Final Days: A Newsroom Diary
October 16-31, 1999
October 16, Saturday
It has been one month since the official announcement
that the Star-Bulletin is to be closed. How time flies when you're
having fun!
I ran across an interesting interview by the Washington Press
Club Foundation with former Star-Bulletin publisher (back when it
was the Gannett paper in Honolulu) Catherine
Shen, who talks about the paper and its impact in Hawaii. An
interesting read. [That was not an elegant sentence, but
hopefully you, the reader, can go with it.]
October 17, Sunday
|
|
Okay, I admit it. I didn't drag myself out of Kaaawa
and across the island to the "community meeting" called
by the Save Our Star-Bulletin organization, although I
did watch 30-seconds of it on the television news last
night. Why not? Well, it was scheduled in the midst of
prime Sunday nap time. A crass and selfish motive, to be
sure, but true. And I'm still quite ambivalent about a
group that isn't candid about its leadership and makeup,
and has adopted such a top-down structure despite its
small size and short history. The anarchist in me balks
at those danger signs, while supporting the "cause".
[note: the web site, "savestarbulletin.org" is
registered to the Hawaii Newspaper Guild.]
It's strange that in what might be its final days, the
Star-Bulletin is going from newspaper to cause.
|
October 18, Monday
Today it's wait, and wait a while more. I'm sure everyone
is doing what I am--that is, working on a story while trying to
listen to other newsroom conversations for any developments in the
legal proceedings. Morning checks with the 9th Circuit Court in
San Francisco apparently failed to turn up new information on the
status of Gannett's appeal of the preliminary injunction, which
was reportedly sent off by Fedex Friday. Haven't heard anything
yet from afternoon court checks.
This will potentially be a make or break decision. If the
injunction is overturned, or stayed pending appeal, our days are
almost certainly numbered. It would mean the Star-Bulletin closing
would proceed, but Gannett and Liberty might be liable for damages
at some future point if they are ultimately found to have violated
the law. But if the injunction is allowed to stay in place, then
the Star-Bulletin cannot legally be dismantled and we will
continue publishing indefinitely.
More in the "not dead yet" department: City Editor Dan Woods
distributed a staff memo this morning. "Sucker punched by our
savior, we were down and almost out. But hold on a second. We're
still standing. And all over the community, people are rallying to
our defense."
Our response, Dan urged, must be "to retain our aggressiveness
and consistency and take the offensive" by getting out more good
stories, particularly "stories with edge."
Despite the general uncertainty, we're going forward, even
hiring a couple of reporters part-time to keep momentum. Good news
among the gloom. Thanks, Dan.
October 19, Tuesday
Parts of a conversation yesterday afternoon stick with
me. I joined several people speculating about the 9th Circuit
wrangling, and what might happen if this court case drags on for
months.
"We'll slowly bleed to death," an editor predicted. "As people
are offered jobs elsewhere, they'll leave, and those remaining
will have to work harder, pick up the slack. We'll end up running
the paper with interns and inexperienced reporters. We'll just
bleed until there's no more blood."
On the other hand, this was one of the email messages that
greeted us this morning: "I for one do not like the morbid tone of
some of the events that have been discussed on staff message group
this week. A United States judge says we shall not close on Oct.
30. Until something extraordinary overturns him, that's the way it
is."
Meanwhile, assignments have been made for a final commemorative
edition of the Star-Bulletin. Our current instructions are to
"proceed as if we have to publish it on October 30."
And, in a similar vein, we've been told that a decision will be
made this Friday about whether the "We Made Waves" party will go
ahead on the evening of Oct. 30. It was originally scheduled to
follow the final edition of the paper, but that's still up in the
air (or in the courts).
October 20, Wednesday
Excitement and confusion as news came via the Newspaper
Guild that the 9th Circuit denied Gannett's request to lift the
preliminary injunction while their appeal goes forward, but the
court did agree to expedite its hearing of the case. What does
this mean? The bottom line is that the Star-Bulletin will not
cease publication on October 30, but beyond that? They set a
deadline of Nov. 10th for briefs to be filed by Gannett and the
state, and a decision by a three judge panel is expected soon
after that date. If Gannett prevails, it isn't clear whether they
would have to issue another 60-day closure notice or pull the plug
immediately. I'll have to wait and read our final edition stories
today to find out more, but it does mean that this personal
experiment in journaling will be extended beyond its intended
bounds.
There were a lot of emotional flips as we sorted out what the
court's ruling actually accomplished. As one reporter observed:
"The morning's jubilation was short-lived. We're ready to react to
the slightest shred of good news." And that we are.
Word came late in the day that a grievance has been filed after
workers in the circulation department (that services both our
paper and the Advertiser) were told they could not wear Save Our
Star-Bulletin buttons while on the job.
And it looks like the big bash will be postponed, to be
replaced October 30th by a smaller-scale "reports of our death
have been greatly exaggerated" party. Hopefully there won't have
to be a real final "final edition", and so no big rescheduled big
bash. See, there's that optimism creeping out through the cracks
again.
October 21, Thursday
Another indicator of the mood. I was asked to remove two
pictures from my web pages showing Star-Bulletin staffers
joining in the picketing outside the building last week. The
person making the request said he had been advised by a friend in
Seattle that being unnecessarily visible is not a good idea under
these circumstances for those who have pending job offers from the
"surviving" newspaper. The edit was easy and quick, but a sad
reminder that we're living with pressures leading to
self-censorship. Gannett management could easily put these fears
to rest by announcing a policy of "no retaliation" against anyone
involved in "Save our Star-Bulletin" activities. Perhaps a reader
could forward that suggestion over to the Advertiser.
One remaining point was clarified today by the U.S. Dept. of
Labor in Washington. Press officer Chung Seto said Gannett will
not have to give a new 60-day notice in order to proceed if the
injunction is overturned. As long as the initial 60 day period is
over, they will have satisfied the requirement. This means the
Star-Bulletin could be closed and staff terminated immediately any
time after November 15 if the courts give the go-ahead. A new
layer of anxiety on top of the existing uncertainty.
October 22, Friday
Photographer George Lee says he's going down with the
ship. He dropped by my desk earlier in the week to react to the
"bleeding to death" comments (see 10/19).
He put himself firmly among the faction that is committed to
the Star-Bulletin until the end, and very proud of it! He's not
looking for work or exploring options now. I hear other reporters
on the phone talking to potential employers, sending off resumes,
etc. To the contrary, George is defiant, with the attitude that
"Gannett may eventually stop the presses but they won't kill the
Star-Bulletin's spirit." And clearly he's not alone. Lots of us
are here until the ship goes down.
In George's view, we won't bleed to death because we'll go out
and hire new staffers. And forget the worry that we could end up
replacing experienced reporters and editors with novices. He
pointed to several recent hires which have turned out incredibly
well as young reporters have blossomed in the daily routine. So
have no fear, folks, we're here for the duration.
I'm feeling much the same way, but I'm not sure whether this is
denial, resistance, or inertia. I can dredge down and come up with
all three feelings in various combinations.
We're hearing complaints from Advertiser staffers now facing
community anger at Gannett's move to close the Star-Bulletin. I
say Gannett's move because the attempt to paint S-B owner Rupert
Phillips as the primary mover is a transparent sham, at least in
my view. The decisions are made by Gannett's corporate officers on
the mainland, but it's Advertiser reporters and editors who have
to personally face the backlash here at home. We know its
uncomfortable for them but, as one Advertiser editor told me,
"when its all over I'll still have a job."
October 23, Saturday
Rumors, rumblings and speculation are hot items in the
newsroom. Wherever two people stop to talk, more will gather or at
least eavesdrop for any new information, whether hard news or wild
speculation. This weaving of speculative scenarios can, and does,
go on endlessly. It can become addictive, and debilitating.
Scenario 1. Gannett and Liberty cancel the termination
agreement, everything returns to the way it was before, and the
Star-Bulletin is published for another 12 years before closing
down when the current joint operating agreement expires. My
evaluation: not likely. Gannett is looking at potential savings of
$90 million over the term of the JOA by not publishing the
Star-Bulletin, even with the generous payoff of Liberty and our
man Rupert Phillips. That's $90 million powerful motivations to
push forward.
Scenario 2: Gannett battles all-out in court, forcing an
eventual trial on the issues raised by the Attorney General and
the separate citizens lawsuit. My evaluation: Also not likely. I
can't imagine Gannett welcoming a drawn out discovery process with
depositions of everyone involved in the decision to close the
Star-Bulletin. That prospect must leave Gannett's antitrust
defense team with cold sweats.
Scenario 3: Gannett adopts a "no layoffs" policy and agrees to
merge the entire Star-Bulletin staff into the Advertiser, using
the extra staff for neighborhood coverage, special projects, etc.
Classic featherbedding in the short term, with long term staff
reductions coming through attrition, retirement incentives, etc.
In exchange, the Guild would make concessions in the upcoming
contract negotiations. My evaluation: plausible, but only if this
would somehow answer the state's antitrust objections, or generate
enough political support to force the state to back off.
Scenario 4: The termination agreement is canceled and the state
drops its lawsuit. Liberty & Rupert agree to rewrite the JOA
to Gannett's further advantage, allowing further cutbacks in the
Star-Bulletin's circulation and distribution while retaining its
core "editorial voice". Basically, Rupert agrees to let Gannett
whittle away at the S-B. Gannett keeps most of the savings, but
increases Rupert's annual payout. Gannett then demands additional
concessions from the Guild when contracts expire next June, then
provokes a Detroit-like strike through various prohibited
practices. My evaluation: Also plausible. No one would be happy
with this outcome. The Star-Bulletin would live, but our lives
would be miserable. Hard to foresee where this would lead.
Scenario 5: Gannett presses its case that Judge Kay erred by
assuming closure of the S-B would lessen business competition.
After all, they argue, competition in advertising rates, etc.,
ended with the first JOA. The competition is on the editorial
side, not the business side, and antitrust law doesn't apply to
the former. The 9th Circuit strikes down the injunction, ruling
that even if the state were to prevail in the lawsuit, it could
impose penalties but could not impose a "publish this newspaper or
else" order. Gannett then proceeds with the shutdown as quickly as
possible, and initiates settlement discussions while preparing for
all-out war in court. My evaluation: Plausible, with the pending
9th Circuit appeal to provide a good indicator.
October 24, Sunday
Today I repressed thoughts of the Star-Bulletin and our
collective fate as much as possible. The problem is that the
looming uncertainty creates a floor, and a ceiling, of
consciousness. If you start brooding, bang, you hit that floor of
worry. And if you're having a good time, then bang, you eventually
hit that ceiling and realize it is either going to end soon or
devolve into a protracted war, neither pleasant options. So it
goes. A new week begins.
October 25, Monday
All is quiet in the newsroom today, but there's a wierd
ambiance because we all know this was slated to be the
Star-Bulletin's last week. An in-house message this morning:
"Overheard the rent-a-cops downstairs last night, it seems that
they had no idea we were going to be open past 10/30. Maybe they
should read the papers! NOT DEAD YET!"
One thing noticed: there has been virtually no mainland news
coverage of our situation, despite the prominence of the players
involved and the potential import of the legal issues being
raised. A friend on the Washington Post's editorial staff said
today he had copies of the legal briefs on his desk, but isn't
sure the case is editorial material yet. He did not know what, if
anything, they might be doing on the news side, despite the fact
that S-B owner Rupert Phillips is a "local" in their part of the
world.
Defections looming ahead. City Editor Dan Woods has done a
great job since taking over the helm earlier this year, but he has
accepted another position here in Honolulu as a result of the
threatened closure. His last day here is Nov. 19. Assistant City
Editor Dana Williams will be starting a new job in Florida
immediately after Nov. 15, which was initially announced as our
last day of employment. Reporters have started flying off to
mainland job interviews. Life moves on.
October 26, Tuesday
We got support today from an unexpected source. HGEA,
the union representing state and county white collar workers, took
out a 1/2-page
advertisement in on the editorial pages of both the Advertiser
and Star-Bulletin today under the headline, "The Star-Bulletin
Saga: Profits over People?" It is nicely done but uses blunt
language to criticize the "profit and run" approach of of both
Gannett and Phillips/Liberty Newspaper. The moral support is
appreciated by all!
The ad also contains the link to this diary, meaning that there
will potentially be more visitors to this page. Welcome
aboard!
We're attending a friend's funeral tonight. It helps to keep
everything else in perspective.
October 27, Wednesday
It's a gathering of suits, part of the Gannett clan,
upstairs in the executive offices this morning, according to
staffers who have been keeping an eye out for activity while
heading to the cafeteria and back. Perhaps signing off on the
briefs due at the 9th Circuit today, or making a show of support,
or maybe just running up the growing legal tab.
I find that I'm having a personal reaction against naive
optimism, and end up playing the devil's advocate in conversations
about the fate of the Star-Bulletin, poking holes in various
theories being offered that appear to support potentially positive
outcomes to the litigation and/or the political strategy being
pursued by our unions & others. Meda (my wife and partner)
would like to be optimistic, and my dour analysis has caused more
than a few tense interactions. It's not that I don't want to be
optimistic, but I don't want my own desires for a positive outcome
to cloud the analysis of our actual situation.
In the long view, we're just more road kill in the long decline
of the daily newspaper. Today I ran across a manuscript (available
on-line) on the post-WWII history of newspapers by David
Davies, a former reporter and now Associate Professor of
Journalism at the University of Southern Mississippi. It's worth
checking out for a longer-term perspective on the dynamics that
underly our situation.
Late afternoon. Long faces in around the city desk. Word has
just filtered down that a long list of news organizations,
including major newspaper chains as well as the Associated Press,
filed arguments with the 9th Circuit in favor of Gannett's right
to crush the Star-Bulletin. Betrayed by our own colleagues, and,
to add insult to injury, they wave the First Amendment as their
rationale for rallying to Gannett's aid. Staffers file by to thumb
through the legal documents. Depression reigns.
October 28, Thursday
"We're toast!" was ace consumer reporter Rob Perez's
succinct evaluation this morning after reading through the legal
brief filed by ten news organizations in support of Gannett's
appeal to the 9th Circuit Court.
Perhaps this is "normal" when absorbing top-notch legal
arguments--the one you're reading right now always seems
pursuasive. But there's no sidestepping the fact that this case,
along with the one
put forward by Gannett, lay out what appear to be substantial
grounds for the court to act against us.
Hallway discussions have continued all day, at least on my side
of the newsroom, as we continue flying in circles, still hoping to
see some crack in the logic of this newspaper nightmare. Some are
still hopeful: "Isn't there room for the court to make new law?
Aren't there limits on what a JOA can do?" I haven't been able to
see much reason for optimism yet. The case obviously is not the
simply slam dunk that the District Court in Honolulu perceived,
but several people in our newsroom with experience covering courts
still argue there's a chance the 9th Circuit will allow the
preliminary injunction to remain pending a full hearing on the
request for a permanent injunction. They think the 9th Circuit
"wants" this case. I'm anxious to be proved wrong on this.
Obviously.
There have also been more quiet conversations comparing
personal gameplans, life situations, and employment alternatives,
all triggered by the sense that events are moving quickly.
Another question has come up several times. What about the
major newspaper groups that did not lend their names to this
effort? Knight-Ridder, New York Times, Time-Mirror, and others
were conspicuously absent.
And then the realization that if Gannett wins at the 9th
Circuit, they could retaliate by burying our chance of putting out
a final edition of the Star-Bulletin. If the decision came after
our deadline for the day, and after the November 15 expiration of
the 60-day notice, HNA could potentially just declare the
Star-Bulletin dead. Our final edition, which will be ready to go
at a moments notice, would not see the light of day, at least it
would not emerge from these presses. Would Gannett be that petty?
The best I can say is that we just don't know for sure.
October 29, Friday
Another week almost done. Tomorrow had been scheduled to
be our last edition. It has arrived much faster than I thought
possible, as will the next deadline, I'm sure. Mark Coleman just
stopped by and suggested that coming to work next week will be
like entering the "afterlife" or, perhaps, returning from that
other side.
I got an email last night from someone who says she stops by
this journal "now and then." Here's her question/comment:
"Wanting to know: Do you have any information on
whether any planned / concerted boycott strategy exists for SB
readers, if in fact the SB closes and we are left with only the
Advertiser? I, for one, have adopted this strategy, having
called the HNA customer service line and asked that the balance
on my account not be transferred into an Advertiser
subscription, mentioning my disgust with Gannett, etc. to the
voice on the other end. While I love newspaper reading and
don't like to think of my days without it, I also cannot see
supporting the Advertiser w/ my $$. Maybe a boycott is in the
making and I just haven't heard."
I have to admit my own uncertainty about subscribing to the
Advertiser in the future, and I've heard a couple of isolated
comments speculating about a boycott, but as far as I know there
is no effort to organize one. It isn't clear, to me at least, what
the objective of an organized boycott might be? Although there are
psychological rewards right now associated with increasing the
costs to Gannett of closing the Star-Bulletin, some team of
accountants back in Virgina would probably just punish the
innocent survivors who end up at the Advertiser. But who knows
what might emerge in the weeks ahead?
There are also reportedly several different groups of
Star-Bulletin staffers conferring with attorneys about possible
legal claims against Rupert Phillips, Liberty Newspaper
Partnership, and/or Gannett and HNA. I haven't been privy to any
of these discussions, and the potential legal grounds aren't clear
to me, but some may relate to statements Phillips made back in
1993 when his purchase of the Bulletin was announced. He
reportedly told staffers that their jobs were very secure, and he
advised everyone to go ahead and buy a house, get a mortgage, etc,
based on that promised security until the end of the JOA in
2012.
I'm stunned, thanks to Save Our Star-Bulletin's on-line version
of the full text of the 1993 Joint
Operating Agreement between the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin.
There are some startling factoids here for those willing to wade
through the legalese. For example, Rupert Phillips has said the
decision to close the Star-Bulletin came because his partnership
has not received the extra payments promised if certain goals of
the joint publishing operation are achieved. In 1999, that target
profit is $81,480,262. Meaning that Gannett expected to be able to
make more than $81 million in profit and to pay Phillips a share
of the profits beyond that figure! Compare that to the entire cost
of running the Star-Bulletin for a year, which is under $10
million.
So the idea that Gannett is "losing money" might mean simply
that profits are below the $81 million figure. These are pretty
staggering numbers.
October 30, Saturday
A warning: yesterday a friend leaned over the wall to my
little cubicle in the newsroom. "I checked out your web page," he
said. "The cats are a little much. But the rest is ok." So please
be forewarned. Visitors to other parts of this web site risk a
wild ride through an overly generous number of pictures of our
cats in Kaaawa, and perhaps too many glimpses of sunrise on the
beach. So if you've got a feline phobia, stick to these safe
Star-Bulletin pages.
October 31, Sunday
In a search for clues, I wandered the internet seeking
information on Gannett and newspaper joint operating agreements.
There's not as much out there as I hoped, but there were some
interesting finds. How about the newspapers that closed,
leaving their owners to collect their normal share of the JOA
profits through the full term of their agreements? Profits without
the hassle of putting out a paper. In our case here, Gannett is
even willing to pay those promised profits in advance. Something's
wrong with this picture, but whether it goes beyond bad ethics and
bad policy to something the legal system can deal with is another
issue.
There was a semblance of normalcy in the Star-Bulletin newsroom
this week, but it played out against a background stress shared by
everyone. Reporters are out looking for work or trying to decide
where to look for work, or what kind of work to look for. There
are permutations galore. Couples have to decide whether to pull up
stakes and look for work on the mainland, where to draw the line
beyond which they won't sacrifice to stay in Hawaii. These were
decisions featured earlier in our reports on the islands' economy,
but now experienced personally.
We're caught in an inescapable bind reporting on the situation
that engulfs us. In principle, it appears to violate the currently
popular codes of ethics promoted by the Society of Professional
Journalists and most newspapers, which stress "objectivity" and
the obligation to remain free of ties or interests that could sway
our reporting. In our special circumstance, of course, that is
impossible. Despite this, our coverage of our own situation has
been decent, and is energized by what we have at risk. If
anything, the existence of those interests has made us less
aggressive than if this were happening to someone else.
This may be the special case that undermines the rule. If our
collective interests and lack of "objectivity" are permissible
here, perhaps they should not be considered ethical lapses more
generally. It may be that the prevailing commitment to
"objectivity" should be far more limited. It may be embraced by
the corporate newsroom but not really appropriate as a defining
principal for journalism in general.
Since 11/2/99