Final Days? A Newsroom Diary
November 1-15, 1999
November 1, Monday
Officially running on borrowed time after continuing to
publish past the original October 30 closing date. The day started
with echoes of Saturday night's "Not Dead Yet" gathering that drew
dozens of current or former Star-Bulletin types and friends to
Murphy's Bar and Grill, a downtown watering hole. It had
originally been scheduled for the wake after the last edition, but
when the October 30 closing was extended, the party transformed
itself accordingly. Staffers who have been offered jobs across the
hall partied along with those who didn't. Retirees joined our
newest hires. From the tales being told, a few in attendance might
have felt close to dead when the sun rose on Sunday. How drunk are
you when your friends wonder if they need to call 911?
Today's speculation in the newsroom centered on the Justice
Department's ongoing interviews with the top advertisers with the
Hawaii Newspaper Agency. These are reportedly serious interviews
conducted by speakerphone and lasting as much as an hour,
involving Justice staffers in D.C. and San Francisco, along with a
stenographer to make a record. Advertisers are apparently being
asked about the advertising environment, whether there are
alternatives to HNA, and then being quizzed on those alternatives
and why they are, or are not, used more frequently. Whether these
are routine or an indication of a more serious than normal probe
is not at all clear. The questions could be consistent with a
probe of possible anticompetitive advertising practices, something
loosely alleged in the past by Honolulu Weekly publisher Laurie
Carlson.
The other question still rattling around is what we should
expect if the 9th Circuit allows the shutdown to proceed. Will
publication cease immediately, or will there be an orderly
shutdown over a period of weeks? One factor that Gannett should be
considering is the impact on advertisers in the midst of the busy
Christmas sales season. They might be angry at the abrupt loss of
the Star-Bulletin's readers right at this moment. A miscue by
Gannett could drive speed their shift to other media in the
future. I really wouldn't want to be the Gannett executive making
this call.
I just added a counter to the bottom of this page, but will
have to wait to discover if it really works. Thanks to S-B
webmaster Blaine Fergerstrom for the suggestion of where to find
this freebie.
November 2, Tuesday
It's one of the conditions peculiar to the news business:
There's nothing like a terrible human tragedy occurring right on
your deadline to kick everyone into high gear and boost the mood
of the newsroom. That's what happened this morning when a man
walked into the Xerox building in Honolulu and killed seven of his
co-workers. Most of the newsroom staff were chasing aspects of the
morning's rapidly developing events or struggling to revamp the
day's final edition to get the story in readers' hands today. We
did it, and had the news on the street by early afternoon.
Readers of the Advertiser will wait until tomorrow--a reminder
that in a post-Star-Bulletin Hawaii, newspaper readers will have
to rely on television for these fast breaking stories.
Gallows humor--and extremely bad taste--were not totally
absent. "Tell Fisch I'm feeling really disgruntled," one staffer
quipped, referring to Mike Fisch, president of Gannett Pacific.
But underlying the attempt at humor was a nagging uncertainty
about what it would take to push one of our colleagues around a
similarly violent bend.
November 3, Wednesday
|
A brief gathering at the city desk this morning bid
aloha to assistant City Editor Dana Williams, who is the
second staffer to depart following the layoff notices
issued in September. Sjarif Goldstein from the sports
department left last month.
Dana was at a conference on the mainland when the
Star-Bulletin's closing was announced, and she
immediately met with recruiters and was hired by a much
larger Florida paper.
These early departures becomes will be test cases in
whether those who leave before the final closing--if we
are eventually closed--remain eligible for severance pay.
The Guild may have to take the take forward as a
grievance and go to arbitration before this matter is
settled.
|
|
The Guild's Wayne Cahill brought news early this afternoon that
the Department of Justice has intervened with an amicus brief
urging the 9th Circuit to leave the preliminary injunction intact.
It's been slightly chaotic during the intervening three hours as
sometimes heated debates have raged among groups of reporters and
editors throughout the newsroom speculating on the impact and
substance of the DOJ move. At one point, a dozen people were in
the hall by my desk throwing theories back and forth. Of course,
we're flying blind here because a copy of the brief hasn't made it
here yet, although it is somewhere en route. Text of the legal
filings should be available on-line by tomorrow.
A copy of the brief has now been delivered (5:15 p.m.), and
apparently the DOJ posture is procedural in nature. Lifting the
injunction would frustrate an ongoing investigation, they say.
Hopefully, this will wring more time out of the process and
keep us in print a while longer.
As someone commented just before this news was announced:
"Look, I want optimism, not realism."
Cahill's announcement came during an informal session upstairs
in the cafeteria. After we gathered, Cahill was told that Gannett
officials have decreed that no union meetings can be held on the
premises. The cafeteria operator was supposedly advised of this
new policy.
This should not have been news to Cahill. A Guild notice
arrived in the mail today announcing the annual membership meeting
to be held later this month. It also contained the following note
to explain a shift in meeting location from the third floor
cafeteria here in the news building to the ILWU hall. "Please note
the correction. First the company said Yes, then Jo Kerns called
the Guild office and said NO! You can't use our facility. We have
often used the cafeteria in the past, which is a place in the
building open to the public and friendly to Guild members. We also
like to give business to the cafeteria whenever possible....We
will raise the issue with the company after the meeting."
The move is contrary to years of past practice, and appears to
reflect the strained relations between Gannett management and the
unions.
Cahill also said nearly 10,000 signatures have been gathered to
date on petitions to save the Star-Bulletin, with plans to get
more signatures during pre-game "tailgate parties" at upcoming
University of Hawaii football games.
November 4, Thursday
I have to apologize for my initial entry this morning,
which described the removal of a link to this page from the
Star-Bulletin's own web page that reports on the closing of the
paper. At the time, no reason had been offered and I speculated
that external pressure might have been involved.
Unknown to me at the time, a message was waiting at my desk
from our managing editor, who explained that no "outside" pressure
was involved, only his judgment that the Star-Bulletin should not
take responsibility for my unedited copy by putting the link onto
the paper's site. That's not an unreasonable position and, as I
did say earlier, management has never expressed any objection to
this journal project up until now. No further speculation
required.
I admit to falling victim to the rising tensions as we feel our
way further into this continuing morass.
There was good news, though, in the brief filed with the 9th
Circuit by the Justice Department. A quick read left me feeling
more hopeful than at any recent time, and for the rest of the day
I tried to interpret this to others.
Justice lays out a key piece of the puzzle. They distinguish
between the written agreement between Gannett and the
Star-Bulletin's owners to terminate the JOA, and the apparently
unwritten agreement that the Star-Bulletin will be closed and
cease publishing as part of the deal. That latter agreement, they
argue, is a "continuing agreement" that was obviously to extend
beyond the termination of the JOA and therefore is not protected
by the antitrust immunity granted by the Newspaper Protection
Act.
From this perspective, existing editorial competition within
the JOA reflects on and in part determines the economic value of
each paper in post-JOA competition. So that if the Star-Bulletin
were to continue publishing in direct competition with the
Advertiser after the JOA terminates, our current success would
make it more likely that readers and advertisers would follow. The
Newspaper Preservation Act would not exempt restraints set up
under the JOA that would create unreasonable restraints on
competition after termination. This undercuts Gannett's argument
that there only editorial competition now and no economic
competition, and as a result, they argue, there can be no
antitrust violation because there is no competition, period.
The possibility that an unwritten agreement to eliminate the
Star-Bulletin as post-JOA competition could be subject to
antitrust law and therefore the court should provide an
opportunity for discovery to continue in order to establish a
sufficient record for a determination one way or the other, they
argue.
Justice also argues that under these circumstances, the
standard to be applied by the court is not that we are likely to
prevail at trial, but only that there is a "fair chance" to
prevail or that there remain "questions serious enough to require
litigation."
Until now, it felt that the weight of the legal argument was
heavily against us. In fact, I accepted a small wager that we will
not be publishing in six months. This new round of argument gives
me new hope that I'll be able to lose that bet.
November 5, Friday
It's the mantra of the day: "What do you think is going
to happen?" I've heard in all over the newsroom at various times
through the day. Staffers are trying to answer the question in
order to plan their next moves. Several people have been talking
to papers in Las Vegas. Another flying out to Florida for
interviews. Hedging their bets on the future of the Star-Bulletin.
Word just filtered down that Judge Kay has set a date in
mid-September 2000 for the hearing on a permanent injunction,
meaning that if the 9th Circuit leaves the temporary injunction in
place, we could well be around for another year.
This really puts the squeeze on Gannett and the Liberty
Newspapers partnership and general partner Rupert Phillips. The
Dept. of Justice takes the position that Phillips is free to walk
away and close the Star-Bulletin as long as he isn't paid for
doing so. Phillips is obviously not anxious to abandon an
investment that currently is bringing a 12 percent return. It
might make sense for Phillips to get out of the situation by
selling his interest in the Star-Bulletin and his position in the
JOA, but Gannett desperately wants to avoid that possibility and
close the Bulletin in order to achieve substantial savings. By
closing the Bulletin, Gannett will not only save the $10 million
in annual production costs but also slash costs of renovating and
possibly relocating the existing newsrooms. I'm not sure what
their strategy will be for getting out of this if the injunction
is allowed to stand, but we can probably figure it out by
following the money.
Signs of the pressure continue to emerge. A friend who just
renewed an advertising contract with the newspapers reports that
there has been a significant attitude shift in the past several
weeks. Immediately after the planned closure of the Star-Bulletin
was announced, Gannett was telling advertisers rates would not be
lowered and they really had no choice. It was, he said, a "take it
or leave it" presentation.
Currently, however, advertisers are being told they can cancel
their contracts if the Star-Bulletin closes. It looks like enough
advertisers balked at the hard line that they have had to build an
escape clause into the new contracts.
I've been getting email from concerned folks across the
country, some also Gannett refugees. One of the more interesting
arrived today, passing the word that a Nashville alternative
weekly columnist predicted yesterday that the Star-Bulletin case
could eventually force the Justice Department to revisit the death
of the JOA there. This tidbit forwarded to me from a SPJ member in
the Nashville area.
"You never forget the date," former S-B assistant managing editor Rich Somerville says. It was September 25, 1982, when staff of the Des Moines Tribune learned the paper would be closed. Somerville was news editor at the time.
November 6, Saturday
Is the Star-Bulletin making money? Would it be a viable
competitor for the Advertiser? Look at it this way. It appears
that we have more subscriptions for home delivery on Oahu than the
Advertiser. Circulation has leveled off at about 67,000, and we've
been putting out a better product. In Hawaii, with the time
difference between here and the mainland, we can get most of the
day's mainland news into our paper same day, along with the same
day's closing stock prices. We have a first edition that is early
enough to be distributed on the other islands (if HNA didn't
artificially restrict its distribution). We have some of the best
and most recognized writers and columnists, many of the same one's
Gannett hopes to pick up if we're closed.
What if the JOA profits were distributed according to the share
of circulation? Without doing an extra calculation for the Sunday
edition,which Gannett seized after years of joint production, that
would be roughly a 40 percent share. At today's guestimate of
total HNA profits, that would mean $16 million attributed to the
Star-Bulletin. That's certainly a viable newspaper.
One factor driving Gannett is the need to repair our current
building, which leaks when it rains and has other fundamental
problems. Stopgap repairs have been made but apparently have been
determined to be insufficient. Renovation will apparently require
the relocation of the newsrooms, obviously a major expense.
Gannett obviously rather relocate one news operation instead of
two. And a new printing plant, said to be in the works, might need
additional capacity to continue the production of two dailies.
All considered, Gannett certainly has a lot of financial
motivation to drive us under. Did that push them into an illegal
conspiracy as the state alleges? We all want to know.
Lots of stress associated with the uncertainty. I came home
with a splitting headache yesterday, after a week of ups and
downs. I'm not sure what others do for stress relief. I'm saved by
living in Kaaawa, about 23 miles from downtown Honolulu, and
beginning each day walking on the beach. I've put a little glimpse
of this online, including today's incredible sunrise. As we walked
this morning, I imagined there must be a suitable proverb: From
cloudy morning, special sunrise.
November 7, Sunday
There have been several reports of Star-Bulletin
subscribers being cut off on November 1 and finding the Advertiser
being delivered to their door despite specific requests to the
contrary. One subscriber was told it was an "office
error", and who knows?
Another S-B staffer brought this next story to my
attention.
"a friend was called about his S-B subscription after
the announcement in Sept. he said he wanted to keep the s-b
until it closed.
on nov. 1, he received a 'tizer and not the s-b. when he
called, circulation told him that his request had been to take
the tizer as of nov. 1. he said, no, that he wanted to continue
the s-b and knew exactly what he had told them. he got the s-b
the next day. wonder how many people they've tried to pull this
on?"
Wouldn't it be interesting to know how many subscribers got
this treatment? It would also be interesting to find out how many
Star-Bulletin subscribers would rather go without a local daily
paper than get stuck with the Advertiser.
November 8, Monday
The clock is ticking towards Wednesday's deadline for
final documents to be filed in the 9th Circuit's review of the
preliminary injunction that has kept the Star-Bulletin in print
past the original Oct. 30 deadline for closing. Right now, you can
just about hear every tick reverberating through the newsroom.
At this point, the outcome is out of our hands. Perhaps the
persistent speculation about the future course of events is a way
to reclaim some sense of control. Low key debates could be heard
on and off throughout the day. Will the injunction be upheld or
overturned? If it's upheld, what does that mean? Do you think
we'll still be publishing into the next century (that is, past
Jan. 1)? The cynics and the hopeful continue sparring, sometimes
changing sides as the arguments proceed.
Won't they just find more ways to undermine our circulation and
kill the paper if the injunction remains? That appears a distinct
possibility, even under the optimistic scenario. The Justice
Department has suggested disposing of First Amendment concerns by
allowing the paper to be closed as long as the Star-Bulletin's
owners are not paid to shut down, but they also suggested dropping
parts 2 and 3 of the injunction, which read as follows:
1. Defendants shall take no steps whatsoever to
implement, or make any payments under, the Termination
Agreement dated September 7, 1999, or any other agreement of
like intent or effect;
2. Defendants shall take no steps that are contrary to,
or inconsistent with, the stated purpose and intent of the
Hawaii Joint Operating Agreement ó Amendment and
Restatement of Mutual Publishing Plan Agreement of January 30,
1993 to produce high quality newspapers for their readers,
improve acceptance for their advertisers, subserve public
interest by maintaining the separate identities, individuality
and editorial and news freedom and integrity of the
Star-Bulletin and the Advertiser;
3. Defendants shall refrain from taking any actions that
may cause any material adverse change in the business,
including loss of subscribers and advertisers, or financial
condition of the Star-Bulletin as a viable going
concern.
Elimination of those restrictions could signal the start of
cuts that would whittle away at the Star-Bulletin as a viable
entity, beginning with killing our Saturday edition, a move which
has been considered before, perhaps trimming staff by not filling
positions that are vacated, and other similar moves.
A couple of people who covered the court beat at some point in
the past expect a quick decision affirming the preliminary
injunction, perhaps as early as Friday.
November 9, Tuesday
Who owns the Star-Bulletin? It's a question that's been
lurking in the shadows. Rupert Phillips has been the only visible
representative of the owners, and often is referred to as the
owner. So I a little digging.
The Star-Bulletin, and a position in the JOA with Gannett, was
purchased in 1993 by LIBERTY NEWSPAPERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
Liberty is an Arkansas partnership that was registered in Hawaii
on February 2, 1993, according to the partnership registration on
file with the Bureau of Conveyances in Honolulu.
The partnership now reports a mailing address of 609 Gulf Shore
Dr, Destin, Florida.
The partnership is made up of Phillips Media Services, Inc.,
general partner, along with limited partners Stephens Group, Inc.,
Coral Partners, Douglas H. Martin, and Michael Roher. The capital
contributions by each partner are not specified in the documents
on file in Honolulu.
Phillips Media Services Inc. is an Arkansas corporation formed
in 1975. Rupert E. Phillips is president and registered agent,
according to corporation records filed with the Arkansas Secretary
of State. Although Arkansas records list Phillips at a Yellville,
AR, address, the partnership's annual filing with the State of
Hawaii lists a personal address in Florida.
The remaining limited partners all appear related to the
Stephens Group.
Stephens Group, Inc. is the Arkansas-based investment firm
which also acquired the Donrey Media Group in 1993, the same year
it took over the Star-Bulletin. Donrey is owner of two other
newspapers in Hawaii, the Hawaii Tribune Herald and West Hawaii
Today.
Coral Partners is an affiliate of the Stephens Group headed by
general partners Warren A. Stephens and Jon E.M. Jacoby. Limited
information about Coral Partners can be found in SEC filings for
two other deals involving Coral Partners, Power-One,
Inc., and Delta
& Pine Land Company.
Liberty Newspapers partner Douglas H. Martin is a
vice-president of Stephens Group, Inc., according to a financing
statement filed at the Bureau of Conveyances in Honolulu. Arkansas
corporate records list Martin as the registered agent for the
Stephens Publishing Corporation of Little Rock, a corporation
which has been dissolved. Stephens Publishing was registered at
the same business address as Phillips Media, Inc., another
business which has since been dissolved.
I wasn't successful in finding any information about the
remaining partner, Michael Roher.
Two UCC Financing Statements were filed at the Hawaii Bureau of
Conveyances immediately after the 1993 purchase of the
Star-Bulletin.
The first, filed the same day as the purchase, lists Stephens
Group as the secured party, and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin as the
debtor. The return address shown on the document was the Stephens
Group offices in Little Rock, to the attention of Douglas
Martin.
This security arrangement was terminated in August 1993, soon
after the filing of a new financing statement showing Prudential
Insurance Company of America, agent for Prudential Capital, as the
secured party. It appears that initial financing by Stephens was
replaced by more permanent financing through Prudential.
Stephens Group, through its Donrey subsidiary, and Gannet
became partners earlier this year in a major California newspaper
deal. On March 31, 1999, they joined with Garden State Newspapers,
Inc., to form the California
Newspaper Partnership, made up of 21 daily newspapers formerly
owned by the three individual firms.
I don't know what all this means, if anything, or if anyone
else is interested.
November 10, Wednesday
We're closing in on decision day. The last reply brief
must be filed today with the 9th Circuit, and then its time for a
three judge panel to make its ruling. Up or down. The particular
way that ruling is crafted will probably determine whether the
Star-Bulletin survives more than a few days or not. It promises to
be a day of waiting and tension, then more guessing when we have a
chance to review Gannett's brief.
For now, I'm reduced to reading the "signs", which appear to be
improving. Last month, I repressed a series of disturbing
coincidences that occurred during a 24-hour period. A dead sea
turtle was washed up on the beach in the path of our morning walk,
where we found it just before dawn. Then, during the commute in to
work, traffic was backed up because of a building fire next door
to our neighbor's business. Finally, on the drive home, we saw a
car in the oncoming lane hit a dog that was attempting a
too-leisurely run across the roadway. If there are any omens,
these certainly seemed to qualify.
This morning's began differently. During the commute to town, a
puppy was wandering along and into the two-lane Kamehameha Highway
as it winds across the lower end of Waikane valley. I frantically
honked as we came up to the scene and at least scared him out of
the way of an oncoming school bus, but as we passed the puppy
appeared to be heading into the road again. Fearing a repeat of
last month, I turned around at the first available driveway and
headed back on a rescue mission, but my honking apparently brought
the dog's person out to take it back to safety. What a sense of
relief. With any luck, the court will offer up a similar sense of
relief, if not tonight then by the end of this week.
Take another look at what Star-Bulletin owner Rupert Phillips
said on Sept. 16 in his announcement of the proposed closing.
According to the
Star-Bulletin's published account, Phillips "blamed the move
on declining circulation, a sluggish local economy and better
investment opportunities on the mainland."
Sounded reasonable, but the actual the terms of the JOA suggest
Phillips was being far less than candid. In fact, neither
declining circulation nor a sluggish economy have anything at all
to do with the earnings that Phillips and his partners enjoy. The
1993 amendments to the JOA, which Gannett adopted with a bit of
the old "smoke and mirrors" routine, stripped the Star-Bulletin of
any sharing of profits or risk involved in the whole venture and
instead promised a steady stream of set earnings. If the economy
of Japan had not crashed, Gannett would have enjoyed bloated
profits instead of declining revenues. But all of that is
irrelevant to Phillips, the JOA shows.
The payments to Phillips for the current term of the JOA are
itemized in the agreement as follows. These payments are due no
matter what happens to the overall earnings of the Hawaii
Newspaper Agency. It's too bad this wasn't clear in September,
because we might have asked Rupert to clarify his misleading
explanation. He might not have answered, but it would have been
satisfying to pose the question.
Payments to Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership:
Remainder of 1993: $1,422,857
1994: $1,610,000
1995: $1,660,000
1996: $1,710,000
1997: $1,760,000
1998: $1,810,000
1999: $1,860,000
2000: $1,910,000
2001: $1,960,000
2002: $2,010,000
2003: $2,060,000
2004: $2,110,000
2005: $2,160,000
2006: $2,210,000
2007: $2,260,000
2008: $2,310,000
2009: $2,360,000
2010: $2,410,000
2011: $2,460,000
2012 and thereafter: $2,510,000
4:40 p.m. Still haven't seen a copy of the brief filed today by
Gannett. I'm afraid the suspense will continue for a bit
longer.
And, finally, George Steele's contribution of the day. "Q: What
do you call a Star-Bulletin staffer without a significant other?
A: Homeless."
For something else on the light side, check out local comedian
Frank
DeLima's new song, now posted on the Star-Bulletin's own web
site.
November 11, Thursday
The tide of optimism is out today, judging from comments
up and down this side of the room about two pivotal events. The
sense of fundamental insecurity is again creeping through the
newsroom.
Reports are circulating about a gathering of the Gannett
executive clan held yesterday. The unexpectedly slow progress of
this case, and Gannett's inability to quickly dispatch the
Star-Bulletin to the realm of local history, is apparently causing
talk of belt-tightening to make up for the hefty legal fees and
other unplanned costs. The result, as is so often the case, is the
punishment of the innocent. If the injunction is upheld, plans to
expand and improve the Advertiser, including the hiring of 20 or
more Star-Bulletin staffers, may be modified or scrapped
altogether. Offers made earlier contingent on the closing of the
S-B could be "off the table". Suddenly we're all potentially "have
nots" once again, and readers can forgot those rosy Gannett
promises of a new, expanded, and better news product the morning
after.
Gannett and Liberty Newspapers filed their replies yesterday as
expected, and while there is apparently little new, some observers
in our newsroom feel they emerged with the weight of the law, on
balance, shifting to their side.
The initial flurry of optimism generated by the Justice
Department's entry into the case has largely dissipated, it seems,
with the realization that Justice keyed on the payment to
Phillips/Liberty and not on the fate of this newspaper. We can be
toasted so long as Rupert doesn't get his money, they argued.
Gannett says DOJ's suggestion that the preliminary injunction be
modified is an admission that it violates the First Amendment
rights of the publishers.
November 12, Friday
The pressure was boosted after yesterday afternoon's S-B
editorial meeting to put the finishing touches on copy for the
"final edition" of the Star-Bulletin, apparently indicating
management belief the 9th Circuit decision could go against us.
"Just in case" is what they are saying, but the urgency has
clearly cranked up a notch or two. The final commemorative edition
will be wrapped up momentarily, and ready to hit the presses with
minimal noticel.
Apparently a further spin-off of Wednesday's Gannett meetings
is the sense that the S-B will be facing a potential hiring freeze
and/or further cutbacks if the legal situation extends the
newspapers existence. Veiled warnings are floated that we'll be
facing unspecified adjustments to cope with restricted
resources.
There is also a belated recognition that events have impacted
on staff productivity, and management is indicating some
discomfort in the amount of hallway analysis and speculation.
Quiet advice was given to avoid conspicuous discussions of our
predicament. Well, folks, this is how people process major
transitional events like this which are determining the future of
careers and lifestyles. There just isn't any way to stomp out the
staff solidarity that is emerging from the shared crisis.
No one really knows how to positively deal with the situation.
We have not had a staff meeting since the proposed closing was
announced September 16. If this is because no-one thought of it,
well, there's still time, folks. An opportunity to share feelings
and clear the air would be beneficial, whether we last another
week or another year. Is anybody up there reading this?
I finally had a chance late yesterday to review the filings by
Gannett and Liberty Newspapers Partnership. They mostly reiterated
previous arguments, but there did answer several of the key
arguments raised by Justice.
Re allegations of an underlying conspiracy to close the
Star-Bulletin, apart from the formal agreement to terminate the
JOA: They argue that there is nothing in the record to support the
existence of this conspiracy, no finding by Judge Kay nor any
evidence to indicate a background conspiracy. They cite Kay's
factual findings which trace the beginnings of the controversy to
Liberty's decision to close the Star-Bulletin, not to a secret
cabal.
Meanwhile, Rupert/Liberty Newspapers cites a case to this
effect: "Conduct that is as consistent with permissible
competition as with illegal conspiracy does not, without more,
support even an inference of conspiracy." Appearances do not a
conspiracy make, it seems.
They also turn the Justice Department's concern with the $26
million payment on its head in an attempt to demonstrate the
problems with the argument. Justice says that closing the
Star-Bulletin is alright if no money changes hands--Rupert is free
to just walk away. Gannett turns this on its head, arguing the
DOJ's real position is that Rupert is free to exercise his right
not to publish so long as he is willing to pay a $26 million
penalty for doing so. This is unconstitutional on its face, they
argue.
Gannett repeatedly hit the concession by DOJ that two of the
three provisions in the preliminary injunction may violate the
First Amendment. In Gannett's view, this simply demonstrates that
the whole injunction is unconstitutional and must be
overturned.
All in all, not a good week.
November 13, Saturday
Sorry for the delay in getting this posted. RoadRunner's
personal web page server has been down all day, and finally
responded after 4:30 p.m.
Sometimes it's hard to wrestle the paranoia demon down and keep
it under control. Yesterday, someone suggested the new push to
complete the Star-Bulletin's "final edition" is really being done
to intentionally raise anxiety levels and, in turn, quash or
discourage pesky dissent.
I've got enough Kennedy assassination memorabilia stacked away
in storage to prove my conspiracy roots, but I've got to jump to
the defense of our editors. I see no evidence that anyone on our
side of the building wants to see the Star-Bulletin die or would
do anything to willfully speed that demise. I've talked to all,
and although we're wearing different hats, have different
interests and and we all do what we have to do on some fronts, I
would bet my bundle on everyone, from John and Dave on down the
line.
Friday was low-key in the newsroom, with quiet speculation on
when a 9th Circuit decision might be expected. There's a bit of
battle fatigue, and I sense people are getting a bit numb after
being tossed around by the highs and lows of recent weeks
events.
There was some gossip that Advertiser staffers are being
counseled that the current court-imposed gridlock might continue
for several months, but that selective hires of current
Star-Bulletin staffers might go forward during that time. This
assumes the preliminary injunction will be modified, but that
seems a pretty safe conclusion since all parties seem to agree it
is necessary. Any raids would have a heavy impact on the remaining
S-B staff left to carry the load.
If this scenario proves accurate, imagine the terrible bind it
will create for our best people. Most will have to accept the
offers and move to the darker side, but will carry a heavy burden
of guilt as they are asked to compete with former colleagues.
Let's hope events take a different course.
I'm told that people throughout HNA are regular readers of this
journal to keep track of the mood in the Star-Bulletin. I may not
always capture everything, and I can be wrong (did I say that?),
but I'm doing my best to compile a record from my own viewpoint.
If you would like to bring something to my attention, just jot
down a note and email it over
to me.
November 14, Sunday
|
|
It is very hard to write this with a wild, six-month
old gray tiger cat chasing his tail in my lap, but it's
better than when he was trying to bite my fingers.
One of the depressing aspects of this whole experience
is the routine corporate logic that Gannett applies to
newspapers, as if they were a simple commodity like
hamburgers or door mats, rather than part of the
foundation of an educated and democratic society. It's as
if we sold off our museums to the Gannett's of the world,
leaving the realm of art to be reduced to editorial
cartoons and advertising graphics.
A newspaper is more than a delivery vehicle for
advertising, but Gannett and its cohorts seem intent on
reducing that margin to a bare minimum. Or so it looks
from here.
|
I wonder if there is any truth to the rumor that Hawaii Hochi
is exploring the possibility of using their press for a daily
paper?
November 15, Monday
|
Trini say "we're open"!
|
The sign says it all! The
9th Circuit ruled today that the preliminary
injunction protecting the S-B from closure stands "until
the District Court renders judgment." Word reached us at
2 p.m., and was confirmed within the next 30 minutes. A
sense of relief rolled across the newsroom, and
reverberated throughout the afternoon.
Longtime Star-Bulletin staffer Trini Peltier was
prepared. Of course, she was ready whichever way the
court decided. The other side of the sign says "we are
closed."
What does the ruling mean? That question was heard a
lot during the rest of the day. The bottom line: It
appears the Star-Bulletin will be publishing for several
months more, if not a year, or twelve.
There will be pizza, celebrating, and more in the
newsroom at noon tomorrow.
|
"A funny thing happened on the way to the closing," quipped
Newspaper Guild staffer Wayne Cahill during a visit late in the
day. Cahill gave considerable credit to Hawaii Gov. Ben Cayetano.
According to Cahill, Cayetano met with union officials within
hours of the September 16 announcement that the Star-Bulletin
would be closed. The Gov's immediate response, Cahill said, was to
question why the paper wasn't offered up for sale, and to direct
the Attorney General to look into it.
Betting goes both ways on what happens next. Will Gannett dig
in and throw its money into a legal full court press, taking any
and every opportunity to fight in a take-no-prisoners type of
courtroom battle? Or will they move to avoid the risk of an
adverse ruling, let the termination agreement lapse without being
implemented, and let the status quo continue?
The court's ruling today shows the First Amendment issues are
not as clear as the filings to date seemed to indicate. If it saw
a persuasive First Amendment case, the court would not have let
the injunction stand. Absent that issue, it looks like we're going
to trial next year.
[The following entry was written early this morning,
hours before today's ruling. What a difference a few hours
makes.]
It's been 60 days since the announcement of the Star-Bulletin's
closing, and today was supposed to be our final day of employment.
Here's hoping that the 9th Circuit ruling, expected this week,
further delays our demise.
Several weeks ago, National Public Radio did a feature
interview with a professional violinist who was preparing
Christmas dinner and cut the tip of her finger off while chopping
vegetables. The woman described standing in her kitchen, looking
down at her hand, and realizing in the same moment that her career
was unexpectedly over, cut short by this unpredictable event. In
her case, the story ended happily as surgeons flew in to perform
finger-and-career-saving surgery.
I'm feeling that same way about the Star-Bulletin. I've only
relatively recently gotten over the impostor syndrome, after being
given this opportunity to recreate myself as a newspaper reporter.
For at least a couple of years, I would say, with tongue only
slightly in cheek: "I'm not really a reporter, although a play one
at work." But I've gotten comfortable with the role, and have
managed to do ok at it, and I've been doing enough of the
learn-while-you-earn routine to feel like much more is
possible.
Then came Rupert's announcement and, zip, the world shifts ever
so slightly, there's that feeling of the ground dropping away
momentarily, and I can see or feel it all vanishing in an instant.
What does an investigative reporter do without a newspaper?
There's so much investigating to do, but not a lot of ready ways
to put the results into public view.
I'm rooted here in Hawaii, and am not likely to venture off to
the mainland to fit into another existing newspaper job. So what
happens next? It's a question I'm trying to avoid as long as
possible, because it goes into territory full of dragons by
forcing a series of questions: If I'm no longer Ian Lind the
investigative reporter for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, who am I?
And what's my identity when that security key is disabled and I've
carried the last box of stuff out to the car and left the 2nd
floor newsroom for the last time? You don't really want to visit
such questions if it isn't necessary, and I keep hoping that new
directions will open up without having to face the identity issues
straight on. We'll see.
Continued...
Since 11/2/99