is.”
Or, as Doyle puts it, “There’s just so much we don’t know. Such as, who are we owned by? We don’t know if its 10 guys, 20 guys or 100 guys.”
While neither sees the twin distractions of a new, very private ownership group with an undisclosed agenda and a publisher under public ridicule as being all that much of a detriment to their daily job performance, neither issue is exactly an asset.
“This is getting to the point where our sources are asking about it,” says Serres of the Ridder matter. Hence the call for the kind of air-clearing an independent investigation might bring. “What did Harte say in his response, that our call somehow presumes the legal system is ‘flawed’? Well, yes. Our presumption is that the legal system IS flawed. It is both slow and most likely won’t be comprehensive enough.”
So what about asking for Ridder to step aside until the Avista-preferred legal process reaches a conclusion?
“That’s an interesting idea,” said Doyle.
Serres takes pains to emphasize that, “There is a tone of negativity over here that can be very counterproductive, and the Guild wants to avoid making matters like this with Par personal. We always try to avoid that in our dealings with management. Our letter to Harte, asking for an investigation, should not be seen as us making a swipe at Par. I mean, we don’t even know this guy. But there’s no denying this is a distraction we don’t need.”
Serres adds, a bit cryptically, “Part of the reason you don’t get personal in situations like this is that you have a sense that there are bigger people behind the scenes pulling strings, and that the people out front may just be these pawns in a larger action.”
Leave a Reply Cancel reply