Tag: media

If they gave awards for networking and self-promotion, Star Tribune columnist James Lileks would long ago have been handed a gold-plated trophy for Lifetime Achievement. It has not passed without notice that amid the wholesale turmoil of the latest round of staff cuts at the Star Tribune that Lileks somehow made himself a centerpiece of the purge, the Sydney Carton if you will of the current terror.

Remarkably well connected … hell, “enviably” well connected to prominent national columnists, bloggers and right-wing radio jockeys, Lileks’ reassignment/demotion from columnist to whatever comes next brought out waves of protest. (No one expects him to stay on.)

Bemoaning Lileks’ fate on his show yesterday, Hugh Hewitt, a kind of clueless, insulated, fat cat banker version of Sean Hannity, declared Lileks, “the most beloved columnist in the Twin Cities.”

Huh? (And who do you think fed him that line?)

I confess to never being a big fan of Lileks’ work. The relevance of what appeared in the Star Tribune utterly escaped me. I just didn’t care. That also pretty much describes my attitude toward his far better-attended blog. What was of occasional interest were his florid musings on politics and the war in Iraq. While I always thought Lileks jumped on the wing-nut bandwagon in the early ’90s because it looked like a sure ticket to a radio career, and then stayed after cultivating a following, when writing on politics he at least was dealing in topics that mattered to someone other than himself, his wife, his daughter and any pets they had around the house.

But “most beloved”? Please.

As I have said before, the purpose of “The Daily Quirk” escaped me, (especially for the rumored $92k the Strib was paying him for it). It read like someone applying the Word of the Day to the retelling of the previous night’s not-too interesting dream. But subjective tastes withstanding, the guy has obvious talent. So my question for Strib managers (long before the current crowd) was … why not make him apply his talent to topics of actual relevance?

One of his defenders makes the point that a fundamental mistake being made by newspapers is insisting that the highest calling of any newspaper writer is the ability to cover a housefire or a suburban public utilities commission. As though that sort of copy is what inspires eagerness in life long readers as they grab the paper off their lawn every morning.

That kind of thinking is manifestly dull-witted. It’s what you get from casts of career managers, as opposed to career journalists. But it is the sort of homogenized thinking you get in a panicked environment, which pretty well describes most newspapers these days.

One of the many ironies of the current newspaper business climate is that investor pressure for guaranteed short-term profit-taking is working with a management ethos that devalues precisely the sort of unique voices and points of view that are at the heart of big city newspapers and are what affix unique value to their product.

Whether Lileks refused to give the Strib the kind of topical, relevant copy he wrote for himself and others, (he has recently dropped his Newhouse syndication gig), or whether the Strib never asked for it, I can’t say. But as pointlessly indulgent as “The Daily Quirk” was, pressuring the guy out the door is even more counter-effective.

But “most beloved”?

Jesus.

Word from the still on-going meeting Star Tribune publisher Par Ridder is holding in the paper’s jam-packed assembly room-cafeteria is that Avista Capital Partners will cut approximately 50 more newsroom jobs within the next two weeks through an enhanced buy-out plan. The plan will compensate employees two weeks for every year of service up to a new maximum of 52 weeks, plus an additional six months health insurance coverage.

The paper announced on its intranet service that it will seek 145 job cuts from the company as a whole.

Gallows humor was abundant as Ridder trotted out essentially the same “Business Literacy” computerized slide show he gave last year at the St. Paul Pioneer Press. This is the one where all indicators point down, except of course executive compensation and shareholder value.

Another story making the rounds this afternoon is a sighting of Ridder out for his morning jog this AM … wearing a St. Paul Pioneer Press t-shirt.

Ridder’s note to the Strib staff:

>
>Employee Meeting Recap
>by Par Ridder, Publisher and CEO
>May 7, 2007 – At an all employee meeting today we announced that as part of our ongoing efforts to reduce costs, the Star Tribune will be reducing the workforce by about 145 employees, primarily through a voluntary buyout program. I want to summarize some of the key points from the meeting that give context to this decision. The Star Tribune is in the same situation as most other metropolitan newspapers across the country. Our revenue has been declining for two years now, while expenses have been increasing. Our performance for the first quarter of 2007 was much worse than we anticipated, and there are signs that this trend will not reverse soon. Our revenue decline is primarily due to a steep drop in Classified advertising. We are facing both weak markets in real estate, automotive and employment and a migration of advertising in these categories from print to online. Declining revenue and increasing expenses mean that our profit has dropped substantially these past two years. For us to be a healthy, viable business, we must stabilize this situation-first by getting our costs in line with our revenue. Our costs fall into three main areas: compensation, newsprint and all other. Compensation is by far our largest expense category. In addition to other efforts being made to reduce costs, we have determined that we will need to go down about 145 jobs this year in order to achieve the necessary expense reductions. While we will be looking to reduce newsprint and all other costs as well, we are now faced with the necessity of having to reduce our workforce. Most other major metropolitan newspapers around the country have already taken this step. The senior vice presidents and I have put together a plan that seeks to get the majority of these reductions through voluntary buyouts. Those who are eligible for this voluntary program will be notified. However, if we do not get enough volunteers, we will have to move to layoffs to get the necessary reductions. There also are some job eliminations in this plan. It’s important to understand that our business model has fundamentally changed. This is not a temporary situation but a major shift in the media environment that we will be wrestling with for years to come. As I mentioned in the meeting, dismantling a newspaper is not a strategy. However, cutting costs will allow us to stabilize our business as we work to reallocate resources so we can get the Star Tribune growing again. This summer we will be having all company meetings to create our strategy going forward. Everyone will be invited and I encourage you to attend. From the ownership change to the change in leadership and finally this announcement, this clearly has been a tough few months for everyone. Thank you for your professionalism and hard work as we navigate this difficult time.
>
>
>

As previously mentioned, James Lileks, was one of five Star Tribune columnists summoned into meetings last week and, uh, “offered” the opportunity to volunteer to give up their columnizing for straight reporting gigs.

As Lileks himself writes here, it seems he was given something firmer than an offer, and his mini-column, “The Daily Quirk”, will cease publication in two weeks, and, if I’m following this correctly, he’ll begin beat reporting about the internet, which as he notes is a whole different schmeckler than writing ON the internet.

As someone who was always baffled by how the Strib used Lileks — from the “Backfence” to the “Quirk”, with no long(er) form feature writing or, better yet, off-beat right-wing political punditry in between — this “reassignment” smells like the familiar tactic of humiliating someone to the point they leave on their own.

Just to give you an idea of the anxiety hanging over their weekend, Star Tribune employees left the building Friday hoping for the best, but expecting the worst from announcements scheduled for 3 pm Monday, (tomorrow).

Operating as per usual with little to no information, rumors were that new owners Avista Capital Partners, via their hirelings, editor Nancy Barnes and/or publisher Par Ridder, would reveal their need for new staff reductions, beyond those taken in the voluntary buy-outs of late February.

The most repeated rumor — rumor, I say — had Avista requiring 60 positions out of the newsroom and 200 company-wide. As draconian as that sounds, many other similar-sized papers have seen as much in recent weeks, as owners slash staff well ahead of revenue declines in order to assure investor profits through the near-term.

A second rumor had Avista fattening up the previous standard buy-out offer of two weeks for every year served up to a maximum of 40, up to a maximum of 52, with maybe some lingering medical benefits.

It is not known if Mr. Ridder will take the buy-out offer.

Thursday afternoon at the Star Tribune saw the paper’s four metro columnists, Doug Grow, Nick Coleman, Katherine Kersten and Cheryl “CJ” Johnson called in to separate meetings with editors Nancy Barnes and Scott Gillespie and told, in so many words, that the paper was looking to scale back the number of columnists and would any of them care to raise their hands and volunteer for reassignment to the paper’s suddenly thin — and getting thinner — ranks of street-level reporters?

There were, as far as I can tell, no immediate takers. Later it was learned that quasi-metro columnist, James Lileks, was also given the same message.

This sort of scale-back/down-sizing/gutting has been anticipated ever since the new owners, Avista Capital Partners took over and after the round of voluntary buy-outs that clipped 24 positions from the payroll two months ago. Widespread assumption in the Strib newsroom is that fewer columnists will soon be matched with fewer theater critics, fewer film critics and perhaps — all though this is very hard to imagine — fewer sports reporters. (Veteran NBA reporter, Steve Aschburner, has already left the paper.)

Meanwhile, newly-arrived publisher, Par Ridder, the target of a much-publicized lawsuit accusing him essentially of industrial espionage, remains secure in his position.

Every profession has its unwritten rules, among those in journalism, and/or the “news business” if you will, is the rule that says the sales end of the operation, be it a newspaper or TV station, never sticks its nose into the reporting end. (Actually, that may be written in some places.)

Another is that as a news person whose job involves asking people uncomfortable questions, when on the rare occasion you yourself are asked a question by some other journalist you deal with it yourself. It’s part professional courtesy and part common sense. Request anonymity if you must. Go off-record. Say, “no comment”. But do it yourself. What you don’t do is use the always suspicion-arousing corporate dodge of handing it off to a gate-keeping minion in the PR department.

It appears that KMSP/Fox 9 News’ news director, Bill Dallman, has blown by these quaint conventions and embraced a new journalistic orthodoxy.

The story begins a little over a week ago when veteran reporter Tom Lyden volunteered to run down a tip about someone who bought a car from a small Richfield car lot, Car Hop, only to be pulled over by the cops a few days later for driving a stolen vehicle. As Lyden checked it out it became clear that the problem rested with a paperwork screw up at the state level and the car dealer was blameless. But it was still an interesting little story, so Lyden assembled the piece for a report on that night’s Fox 9 news hour.

So far, so mundane. But then, about 90 minutes before the piece was to air, Lyden got a call from his boss, Mr. Dallman, asking whether there was any way to keep Car Hop’s name out of the story. Car Hop it turns out is a KMSP advertiser. Never mind that Lyden’s reporting would show Car Hop to be blameless in the episode.

Lyden resisted. The piece ran. Car Hop was mentioned. And the next morning Dallman addressed his staff, telling them that from now on he wanted a heads up any time one of their stories involved a station advertiser. According to those there that morning Dallman also mentioned that if the station lost advertising as a result of a story his job could be on the line. The clear inference to that order being that someone ELSE’S job would be on the line before his.

Needless to say, that little speech became a “talker” around KMSP. Especially since, as it became clear, the advertiser in question … never even called to express concern with the story. Dallman apparently was free-lancing advertiser protection … from his own reporters.

Now THAT is what I call servicing an account.

After calling Car Hop, where the manager insisted he never talked to anyone from KMSP other than Lyden, and never registered any complaint, I left a message for Dallman. An hour or two later I got a call from a young woman in KMSP’s “media department”. (Wait, isn’t the whole building a “media department”?)

She asked what my interest was in talking to Mr. Dallman? My “interest” I explained, was in asking Mr. Dallman a few questions about the episode. She then explained that I would have to ask those questions of her instead, or at least first. At that point I realized the story had just fattened up a bit. A news director for a TV newsroom full of news reporters was having a PR department throw up flack? (Did I mention he is in the “news” business?) I told the young lady that although I have never met or previously spoken with Mr. Dallman, (he took the job a little over a year ago), I was assuming he was a big boy and could probably answer questions for himself, without the PR department’s protection/interference.

She reiterated that I would have to ask the questions of her first, because, “That’s the way we do things.”

I left it at Dallman could call me if he wanted to talk, otherwise I’d put him down as a “no comment”.

Dallman didn’t call back.

The young woman expressed some confusion over why anyone would have any interest in a story like this? To which I explained that if nothing else the detail of an automobile advertiser’s involvement in sales-to-news management carries unique resonance in the Twin Cities. She claimed not to understand what I was talking about.

Along with unwritten rules, there is the open secret that no newsroom, print or electronic ever treads on the automobile industry. Not on models, manufacturers or dealers. Not unless the story has grown so huge it has created a national-sized buffer, like the tires exploding on Ford Explorers a few years back. Never mind that automobiles are the second-largest purchase the average news-consuming family ever makes. The fact that local car dealers are so absolutely vital to every newspaper and TV station’s bottom line means you almost never read or see investigative stories about the industry, and the “news” holes in the car sections are filled only with lavish praise for the fabulous redesign of the latest hot model.

WCCO-TV, the last news operation that (very) briefly employed a spokeswoman for its news director, remembers both the infamous Silvia Gambardella consumer report of the early ’90s where she almost off-handedly reported the savings possible by buying used rental cars, a comment that resulted in a firestorm of protest from local dealers that soon found her gone from ‘CCO, and more recently, car advertisers pulling a rumored $1 million in ads over a Don Shelby, “In the Know” comment.

Point being, car advertisers know they have weight to throw around, and they throw it. But … back to KMSP … tiny Car Hop isn’t exactly Denny Hecker, and … they didn’t even complain! They thought Lyden’s piece was fair.

The stonewall thrown up by KMSP’s “media department” prompted a rare moment of investigative journalism on my part, which turned up this little gem, from very early in Dallman’s term at KMSP. By 2006 I think everyone in the country knew you don’t run Video News Releases (VNRs) — essentially feature length commercials produced by specific businesses, in this case a little organization known as General Motors — without at least disclosing the source. But, what do I know? I’m old school about this stuff.

The acutely aware may have already seen this Tom Tomorrow cartoon celebrating the 4th anniversary of, “Mission Accomplished” Day.

He attaches the following highly ironic quote from long-blindered/much-syndicated conservative columnist, Cal Thomas:
‘
‘
“When the Berlin Wall fell and Eastern Europe escaped from the shackles of communism, I wrote that we must not forget the enablers, apologists and other “fellow travelers” who helped sustain communism’s grip on a sizable portion of humanity for much of the 20th century. I suggested that a “cultural war crimes tribunal” be convened, at which people from academia, the media, government and the clergy who were wrong in their assessment of communism would be forced to confront their mistakes. While not wishing to deprive anyone of his or her right to be wrong, it wouldn’t hurt for these people to be held accountable.

That advice was not taken – but today we are presented with another opportunity in the form of scores of false media prophets who predicted disaster should the U.S. military confront and seek to oust the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. The purpose of a cultural war crimes tribunal would be to remind the public of journalism’s many mistakes, as well as the errors of certain politicians and retired generals, and allow it to properly judge their words the next time they feel the urge to prophesy…

All of the printed and voiced prophecies should be saved in an archive. When these false prophets again appear, they can be reminded of the error of their previous ways and at least be offered an opportunity to recant and repent.”
‘
‘
There are at least two remarkable aspects of the pre-war media punditry.

One: The vast majority of the regular pundit have been proven not just wrong, but deliriously wrong. So wrong the proverbial room full of monkeys would have produced a higher success rate than … the pundits allowed to offer comment on network and cable television. (Forget about talk radio, which at least is unabashed in its unwavering commitment to wrongheadedness.)

As Bill Moyers reminded us last week, the choice of “expert” pre-war punditry was heavily influenced by networks — and newspapers — tilting coverage to remain in step with perceived popular opinion, thereby avoiding charges of unpatriotism, which to nervous “objective” editors is a little like being accused of pedophilia, that is to say, an accusation from which you never fully recover.

Two: Virtually all of the worst offenders, the “experts” now proven so completely, ghastly wrong — the kind wrong that would get a standard beat reporter reassigned to the loading dock — continue to gas on as though nothing has changed and their expertise hasn’t been proven not just faulty but, on many levels, corrupt.

More to the point, no real attempt has been made to rotate in pundits who accurately predicted the catastrophe we see before us today. None of the cast of, for example, “The Nation”, contribute any more frequently than they did before the war. And voices who have established their bona-fides since May 1, 2003 — people like Glen Greenwald, Eric Alterman, Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong — are largely unknown even to the better-than-average informed because of their absence from the standard punditry chairs on the “Hardballs” and “Scarborough Countries” of the world, much less the Sunday morning DC chat shows and “Nightline.”

With audience levels off 30-40% and more for your average Rush Limbaugh-style talk radio act, compared to 5/1/03, and Bush’s job approval pretty much resting on the marrow of the country’s most reactionary and implacable conservatives, common business sense would tell you that unless you are in the business of just nakedly cooking “facts”, like Fox News, time and events have evolved an audience interested in something both new … and a hell of a lot smarter and more intuitive than the same discredited cast of characters of yore.

As a “Mission Accomplished” Day kicker, here is a little bitter dessert, thanks to Greg Mitchell at Editor & Publisher.

I realize I’m running dangerously close to being a two-trick nag on the Star Tribune’s problems with; (1) Charges that publisher Par Ridder plotted abandoning the Pioneer Press for his primary business/financial rival for months before he actually did, allegedly cooking/absconding with executive non-compete contracts in the process, and (2) The paper’s startlingly weak pursuit of provocative local angles on the US Attorneys scandal.

I really should spend more time watching the sweeps months features lining up on 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11. But damn, these two items are so juicy.

Anyway, a couple quick observations before I move on … for a while.

While it was mildly gratifying to see the Strib’s reader rep, Kate Parry, finally address The Ridder Problem in her Sunday column, I’m not sure the difficulty of covering an in-house scandal is the essence of the issue facing her. I don’t doubt it is damn tough to get Ridder to discuss the accusations thrown against him, and I don’t doubt the accusers have been more forthcoming. Nor do I doubt that reporter Matt McKinney, who was handed the assignment is a resourceful pro. And likewise, I’m not at all surprised the Ridder matter hasn’t generated public interest.

From the public’s perspective, why should they care about Ridder? He’s a faceless executive. Unless there are other boots to drop, Ridder isn’t sucking money out of the public’s pocket and the whole thing is as inside corporate baseball as it is snicker-worthy and soapy.

The issue is credibility and the higher standard for recognizing and rectifying appearance problems to which newspapers regularly claim to hold themselves. When it comes to the grunt classes of newspapers — the wretched pecking scribes — there is no end of hand-wringing concern over the slightest appearance issues, with management regularly admonishing writers to step back from proximity to any perception of ethical dilemma.

So why not demand the same — if not more — from the publisher? You can certainly make the argument that his reputation puts a heavier stamp on the credibility of the paper than say, a sports writer who lets a player buy him a couple drinks. (Like THAT ever happens.)

Ridder dodges Parry’s questions on the law suit with the stale ploy of respecting “the legal process”, a process that, as every reporter knows, regularly obfuscates more than it clarifies. If that’s what Ridder wants to say, fine. But at this point OUR reader’s rep owes us at least a paragraph explaining how this dodge reflects rather badly on the paper’s reputation for transparency and why much more — a lot more — is needed to avoid months of lingering suspicions.

One other thing: Parry is big on the rough and tumble competition between the two papers. But the Par Ridder matter has NOTHING to do with the competitive fire of the two newsrooms. This is an executive suite-to-executive suite affair, with the two staffs as bystanders. Far from being competitive, the two newsrooms are unified in preferring complete and satisfying answers to what in the hell has been going on behind the mahogany doors. (The two staffs are also unified in suspecting/knowing that the greatest threat to their continued survival is upstairs in their own buildings, not the reporters across the river.)

On Trick 2: I’m running out of expressions of righteous amazement. Late last week it was revealed that former US Attorney Tom Heffelfinger was in fact on a list of prosecutors … someone in DC wanted fired. You’d think this would be the long-awaited green light for the Strib to put the pedal to the metal and start catching up on this story. Until now the Strib has been running like a soccer mom’s mini-van in the NASCAR race that is the US Attorneys story. A race where its former McClatchy DC bureau has been playing Tony Stewart, denting bumpers and fenders.

So … I fail to understand the value in constantly returning to Heffelfinger for yet another discussion of what he doesn’t know. As I’ve said before, even if Heffelfinger knows something more, he isn’t obligated — yet — to tell anyone, much less a reporter about it. More to the point, the scandal is such a godawful circus of incompetence and arrogance that any sane adult would want to keep a healthy distance from it.

Although by now, the prosecutors who were fired and/or were on a list to be fired are the ones assuming badges of honor. Suspicion is turning to those who MET with Bush administration approval and kept their jobs.

So here’s a word of advice. Tom Heffelfinger’s repeated expressions of surprise and annoyance are not the story. Nor, for that matter, are former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Sandy Keith’s testimonials for Heffelfinger’s replacement, Rachel Paulose.

It comes as a surprise to absolutely no one that newspaper circulation took another dive in the spring numbers released today by Audit Bureau of Circulations. Locally, the Star Tribune registering a somewhat worse than average decline — -4.8% on weekdays and 5.1% on Sundays. Last week the Pioneer Press claimed its daily circulation had increased .3%, with Sunday up .1%

The Strib can take hollow consolation by looking at the once respectable Dallas Morning News, where gruesome gutting by the Belo Corporation hasn’t exactly blunted a circulation meltdown that reached 14.2% daily and 13.3% on Sundays.

Another sign of the apocalypse can be seen in the INCREASE of the New York Post, 7.6% daily and 6.5% Sundays.