NYT's David Carr rips Tribune execs

As a former Chicagoan and someone who used to work with several current and former Tribune reporters, a very good (and very depressing) story.

The hiring of Michaels, a former radio exec, should have sent employees sprinting to the exits, and not because of his boorish behavior.

All the sh*$#? that's going on the newspaper industry today happened in radio first. The slashing of staff. The nationalization of content. Half-assed efforts to put the "product" online. The corresponding crash with advertising revenue. The slashing of more staff ...

And I concur with what others have mentioned here. From my trips back to the area, the layout and content of the print version of the Chicago Tribune should make The Colonel spin in his grave (he might be OK with the poker party, though).

 

Many of us have (and have had) first-hand experiences with the Zell approach. Little in this story was new, but it's damning in its collective point: Rich (sorta, in an other-people's-money way) guy buys a legacy property, hopes to slash/flip/transform it, can't, and doesn't know what to do next. A lost decade on many levels for Tribune properties.

 

Used to be a saying at some papers I worked: "You have to outlast the a**holes." The thinking was that whoever was screwing up a place would eventually move on to screw up someplace else, and you'd return to some normalcy.

Now I'm not so sure that's possible. They pointing the planes straight down with whoever's left on board. And there's fewer places for the bums to go.

 

You are being generous. The plan is to buy it, bleed it, dump it.

All the rest is soothing talk to keep from getting a shiv in the kidneys in the cafeteria.

 

This describes management in half of all industry right now.

 

Joe, I think you misunderstood me. When I said that their most interesting articles are often from the LA Times, I meant that as a criticism, not a compliment.

Yeah, it may be interesting, but if it's all about something in LA, it has no relevance to me in Chicago.

I'll give you an example, they'll have a headline that has to do with, "trends in the restaurant industry." That could be interesting. But, when you read the article, it's all about what's happening in LA. Interesting, but not relevant.

If you're going to run the article in the Trib, it should either be a national article or a local one. If the author is writing about national trends, great. Write it up and put it in all of your papers.

If you only wrote it with an LA audience in mind, either don't run it here, or assign a fucking intern to work with the author to put a local spin on it. See if we're seeing the same trends here and get quotes from restauranteurs, chefs, and diners based here.

 

Baron:

I understand perfectly well why the sources would want to remain anonymous. The question is whether their concerns warrant the granting of anonymity by the Times.

And, if they can't get anyone to go on the record, then they don't have much of a story without the anonymous sources.

The Times used to be very strict about their policies regarding anonymous sources. But, as this article points out, they haven't been very good about following their own policy.

It now looks like their policy is, "if an ex-employee has an axe to grind with their previous employer and wants to do so anonymously, then it's ok to grant anonymity."

What makes this article -- and its sources -- so conflicted is that the Times runs it shortly after it started its own Chicago edition that is competing directly with the Tribune and one of the people that is on the record (but not about the sexual/inappropriate behavior stuff) is an ex-employee who now heads up the Chicago News Co-op, and who's column now appears in the Times' Chicago edition.

And it's pretty clear from Michaels' memo to Trib employees that he thinks that James Warren (the Chicago News Co-op guy) is one of the anonymous sources.

(Memo here: http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=192122)

The fact that there's really no new information in the article (especially as far as the sexual/inappropriate stuff is concerned) also raises questions about the motives & timing of the article.

Lastly, I don' remember the Times getting to the bottom of the Pinch Sulzburger/Caroline Kennedy rumors or ever running stories that examined their own workplace.

In fact, any time the Times has been in the news for legitimate reasons -- like issues revolving around their building, their finances, or the loan they received from Carlos Slim -- they have consistently stonewalled reporters, including their own.

So, maybe there is a story here, but I'm not sure the Times should be casting stones from their glass house.

 

The Chicago Reader (free weekly) takes a look at the article & Jim Warren's role:

 

Michael's post above really captures the financial aspect of this.

The article says there are no current EEOC claims, but I know of at least two formal complaints that were made through a state's version of the EEOC - I believe one of those claims alleged sexual harassment and discrimination - the other, I believe, claims discrimination. I don't know the status of them - it's possible there were settlements.

That first complaint got attention for the harassment aspect, which I suppose people saw as the "juicy" part, but it also alleged reporters were forced to do stories on advertisers. I also know of a few instances where stories were spiked so as to not piss off an advertiser.

I worked in a Trib shop before and after the Zell purchase. It's the only place I've ever worked where sexual harassment was actually encouraged.

 

To Dave Kindred:

So how did the radio show go? For those of us not in position to listen, did you get "into it" with any of the newspaper editors?

What stand-up explanations (and level of repsonsibility for their roles) might they have offered for the decline of a city's once-great journalism, beyond just blaming easy targets like Zell or Conrad Black?

After all, journalists are supposed to stand up to mofos like that. Even comfy executive editor types are supposed to.

 

I just re-upped my Sun-Sentinel, but I might be close to done -- although dammit, I STILL like having the paper in the morning.

But this "Sun-Sentinel sports editor is in Orlando" business, and this whole module business, where you might read one local story and one module story of the same thing five inches away, is really starting to get on my nerves.