AP Reporter Barred From EPA Meeting In Yet Another Screw Up

Scott Pruitt's EPA is apparently worried about what the Associated Press
and CNN would report on them today. So they barred them. 

The EPA held a summit today on hazardous groundwater contamination. As always with this kind of meeting, journalists wanted to cover it. It's news.

The AP journalist who was barred asked to talk to an EPA spokesman about the situation.

Instead, a security guard forcibly kicked her out of the building, grabbing her by the shoulders and pushing her out. Pretty thuggish, doncha think?

The Trump administration isn't really into the niceties of open and transparent government, so I'm really not surprised this happened. But did the folks at the EPA really think that reporter, and journalists in general, would just shrug and say, "Oh, OK."

So there's yet another unnecessary outcry this afternoon.

"The Environmental Protection Agency's selective barring of news organizations, including the AP, from covering today's meeting is alarming and a direct threat to the public's right to know about what is happening inside their government......It is particularly distressing that any journalist trying to cover an event in the public interest would be forcibly removed," said AP Executive Editor Sally Buzbee.

So, the EPA tried to backtrack, saying the room was small, only a limited number of people could fit in, yada, yada, yada. Of course they could have easily scheduled this in a bigger room, and why did they specifically boot out the  AP and CNN from this meeting? Was something going to be said that would be particularly galling?

The EPA said they'd let reporters into the afternoon session. So they probably changed the agenda so nothing controversial will be said.

It's the PR Trump administration, of course. Hide the truth, and promote some fake news.

By the way, this whole thing has a Vermont connection. Pruitt and his EPA were caught in emails showing the agency tried to interfere and hide stuff in a critical study of the groundwater contaminants, which include some groundwater pollution around Bennington, Vermont.

Sinclair Sounds Like An Evil Place To Work

A still from that Sinclair News Group "hostage video" in which anchors
at local television stations were ordered to read a pro-Trump fake news
script to their viewers. 

I'm sure many of you have heard the hue and cry about Sinclair.... the parent company of  lot of local television stations who forced all those local anchors to parrot Donald Trump's "fake news" talking points. (read: lies.)

This was made wildly famous earlier this month by that viral video that came from Deadspin of all those anchors from Sinclair-owned stations being forced to read a "hostage video" script about how every news outlet except Sinclair, supposedly, is biased fake news.

You can see this video for yourself at the bottom of this post. I'll quote a key line from the video.

"Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control 'exactly what people think'.......This is extremely dangerous to a democracy."

So instead, the Sinclair Trumpian overlords used their corporate platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control what the people think - which is extremely dangerous to a democracy.

But, whatever.

Sinclair owns 193 local television stations and is looking to buy many more, apparently in an effort to sell their right wing bullshit at the expense of accurate local news. And since there are often no local alternatives for viewers, Sinclair believes they can brainwah the viewing public.

Besides all this awful stuff, Sinclair sounds like a terrible, terrible, place to work.

First of all, most journalists, certainly including local television journalists, pride themselves on accurate,  hard-hitting reporting that is unbiased as humanly possible.

I was in journalism for year. I get it. We all have our biases, opinions and slants. We're human beings after all. But from Journalism 101 and on through my 20-year career as a reporter, it was always ingrained in me to follow the fact where they led, question everything, be skeptical and do everything I could to purge my internal biases from my reporting.

A group of Sinclair local anchors wrote about their outrage about being forced to read the script in a Vox article last week:

"For many of us, that was the death knell. The perception among much of the public was that Sinlar was Trump TV. Now it felt like that perception was a reality. Had Trump's seal of approval put is in the same camp as Infowars and Fox News? This was a place many Sinclair journalists never expected, or wanted to be in. 

A station we've cared about for many years has been stripped of its credibility. The station lost longtime viewers - and respect from the community, its most important asset. And we Sinclair employees have lost respect for our jobs."

So why don't these Sinclair journalists just quit and find work somewhere else?

The answer gets into why Sinclair is such an evil company for employees. The anonymous Sinclair journalists writing for Vox were anonymous knew that if their names became public, Sinclair would fire them, and worse, make them pay back the corporation thousands of dollars.

That's right.

Various versions of Sinclair employee contracts leaked to the media show that employees who quit the company might be subject to "liquidated damages" which would make them pay Sinclair up to 40 percent of their annual paycheck as penalty.

Now, most television stations, and many companies in general have a non-compete clause.  You'd be restricted from working for a direct competitor, and if you do, your former company can demand money.

But some Sinclair employees, like Jonathan Beaton, quit his job at Sinclair-owned WPEC and took a new job by starting up a public relations firm, which is not in competition with Sinclair or WPEC.

As the Daily Beast and other news outlets point out, this Sinclair contract could well be iffy from a legal standpoint.

"This liquidated damages clause seems highly problematic......In general, such clauses are not enforceable if they are simply punitive; they have to be reasonable attempts to capture likely damages. In the employment contact, this is very unusual," Samuel Estreicher of the Center for Employment Law and New York University told the Daily Beast. 

Former Sinclair employees could then conceivably fight the company in court, but most don't want to invest money and time they don't have for a legal fight.  That's why the anchors in the above-mentioned Vox article want to remain anonymous.

Beaton, though, IS fighting in court.

And, demonstrating how badly Sinclair is into controlling employees, the company is trying to claw back $5,700 for the part of Beaton's unfinished contract. Beaton, writing in HuffPost, tells us he's fighting it. 

First of all Beaton tells us why he quit the Sinclair owned station:

"As reporters and anchors at the company, we were routinely told to follow leads and angles with a clear-cut conservative agenda. At  CBS-12,  (WEPC) I was ordered to do man-on-the-street interviews that were clearly politically biased. I'd ask loaded questions like, 'How much do you disagree with Obama this year?' 

It was disguised as real journalism. The funny thing is, I'm a Republican - and I was still pissed by it. But it was more than just the questions. It was stories we were told to do. They often had to have a religious tie-in. We couldn't do stories, for the most part, that involved the LGBTQ community. There were a set of parameters and we had to stick to them."

So much for Sinclair's anchor hostage tape supposedly decrying fake or biased news, huh?

You'd think a corporation making a profit of $443.5 million in its latest quarterly earnings wouldn't spend a lot of time and litigation trying to get $5,700. But you'd be wrong.

"Sinclair argues that I caused them irreparable harm by leaving. Believe me, I was a good reporter, but not that good," Beaton says.

Of course, there's a larger goal here on the part of Sinclair. Make an example out of Beaton and nobody else will quit. But as Beaton puts it, "I refuse to cower and acquiesce to this malevolent corporation. I'm fighting back."

Good. I'm glad to see some rebellions starting againt Sinclair. If anything good came out of the "hostage video," it's the attention it brought.

Fourteen journalism schools have come out critcizing Sinclair. Budding journalists have been put on notice not to apply for jobs at Sinclair because if they do, they'll face a career of misery. Which means, by attrition, Sinclair will lose its remaining crop of good journalists, and just complete its transformation into an untrustworthy shill for the Trumpians of the world.

And then we can all go on ignoring the blah, blah, blah noise of the Sinclair Trump hornblowers. Buh-bye!

In case you forgot it, here's that "hostage video."

Roy Moore Is Stupid, But You Knew That. Another Piece Of Evidence

Roy Moore wants to sue the Washington Post and Al.com
for their reporting on Moore's sexual harassment. Both
organizations hope he does sue. 

Roy Moore is angry.

The embattled Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Alabama has been in the headlines for more than a week now.

As practically everyone knows, several woman have come forward to report sexual harassment and molestation by Moore decades ago. One of the victims was 14 years old at the time

This all started with a very well-sourced article in the Washington Post. Moore says it's all lies, and he would sue the Post. So far, no lawsuit. I thought somebody must have told him to shut up. A lawsuit would open Moore to a process called discovery, in which he'd have to spill a lot of beans under oath.

That would give the public possibly lots more horrible details about Moore's past.

But, nope. Moore is now threatening to sue Al.com, Alabama's largest news organization. Al.com has followed up on the Washington Post report with more well-researched reporting on Moore's past. Moore's lawyer sent a cease and desist letter to Al.com for its reporting and threatened a libel suit.

If you want to boil it down to the simplist terms, to win a libel suit, you need to show that someone said or published something about you that they knew was untrue and that they intended to harm you.

Both the Washington Post and Al.com were careful to source their stories, got people to talk on the record, and corroborated statements given to them by the women who said Moore assaulted or harassed them.

In other words, Moore's threats to sue are just bluster. Just like Donald Trump, who threatened to sue the women who said he harassed, it was just a weak attempt to scare them into shutting up.

Problem is, the women in the Trump and Moore cases know libel law, especially since they've been lawyered up. The Washington Post and Al.com, being journalism outfits, know libel law even more.

Right now, Al.com is begging, begging Moore to sue them. That way, Al.com could counter sue. We'd get discovery, and it would all be easy-peasy one stop shopping news reporting for them.

I wish I was the lawyer for Al.com, because it seems like such an easy job, defending the organization against dumb bunnies like Moore and his lawyers.

For now, Al.com has responded to Moore's cease and desist by saying it stands by its reporting, and that like every political candidate, Moore is subject to scrutiny and analysis by the media.

The ball is back in Moore's lawyer's court. And I join the chorus: Please, please try and sue the Washington Post and Al.com.  Then we'll know for sure all the details.

Tale Of Rabid Raccoon And Murderous Vegetarian Jogger Wows Journalism World.

A Bangor, Maine Daily News article about a rabid
raccoon attacking a jogger is a literary masterpiece.

By all accounts Bangor (Maine) Daily News reporter Alex Acquisto hit it out of the ballpark recently when she wrote a local story about a jogger being attacked by a rabid raccoon.

Rabid raccoons happen all the time but the first two paragraphs of Acquisto's excellently-written piece is something I will always cherish:  

Here it is:

HOPE, Maine - While jogging on a familiar, overgrown wooded trail near her home on a recent warm afternoon, Rachel Borch thought to herself, 'what a beautiful day.'

Little did she know she was about to be attacked by a rabid raccoon she would end up killing with her bare hands."

The story goes on to tell us about our normally mild-mannered vegetarian jogger drowning the offending raccoon in a puddle.

It's a grim but absolutely glorious read, so you ought to get past the survey you have to answer at the Bangor Daily News and read Acquisto's article.

Bangor Daily News reporter Alex Acquisto proved herself
as one of the best writers and journalists out there.

The raccoon bit Borch on the thumb and wouldn't let go. "Imagine the Tasmanian devil," Borch told Acquisto.

Acquisto's article has sentences like this: "Connecting the dots quickly, Borch, then on her knees, dragged the still biting raccoon, which was scratching frantically at her hands and arms, into the puddle."

In any event, Acquisto's story went viral. Esquire magazine called it "a literary masterpiece."  Someone else tweeted that the lede of her story belongs in every journalism textbook.

By the way, Esquire's analysis of Acquisto's piece is also very much worth a read.

For the record, Acquisto tells us Borch has had rabies and tetanus shots and is doing well.

Even better, a journalistic, literary star is born.

High School Journalism Students Out Fake Principal: Investigative Journalism Rocks

The reporting staff at the Booster Redux, the student newspaper
at Pittsburg High School in Kansas. The reporters did some
investigative reporting on their new principal, which led
to her resignation under a cloud. 

Recently, Pittsburg High School in Kansas got a new principal.

Like any decent news organization reporting on a change of leadership, the kids working on the student newspaper (called the Booster Redux) decided to look into Amy Robinson, the new principal, just to see her background, where she went to school, all that routine stuff.

"She was going to be the head of our school, and we wanted to be assured that she was qualified and had the proper credentials," Trina Paul, a high school senior and editor of the Booster Redux told the Kansas City Star.

The reporters at the Booster Redux didn't find routine information, though. "We stumbled on some things that most might not consider legitimate credentials," Paul said.

The Booster Redux ran a front page story on what they found about Robinson. It wasn't pretty. And soon, Robinson resigned from her new $93,000 per year position at the school.

What the reporters at the Booster Redux did was good old fashioned investigative journalism, something a few of their adult peers in the journalism biz ought to emulate.

Maddie Brown, a junior at the high school and a Booster Redux reporter, said an electronic search of Robertson's background turned up a bunch of articles by Gulf News about an English language school in Dubai that was connected to Robertson.

The Gulf News articles said that Dubai education authorities had suspended the license for Dubai American Scientific School and accused Robertson of not being authorized to serve as principal of the school, the Kansas City Star notes.

The Dubai school received an "unsatisfactory" rating every year from 2008 to 2012 and was shut down in 2013.

Hmm.

"That raised a red flag...If students could uncover all of this, I want to know why the adults couldn't find this," Baden said.

Good question!

Usually, school boards vet the heck out of prospected principals. What happened with this one?  Might be a good follow up story for these young reporters.

Especially given what the Booster Redux reporters uncovered next.

Robertson had said she got her master's and doctorate degrees at a place called Corllins University. By the way, the Kansas City Star checked the Booster Redux reporters' work and came up with the same thing they did.

U.S. Department of Education officials confirmed what the students said. They could find no evidence that Corllins was in operation and couldn't find it in a data base of schools closed since 1986

The Booster Redux reporters DID find several articles referrin to Corllins as a diploma mill, where you can buy a degree, diploma or what have you.

Again, I wonder why the school board didn't catch what the students did.

Robertson, for her part, was kind of defiant, as is often the case when people are caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

"All three of my degrees have been authenticated by the U.S government," she told the Kansas City Star, whatever that means.

Also:

"Robertson declined to comment directly on students' questions bout her credentials, saying, 'I have no comment in response to the questions posed by PHS students regarding my credential because their concerns are not based on facts."

Way to go! If you don't like what a reporter is telling us, just yell "Fake News!"

She could have cleared all this up by telling us what really happened if she things the high school  journalists got it wrong.

The way things are going these days in Washington and elsewhere, we need investigative journalists more than ever. And we'll probably need lots of them for the forseeable future.

Which means I'm so glad the reporters at the Booster Redux had this scoop. I hope it inspires them and kids all over the country and the world to keep asking questions, keep demanding answers.

It's what we all deserve.

It's The Satirists Who Are Keeping The Strange, Scary News Straight For Us

Satirists like Samanatha Bee are becoming
some of the most trusted news sources. 

Like most people, I get lost in the endless chatter and shoutfests and lame "analysis" on the cable news networks.

Sure, I watch them a lot, but they get to yakking about all the outrages going in Washington to the point where none of it makes sense.

When I get confused like that, I turn to satirists like Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Samantha Bee, Seth Meyers and sometimes the cast of "Saturday Night Live" to set me straight.

Yes, they all have a point of view, but satirists cut through the bullshit, instead of adding to it.

When the news gets confusing, satirists like John
Oliver are there for the rescue. 

I just encountered a video that backs up my point of view exactly. The point of the video, from Vox, is that comedians have learned to cover the Trump administration much more effectively than any news network.

Here's why:

Big news networks will accurately report that something Trump said is a lie, or totally fabricated, or has no evidence to back it up.

So far, so good.

Then the TV channels spend hours and hours and hours parsing the latest lie or stupid remark. Plus, they bring on Trump sycophants to defend the lie, to spin the lie, to make it all seem better.

All this has the effect of confusing the viewer. Including people like me, who are pretty sophisticated news consumers.  

Frankly, I trust Stephen Colbert more than I trust
much of what passes for cable news. 

The news network reporters all know the latest Trump lie du jour is bullcrap, but they take it seriously, and make an effort to "report all sides of the issue."

But when something is bull, just call it that, for crissakes!

Which is what satirists do. You don't necessarily have to agree with the satirsts' point of view, but at least you know you're getting to the heart of the matter.

In a humorous way. Humor often makes things so much easier to understand.

A few journalists are starting to get the message. Jake Tapper on CNN, for instance, is starting to make sarcastic remarks when a Trump surrogate says something over the top. He's calling the bullcrap.  

On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow isn't really a satirist, but she's sure doing a good job of digging through the mountains of dirt in Washington to give us some insight into what's really going on. I like how she enthusiastically explains things in ways any bozo (like me!) can understand.

So all that is a start.

Yes, journalists ought to try to over all sides and be fair. But when someone is calling the Earth flat, time to go for the jugular.

It's no wonder satirists through history have had they heydeys when the leaders are failing particularly badly. If you're a good satirist, enjoy your current success. We need people like you.

In the video at the bottom of this post, you'll hear Sophia McClennen, a co-author of "Is Satire Saving Our Nation?" give this money quote that is spot on: "Political satire is about showing you the system is faking you out...It fires up the mind to say, 'Hmmm, this doesn't seem right.'"

Yes, I think satire can inspire needed political activism.

 The video below is about seven minutes long, but you should really watch it. It's a great guide to how to report on, and how the public ought to try and understand bullcrap. The video is NSFW, because of some language, but worth it.

This Company REALLY Hasn't Gotten The Hang Of PR

JetSmarter might be a decent company, but their
PR department sure needs work. 

When I worked in journalism, I got pitches all the time from companies who want to get exposure for their products and services.

Sometimes the pitches were helpful, sometimes not. A few prompted me to write stories about the companies, sometimes I would run screaming out of the room the PR pitch was so bad.

The following has to be the worst effort at trying to get a publication to write a story.

A website called The Verge not along ago got a note from an outfit called JetSmarter, a company thats been called the "Uber for Private jets."

JetSmarter offered a Verge reporter a demonstration of its service, involving a round-trip light in the United States, in exchange for what The Verge says was a demand for uncritical puff piece with the following demands from JetSmarter:

"Upon the execution of this Agreement, Journalist shall provide Company with a credit card and a copy of an ID of the credit card holder ("Credit Card") and shall authorize Company to charge the Credit Card in the amount of $2,000 should (i) Journalist cancel the trip on the date of departure of the outbound flight or in the event that Journalist fails to arrive at the departure location at the scheduled departure time or other unforeseen delays or (ii) in the event Journalist fails to post the article described above on the first page of this agreement."

In other words, if The Verge took on this story, they'd have to pay $2,000 if a glowing puff piece about JetSmarter "within 5 business days."

Whoever at JetSmarter came up with this has NO idea what he or she is doing. The best way to NOT get a puff piece is to do sometthing like this. Instead, you get negative coverage and mockery, which is what The Verge and, now,  me are doing.

Also, is JetSmarter too cheap to release promotional material themselves? They wanted a journalist to do the work for them, so they wouldn't have to pay anything?

PR is all about selling, flattery, relationships and trying to find win-win situations. Bullying like JetSmarter did the absolute opposite of that.

To state the obvious, The Verge chose not to write the puff piece, but instead wrote a slam against JetSmarter that I'm using as a basis for this post

Time to get a new public relations department, guys.

Students Can't Figure Out What's Fake News

For a democracy to survive, you need a well-informed citizenry that knows how to get accurate information.

As many of you know, things are going so well in that department in the US of A.

Much has been written about fake news on social media that misled voters, and fired them up to vote for Donald Trump, or make other election decisions based on false info.  

The upcoming generation of young voters might not do any better, if a new Stanford University study is any indication.

Says The Verge, via the Wall Street Journal: 

"According to the study, 82 percent of students could not distinguish between a sponsored post and an actual  news article on the same website. Nearly 70 percent of middle schoolers thought they had no reason to distrust a sponsored finance article written by the CEO of a bank, and many students evaluated the trustworthiness of tweets based on their level of detail and the size of the photos..."

Stanford researchers recommend students learn to cross check the accuracy of websites and articles using other sources, and not to think a high Google search ranking means the site is more accurate.

Schools are increasingly trying to teach students to better evaluate what they see on line, but obviously, a lot more needs to be done.

Because of the uproar over the recent U.S. elections, Facebook has said it's working on ways to filter out fake news sites, and Google will ban fake news sites from its ad network.

But there will always be bad information on the web.

You'd think everyone would know by now you can't believe something is true just because it's on the internet, but clearly not.

Charges Dropped Against Amy Goodman, So Journalism Continues.

Democracy Now! journalist Amy Goodman is still facing
charges from her reporting in North Dakota, shown
here, of an anti-oil pipeline protest. Add caption

NEW UPDATE MONDAY 10/17

A North Dakota judge has declined to proceed with a rioting charge against Amy Goodman, her news organization, Democracy Now! just announced.

District Judge John Grinsteiner did not find probable cause for the charge, Democracy Now! reports.

So, journalism and the First Amendment lives for now, it seems.

UPDATE:

It seems the State's Attorney in North Dakota is digging in much more, in a bid to discourage journalism, or get publicity. Whatever.

After Amy Goodman announced she would go to North Dakota to answer the bogus trespassing charges for her coverage of a Native American anti-oil pipeline there, they want to up the criminal charges against her.

Goodman on Saturday announced the attempt at the steeper criminal charges on the Democracy Now! website.

The State's Attorney, Ladd Erickson, wants to add a charge of rioting against Goodman, who, as you can see in her video from the protest, isn't exactly rioting.

Kinda just filming and asking questions, like, you know, journalists tend to do.

A judge will decide Monday if there's probable cause to add the rioting charge.

PREVIOUS DISCUSSION:

A couple months back, we mentioned Democracy Now! journalist Amy Goodman, who faces charges in North Dakota for the crime of covering a protest, mostly by Native Americans, against an oil pipeline that was under construction.

Freedom Of The Press Foundation quoted Goodman yesterday as such:

"I will go back to North Dakota to fight this charge.... It is a clear violation of the First Amendment. I was doing my job as a journalist, covering a violent attack on Native American Protestors."

Back on September 3, Goodman was the only journalist, or at least one of only a few journalists, who were on the scene as Native Americans went onto the property of the pipeline construction, and were met with security guards wielding pepper spray.

Goodman and her crew got it all on video, and that video went viral. It got no fewer than 14 million views on Facebook, and the video and story were picked up by major news outlets like CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC and Huffington Post.

Days later, the Obama administration suspended construction of the pipeline, pending further review. The protestors feared the pipeline would contaminate drinking water and despoil Native American burial grounds.

As I noted when I first mentioned this outrage, it seems to me the increased publicity brought on by Goodman and the resulting shutdown annoyed state officials, many of whom benefit politically and maybe financially from the oil industry.

They were trying to teach other journalists a lesson: Stay away, don't criticize, don't cover or ELSE.

Amazingly, North Dakota prosecutors have not backed down, despite the additional uproar over the likely unconstitutionality of charging Goodman.

As Freedom Of the Press Foundation notes, the prosecutor in the case said, "Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions."

In other words, the problem for prosecutors is they thought Goodman was biased. Even if she was, you don't get to press charges against the journalist who created the allegedly biased reporting.

There's this little item called the First Amendment. Unless Goodman intentionally spread false, damaging information about people - which she didn't - you don't charge her. In fact, even if she was spreading malicious falsehoods -again, she wasn't. - you can try suing in civil court, but criminal courts stay out.

I'm not sure why North Dakota prosecutors are still pursuing this losing case. You'd think they'd have something better to do.

But we all ought to pay attention. With Donald Trump also less than enthusiastic about press freedoms to say the least, we need to keep on top of these things every time they happen. 

Extreme Vulgar Temper Tantrums On Facebook Won't Get You Elected To Office

Weirdo former GOP candidate Michael Krawitz
and his hate messages to a reporter.  

Breaking news out of New Jersey: Republican Michael Krawitz is no longer a candidate for the West Deptford Township Committee.

OK, this isn't earthshattering news.  With all due respect to the fine citizens of West Deptford, we normally wouldn't care about this bit of election news.

Except for the reason why Krawitz has withdrawn his candidacy. He's a big Donald Trump fan, and wasn't happy at all that Daily Beast reporter Olivia Nuzzi posted on her Facebook page a critical article about Trump written by a colleague.

So Krawitz took to Facebook to criticize Nuzzi. So far, we're OK. You can criticize a reporter's work. Journalists tend to have thick skin.

But the problem is Krawitz's, um, way with words.   

He wrote to Nuzzi: "Fuck.You. Olivia. I. Hope. Somebody.Rapes.You.Today. :)

Nuzzi responded by writing: "This man who wants me to be raped today was a Republican candidate for office in NJ."

To which Krawitz responded. "Hope.You. Get. Raped. By. A. Syrian. Refugee. :)

You can see the obvious problem here.   Not a nice guy.  Not somebody who would get a lot of votes for the West Deptford Township Committee. Or any other office.

I'm also curious about his style. Every word is followed by a period. And he ends his hate sentences with a smile emoticon. Like the little smile makes the nastiness go away or something?

Definitely some issues here.

Krawitz apparently said his Facebook account got hacked the day his messages appeared so it wasn't him. With that, Nuzzi produced another Facebook love note she received from Krawitz back on August 10:

"Hows. The. Gun. Crime. In. Democrat. Chicago. Olivia. You. Ugly. Stupid. Cunt. :)

Again with the periods after every word and the smiley emoticon!

Nuzzi said she's been harassed by Krawitz since 2014. And as a female reporter, she always gets totally misogynistic comments from guys - mostly on the far right of the political spectrum, who don't like her work.

I guess they can't criticize the quality and accuracy of Nuzzi's reporting because it's solid, so their onl recourse is to call her every horrible name in the book. That accomplishes a lot!

In a statement before Krawitz withdrew his candidacy, Nuzzi said she trusted the voters of West Deptford Township to make the right election decision.

And Nuzzi said this:

"As a reporter, bullying of this kind from would-be politicians makes you fear for your First Amendment rights. As an American and a woman, it makes you fear for the state of our country and the safety of half the population that inhabits it."

She's got a great point: We can laugh at the stupidity and awfulness of Krawitz. But the legions of Internet trolls and such out there like Krawitz really do degrade this nation.

Krawitz is no longer running for office and has crawled back under his rock.  So that's good. I just wish the rest of the trolls out there would crawl under rocks and go away, too. But there's so many trolls, I don't think there's enough rocks out there for them.

Update: Nation's Oldest Familhy Run Newspaper No Longer Owned By A Family

Amid a month of strife, the Rutland Herald in Vermont
has been sold to a Maine media company.

Last week I talked about the apparent financial crisis at the Rutland Herald in Vermont, which is, or was, the oldest family owned newspaper in Vermont.

Late last night, we learned what was really going on amid the bounced paychecks and other signs of monetary strife.

The owners of the newspaper, and its sister publication, the Barre-Montpelier TImes Argus, sold it it to a Maine media company.

I don't know if this is good or bad, but at least the Herald survives for now, apparently.

The whole episode once again illustrates how newspapers are struggling. Sure, there are a lot of on line media outlets and local newspapers are usually a part of that.

But as noted earlier, newspapers have not figured out how to be profitable online, even as print versions go by the wayside.

On Vermont Public Radio's Vermont Edition news and talk show today, David Mindich, a journalism professor at St. Michael's College in Colchester, Vermont said local newspapers like the Rutland Herald are a critical way to shine a needed light on local government and root out corruption.

These days, media profitability depends upon reader clicks, the number of times people cruising the Internet stop at a particular story.

More often than not, it's fluff, and not the important stuff that goes on. Mindich told Vermont Public Radio that editors need to be sure they're pushing important stories not just the "cat riding around on the Roomba story."

Even if everybody is paying attention to the cat on the Roomba and not the city councilor on the take.

Here's why:

It's true more people will read the cat on the Roomba story over the city councilor taking bribes from the construction contractor.

But a few people will read about the city councilor, which is fodder for the prosecutors, the political opponents and activists who would keep that city councilor in check.

If we lose the local papers to the clickbait fluff, the crooked city councilor will get away with (maybe literally) murder.

Is that the world in which we want to live?

Will Historic Vermont Newspaper Bite The Dust?

The Rutland Herald in better days, winning
the Pulitze Prize for editorials in 2001. 

UPDATE:

The situation still is mirky at the Rutland Herald, with management still not really explaining what's going on.

As you saw before this update, pay checks for reporters and staff bounced, and there are other signs of a sinking financial ship at the nation's oldest family owned newspaper.

A newspaper that stresses transparancy sure isn't demonstrating it.

Management finally did have a meeting with staff Monday. Such a meeting had been previously delayed

Editor in chief Rob Mitchell would only release a statement to the media, and not take further questions.

Mitchell said the financial picture "looks worse from the outside than it is," and "At this point, there are still things we can't talk about, for a variety of reasons."

Mitchell said the Rutland Herald has a future.

Let's hope so.

Meanwhile, Alan Keays, the editor who was fired for wanting to pursue the story of what's going on with the Herald's finances over the objection of management, spoke out to Vermont Public Radio.

Keays said:

"This is actually the first day since I left college that I haven't had a job in journalism. I had to do the story, I just wish there was a way that the management would have trusted us to do it in a fair way and in a credible way.  I wish they would have trusted me and the staff to do that."

PREVIOUS DISCUSSION

There's a soon-to-be not so daily, once venerable newspaper in Vermont called the Rutland Herald that might be tottering on the edge of its existence.

If it is about to close, it'll be one of the nation's oldest newspapers to fold.

It started in 1794 and has been a fixture in central Vermont ever since. It even won a Pulitzer Prize in 2001 for its editorials on civil unions, which was a precursor to gay marriage.

It's plain, though, that the iconic Rutland Herald is in trouble. Like many newspapers nationwide, the Herald has been suffering for years.  
  
The Rutland Herald recently announced it was only going to be published  four days a week, instead of every day.

Even worse and more ominously, staff payroll and expense checks bounced, and the management of the family-owned newspaper has not yet explained why, says a front page article in the Rutland Herald this week.

Worse, according to the Burlington weekly paper Seven Days, the Rutland Herald's editor in chief, Alan Keays, was fired Friday afternoon, either for approving running the story, or for OK'ing another follow up story he'd planned for today's paper.

The people doing the firing were Rutland Herald owner R. John Mitchell and publisher Catherine Nelson.

Seven Day says so far, Mitchell and Nelson are not returning their phone calls and emails.

That Keays  might have been fired for OK'ing reporting on something that was definitely of interest to readers of the Rutland Herald is a no-no.

True, no business likes their dirty laundry aired to the public, but newspapers are a special case. Journalism is supposed to be all about transparency. When the owner of a newspaper interfered with editorial decisions like this, it's not good. 

Keay's dismissal prompted a walkout by much of the rest of Rutland Herald's staff, says Seven Days, but I think enough people returned to put out a paper. Seven Days, at last check was calling it a "fluid situation" at the Herald.

VTDigger.org said staffers were convinced to come back after Mitchell said he might un-fire Keays. But it was unclear as of this writing if that actually happened.

Morale must be SO wonderful at the Rutland Herald. A popular editor is canned, the staff wants to revolt, and they are not getting paychecks, at least not in a timely manner.

The payroll problems that started in July seem to be ongoing, too. VTDigger,org says no direct deposit payroll checks were available Friday, but the Herald issued checks without full payroll deduction information.

Some employees cashed their checks at the company bank because they worried about getting bounce fees if they tried it at their own banks, says VTDigger.org

Yikes!

By the way, the Rutland Herald might get in trouble with the Vermont Department of Labor because of this payroll mess if it keeps going on, says VTDigger.

As was the case with Seven Days reporter, the publisher and owner of the Rutland Herald did not return numerous calls from VTDigger.

Reporters and other staffers at the Herald also said they have been kept in the dark about the financial crisis, too.

There's journalistic transparency for ya!

In general, newspapers have not figured out how to stay profitable when everything is available at the click of a mouse.

Like it or not, it gets more and more apparent every year that newspapers are passe.  At least in traditional forms, like, you know, actual newspapers.

The newspapers are on line, too, but being online apparently isn't profitable for the papers.

In 2013, I was booted from my position as a reporter for the Burlington (Vermont) Free Press as part of cost cutting moves by Gannett, the Free Press parent company.

You don't realize when you're in it how bad things get amid repeated cost cutting until the issue is forced, like in my case when I was finally laid off. I actually felt better after being let go.

I still miss the daily rush of trying to meet deadlines, explaining in written words the issues of the day in a way that was compelling and interesting to people, directly questioning and holding accountable state and even national leaders, and being among the most informed people I know.

The reason I still write blog posts like this one is I like to have that writing outlet still in play

I also know toward the end of my reporting days that  I was glorifying things.

I noticed the difference right away after I left the Free Press and still do. I've changed careers and now work at Gardener's Supply and also do independent work as a gardener.

No offense to the people at the Burlington Free Press, (though some offense intended at the parent company Gannett) I frankly have to say that since I left the Freeps three years ago, I now sometimes come home from work tired, but I never come home from work angry.

Still, I feel pangs of sadness when I see the Burlington Free Press as a shadow of its former self. Even worse watching the Rutland Herald implode.

I grew up around Rutland, Vermont, so that paper was a daily part of my existence for decades.

The world changes, industry changes, some things fall by the wayside. But I'm already think I should start mourning a Vermont institution that's been around for something like 220 years.

New York Post's War On Homeless Is Bizarre

The New York Post reported devoted up to 16 reporters
 to follow this mentally ill homeless person last summer.  

The New York Post has a weird obsession with homeless people.

They really, really want them to go away.

The obsession is particularly weird because they tend to zero in on one particular homeless person from time to time, splash them on the front pages of the tabloid, and humiliate them as thoroughly as possible.

It's unclear what they're trying to accomplish.

The latest case involved a homeless woman who dragged along a series of carts with her belongings in Hell's Kitchen.

The publicity prompted the NYPD to come in and throw many of the women's possessions out.

Homelessness, even one particular case, is rarely easy to solve. But I'm not sure what the benefit is of making one person's bad situation worse. Especially by highlighting them in a bad but widely read tabloid.

The woman in question might have been a hoarder, might have had other problems, and maybe someone should have helped her deal with all this. But apparently, the city just went in and threw her stuff out because of the bad publicity from the Post.

Now that they've done that, is anyone trying to help this woman? She's out of the headlines, so probably not. I'm sure there are people at the Post that now hope she just goes away and dies or something.

I think the goal of the New York Post is to make the homeless disappear. OK, but where do they go?

It seems every once in awhile, the Post singles out a homeless person because some editor finds that particular person annoying or something. Last summer, it was a homeless, mentally ill man who peed on a street that felt the front page wrath of the New York Post. 

The Post's editor,  Col Allan, apparently thought it was appropriate to devote 16 reporters to cover this homeless people, who annoyed this editor.

New York is one of the biggest, most exciting, newsiest cities in the world. You'd think something more important than some homeless guy peeing in a street happens on any given day in the Big Apple.

Maybe I can prompt the New York Post with some idea. Did any bigger crimes happen? Check with your friends at the NYPD.  What's Wall Street up to? The UN? Did Mayor DeBlasio say something you don't like? He often does.

Did any of the zillions of famous people living in the city do interesting in the city today?  Did the NYFD rescue a toddler from a dramatic fire in The Bronx?

Inquiring minds want to know, but not many of those inquring  want to know more about the Post editor's obsession with homeless people.

Do us all a favor, Col, and just work with whatever neighborhood association you deal with and shut the hell up. Go find some real news to cover.

Ferguson Authorites Charge Journalists Because They Want Us All To Shut Up Already

Police square off against demonstrators in Ferguson, Missouri
last August, with the McDonald's where the journalists were
arrested in the background. 

I was mystified earlier this week when St. Louis County, Missouri decided to proceed with criminal charges against reporters Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post and Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post.

In what had been up until now a pretty much forgotten incident, the two journalists were in a Ferguson Missouri McDonald's restaurant during the unrest last August following the police shooting of Michael Brown.

Police fairly violently detained the pair that night for "trespassing" and "interfering with law enforcement."  Those charges were quickly dropped and the journalists were let go.

But what mystified me is that this weekt St. Louis County, Missouri prosecutors resurrected the charges against Lowery and Reilly from that night last August in the Ferguson McDonald's.

I'm usually skeptical of conspiracy theories, but the one proposed in Salon, a leftish news and commentary site, makes sense to me.

The fact that it does make sense is chilling.

Salon notes that Lowery and Reilly have high powered news organizations with an army of lawyers behind them, so they'll get off scot free eventually.  Plus, the criminal charges really seem to be trumped up, and possibly a violation of First Amendment rights.

St. Louis County prosecutors must know all this, so why bother pursuing the journalists.

That's because a lot of news we get comes from small scale "citizen journalists,"especially when new stuff breaks out in Ferguson or anywhere else.

These citizen journalists are usually bystanders with cell phone cameras that take in what's going on.

Salon theorizes - and I agree - is that the charges against Lowery and Reilly are really a message to these citizen journalists. Which is tell the world what we do, especially if it's not necessarily kosher, and we'll come after you.

Citizen journalists don't have legal teams to back them up like the Washington Post and Huffington Post.. What St. Louis County prosecutors are saying to citizen journalists is, "Shut up!

Or as Salon puts it, St. Louis prosecutors are saying:

"This is what happens if you cross us. It wants to make sure than any journalist who comes to Ferguson in the future will do what they're told. It wants them to remember what happens when you step out of line. If media elites howl in protest, well, that's OK. If the case against Lowery and Reilly falls apart, that's fine too. The message will have been sent."

I'm just hoping that St. Louis County's response to bad PR is criminal charges against those spreading the bad PR, to somehow comes back to bite them.

It would also be nice if St. Louis County officials someday realize they're not dictators in some backwater third world country.

Marselis Parsons, Vermont's Walter Cronkite, Dies; One More Great Old School Journalist Gone

Marselis Parsons, the Walter Cronkite of Vermont
has passed away, and now even fewer of the
great old school Vermont journalists are left standing.  

Here in Vermont this week, we're mourning the loss of a guy named Marselis Parsons, who was widely regarded as the Walter Cronkite of Vermont.

Every evening for a quarter century, ending in 2009, Vermonters settled down to watch the Channel 3 news on WCAX, and there was Parsons, in just-the-facts-mode, reviewing the day's events in the Green Mountain State.

Vermont isn't always exactly a hotbed of breaking news, Bernie Sander's formal presidential campaign kickoff this week notwithstanding.

"Div" as Parsons was called, had an hour to fill, including the sports and weather, of course, but as anchor and news director, was always able - nightly - to make our gloriously weird state understandable.

Parsons delivered the news in a steady, deadpan voice, never seeming to break his evenhandedness or show emotion. Except of course when his mentor, WCAX anchor Mickey Gallagher, died suddenly, while at work at WCAX in 1984, and Parsons had to report that news.

He was an institution, having spent 40 years at WCAX, as a reporter, then anchor, then filing occasional stories in retirement

Parsons was as far removed as possible from the  "bubble headed bleach blonde, who comes on at 5, who can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye," as Don Henley famously indicted in his song "Dirty Laundry."

Parsons could sure as hell tell you about the plane crash, but he told you why the plane crash mattered, who it affected, and how such a thing could be prevented from happening again. He followed the stories to the end.

If it took five years for the plane crash investigation to end, by God at the end of five years, there was Parsons reporting on the outcome of that probe.

According to Michael Donoghue, writing in the Burlington Free Press:

"'I'm not crazy about being anchor,' he once told the Burlington Free Press. 'Most stations hire Ken and Barbie dolls.'

He wanted newshounds in his newsroom.

'Most of these reporters aren't going to win a beauty contest. But I think they are good reporters, he said once, pointing at his newsroom."

Makes you want to rid your cable news stations of all those perky blondes reciting a script instead of reporting the news, doesn't it?

 I thought it was fitting that  Donoghue of the Burlington Free Press -  another giant of Vermont journalism -  wrote the definitive news obit about Parsons.

Donoghue, along with Parsons, are, or were, the last of the old school Vermont journalists. The kind I'll miss the most when they're gone or retired.

Oh, sure, I'm a fan just like the rest of the world of the way news is done now. Disasters become visual "weather porn" on the nightly news, and the important parts of those stories are buried.

I enjoy watching the smarmy news satire of Jon Stewart and John Oliver. I'll even indulge in the news-free, facts are stupid conservatism of Fox News. 

I also accept that it's a different journalism world, where reporters are judged by the number of Twitter followers they have, or the number of Facebook comments they get.

There's nothing wrong with being entertaining and engaging. Any journalist wants to be that, as they should. However, news isn't always a popularity contest. Sometimes news is not candy, to be happily consumed. Sometimes it's medicine we have to take, to  understand the world around us.

That seems like a statement from Captain Obvious, but I'm not sure anymore.

I was in Vermont journalism for more than 20 years, until the Burlington Free Press let me go in 2013. I understood, and they understood. Journalism had changed, and I wasn't sure I fully bought into the change. Both me and the Free Press knew it was time for me to go.

Parsons (and Donoghue, for that matter) stayed put. Stayed committed. Stayed on the story.

Parsons could have jumped ship and moved up the journalistic ladder to bigger markets, but he stayed in Vermont. That's where his commitment was.

In the Free Press, Donoghue writes:

"(Parsons) was happy being in Vermont, where there was easy access to politicians, judges and other newsmakers.

Parsons loved chasing hard news. When the city of Burlington experienced a large number of arson fires in the 1970s, Parsons, after finishing the 11 p.m. newscast, joined reporters and other media outlets hanging out at the police station trading war stories and waiting for the alarms.

He became an auxillary firefighter for the city of Burlington and sometimes would sleep over at the fire station. His blue Fiat convertible had an emergency red light to help him get to scenes quicker."

Nowadays, trading war stories and hanging out at the police station is no way to get more Twitter followers nowadays. But it's surely the best way to get the most compelling news.

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin summed it all up as he reacted to news that Parsons, 70, had died.

 "We lost a legend - the Walter Cronkite of Vermont," the governor said.

Stupid Newspaper "Proof Readers" Slime Ky. Sheriff For No Good Reason

To be clear, Hardin County, Kentucky
Sheriff John Ward thinks people who go into
law enforcement do so because they want
to serve their community, not because
they want to shoot minorities. Idiots at
a Kentucky newspaper changed a
story to smear his reputation, apparenty  

The Elizabethtown, Kentucky News-Enterprise newspaper had a bombshell in the third paragraph of a story concerning law enforcement in Hardin County, Kentucky.

It quoted Hardin County Sheriff John Ward as saying, "Those who go into law enforcement typically do it because they have a desire to shoot minorities."

Given the recent tension involving shootings, and non-prosecutions of white police officers who have shot and killed unarmed black men recently, this was scary. There's already enough tension out there. This would make it worse.

Is Sheriff Ward a horrible racist?

Um, no. Not at all.

Here's the problem. Sheriff Ward never said such a thing.

It turns out when reporter Anna Taylor submitted her article to editors, she had accurately quoted Sheriff Ward as saying, "Those who go into law enforcement typically do it because they have a desire to serve the community."

Not exactly controversial, but hey, it was accurate. That's what we want!

According to the Washington Post and numerous other media outlets, it turns out some so-called proof readers decided to pull a prank and change the quote to that incendiary one about shooting minorities.

Yeah, a real knee slapper.

This had to be the most fire-able offense possible, and editors at the Kentucky News-Enterprise quickly fired two "proof readers." The editors did not elaborate on how the paraphrased quote turned into that false bombshell.

According to media watcher Jim Romenesko:

"Two copy desk staffers - 23 and 32 years old - have been fired, I'm told. One wrote the 'shoot minorities' line on the page proof as a joke and the second - in charge of the front page - put it in the story. One worked at the paper for about six years, the other less than a year."

It looks like one put it in as a joke, and the other unquestioningly went with it, without thinking, "Did the sheriff really say that?"

The article, headlined "Law Enforcement To Be Honored For Service" is still up on the paper's Web site, but it has been corrected to reflect reality, and includes an apology for the original error.

I bet News-Enterprise editor Ben Sheroan is pissed. Wicked pissed. And I don't blame him. How could anybody who works for a newspaper do such a thing, even if they intended, but failed, to erase the stupidity? Of course, maybe at least one of these "proof readers" really intended to get this in the paper, just to stir the pot, as it were.

Sheroan wrote a correction and retraction that read in part:

"Many of Thursday's upset callers asked the same question. 'Doesn't anyone proof your newspaper?'

Well, surprisingly, that's where the error took place. A function and process designed to rid the news pages of error instead added a terrible one that altered the reporter's original sentence. No reasonable excuse can exist."

Again, what were these so called proof readers thinking?

Look at the damage they caused.

First of all, they at least attempted to damage Sheriff Ward's reputation and there's no evidence he deserved it. He could sue for libel, but so far he's said he probably won't. But still. If he's a good cop, let's celebrate him. Patting the good cops on the back and highlighting their good work makes it that much harder for the bad cops to run rampant.

Then there's the issue of damaging the credibility of the whole movement to reform police departments, or at least police officers, who do unfairly target minorities. Those who are resisting reforms would use this as an example for their arguments that police are unfairly targeted by critics.

So let's wreck the reform movement to improve police racial rules. Like I said, these "proof readers" are incredibly awful.

And what of reporter Anna Taylor? She's clearly blameless, but her byline was on that article. Journalists live and die by their reputations for accuracy and fairness, and this might have terribly damaged her credibility.

Will everyone understand that Taylor did her job well and responsibly, and actually wrote an accurate, professional article? We can only hope so.

I almost wish they publicly named these two awful "proof readers" who used to work for the News Enterprise. They deserve to be totally shamed.

I'm glad I never met anybody like these "proof readers" in my three decades in journalism.

Death Of A Vermont Newspaper

The other day, I wrote about how Gannett, the media giant with newspapers all over the nation, was really screwing with its employees and the reading public.

They're making veteran reporters reapply for their jobs, and using a metric that appears to determine that if reporters' material is good "click bait," then they're good. If the reporter writes great, groundbreaking stories, but people don't immediately click their "Likes" on Facebook or whatever in response,  then it's worthless.

My previous piece noted that the Burlington (Vt) Free Press is one of these Gannett papers, and they jettisoned me more than a year ago. (Which turned out to be a big favor to me, which is another story.)

However, I have to write again, because the news out of Vermont's Burlington Free Press has somehow managed to get worse. Much worse.

I'm learning today that two more veteran reporters, Terri Hallenbeck and Nancy Remsen, are sadly fleeing the paper.

As I noted, under a metric Gannett is using, successful reporters, in Gannett corporate's mind, have a lot of Web hits with their stories.

Writers whose stories don't get a lot of Web hits are suspect, at least in the crude eyes of Gannett.

Both Hallenbeck and Remsen are, or at least were, the Statehouse reporters for the Free Press. Generally, politics is followed with a lot of interest, but it's not usually the kind of thing that sends people to their 'Like" buttons on Facebook or inspires them to spout off on Twitter.  Unless a politician does something particularly abrupt and shocking.

Likewise, Tim Johnson, a veteran Free Press reporter, was not rehired when he reapplied for his job. 

Johnson covered higher education for the Free Press.  Higher education is important, especially around Burlington, where the University of Vermont, Champlain College and St. Michael's College have huge influence on just about everything.

But again, higher education isn't like cute cat videos. People don't really light up the Internet over higher education reporting unless there's something shocking. But people do follow it, because it's so important.  However, readers just generally digest Johnson's reporting, understand it, and act accordingly without screaming about it on Twitter.

But I guess to Gannett, "reader engagement" is more important than delivering the news. Engagement is important.  However, by "reader engagement," I suspect they want instant, blind responses, not thoughtful consideration of the news.

Hallenbeck eloquently talks about this on her Facebook page:

"Some of you may have heard that the Free Press and all Gannett newspapers rewrote all the newsroom job descriptions and required employees to apply for new jobs, which focus on pursuing the most popular stories as measured by website clicks. That no longer seems to include many of the stories I've had the pleasure of covering the last 10 years as a Statehouse/political reporter at the Free Press.

It breaks my journalistic heart, but I can no longer pretend it's not happening."

Hallenbeck goes on:

"The Internet has not only turned news stories into click bait, it has led people to believe they can obtain the news free of charge. If we believe that, we will get the world we are asking for - one that is less well-informed, less open to hearing new ideas from new angles."

Amen, sister!

It does cost money to really, truly find and report the news professionally and accurately. Who wants to work for free? You gotta pay somebody. And we, as news consumers, get what we pay for. Want "content" free of charge? Well Gannett's got it for you. (Although even they have pay walls, however ineffective they are. )

Getting back to click bait, is that really the best way to gauge the importance of any particular news story?

People, including me, react immediately on social media to the odd, the funny and the bizarre more often and easily than they do the news. But that doesn't mean people like me don't read and follow the news and think it's important. And I often base my decisions upon what I read from serious news sources.

Look, any publication, including the Burlington Free Press, can't be boring. There's room for light fluff amid the serious journalism. We can't eat just broccoli. It's nice to have a piece of candy thrown in every now and then.

But newspapers still ought to be home to serious, informative news. Um, that's why they're called newspapers, right?

Journalism must have writers that engage you, draw you into their articles, write well, and provide their own quirky, professional, funny and intelligent perspectives on the news.

Hallenbeck, Remsen and Johnson all did those things supremely well.  Maybe the problem with this trio of journalists is they are super smart, super experienced reporters with a lot of institutional knowledge who can go in depth and really make us understand what's going on.

We can't have that, can we? God forbid any of us read anything other than superficial, superfluous fluff news.

Gannett seems to be all about immediate gratification. I alluded to that in the original essay from the other day, when I accused them of thinking just financial quarter to financial quarter, and not long term.

So cat videos and listicles it is, then.

Luckily, Vermont has other sources that are at least partly filling the void left by boneheaded corporate newspaper management.

So, on to Seven Days, VT Digger, Vermont Public Radio and other good sources of news if I want to see what's really going on in Vermont.

I'm Sadly Watching Gannett Torture My Former Colleagues, Journalists And The Public

Gannett's rather ironic logo.  

UPDATE : Seven Days Newspaper has a little more inside info from the ridiculousness at Gannett,  here at the Burlington (Vt.) Free Press.

In the article, a reporter who unsuccessfully reapplied for a job recounts the experience.

It's infuriating.

PREVIOUS DISCUSSION: 

Maybe I have survivor's guilt.

Gannett, the media company that has itself been in the news lately with its layoffs and, um, creative management, jettisoned me in August 2013.

It was part of their wave of layoffs. They're always laying off people, it seems.

I hate to say it, but they did me a favor, especially considering what I see going on at Gannett nowadays.  Still, watching Gannett corporate head honchos do what they're doing makes me sad.

Gannett management is acting like a train engineer having a major mental breakdown and causing a real train wreck. Their victims are its journalists, and the news consuming public.

Gannett has 82 daily newspapers across the country and more than 440 non-daily publications in 30 states and Guam, says the company Web site. 

It's no secret the journalism profession has changed incredibly and newspapers are suffering. Gannett can easily be forgiven for struggling with the changing industry and how to keep readers and its newspapers and Web sites relevant.

What's inexcusable is the incredibly boneheaded, cruel and self-defeating way they're going about it.

From what I hear, and to a lesser extent, from what I remember working there, they keep reducing resources and staff, forcing the remaining people to do more work with less time and fewer means to get the job done. Plus the employees have to pour more time into social media, the web and all the other bells and whistles meant to keep readers engaged.

Everyone there is stretched too thin. The result is a poorer quality newspaper and web site, which drives away readers, which reduces revenue, which goes on and on and turns the company's newspaper division into a death spiral.

They seem incredibly intent on driving away readers and revenue, rather than attract it.  I know here in Vermont, I hear over and over again that the Gannett-owned Burlington Free Press is not worth their time anymore.

Which is a total shame, because the remaining journalists at the Free Press are totally top notch. If they were given the opportunity to actually do their jobs, the articles in the Free Press would be totally ground breaking, engaging, important, and would change Vermont for the better, all the time, every day.

One of the more succinct reactions to Gannett's boneheadedness is from blogger Jeff Pearlman, who titled a recent post: "Dear Gannett: Fuck Yourself. Love, Jeff."

Pearlman captures Gannett's self-inflicted downward spiral perfectly:

"Gannett folks shrug, say it's a byproduct of the modern newspaper as a ghost. Yet who created that ghost? Who stripped down the products, then stripped them again and again? Wo ripped the hearts and souls out of newspapers? Who ended investigative reporting? Who did this to the newspaper business?

Answer: Gannett"

The layoffs, the cookie-cutter approach Gannett management applied to journalism, the internal bureaucracy. Gannett seems to manage via panic. They think quarter to quarter, to please the shareholders who demand profits each quarter.

What Gannett fails to do, in my opinion, is think long term, to position itself in a new media landscape over the long haul.  Which makes Gannett's self promotion as a media innovator puzzling.

Recently, things got so much worse.  I guess Gannett management had to drive home the fact that the industry has changed and Gannett employees must change with it. That part, I'm OK with.

But they are going about it by forcing employees to reapply for their own jobs. It's demoralizing, humiliating, stupid, a waste of time, and damages the paper and the community.

Why not retrain workers for today's realities? And you don't have to be kind about it. The employees that show they are in the game end up staying, and the ones that won't change and grow with the job leave?

I'd guarantee that almost all Gannett employees who are respected enough, and given enough resources, not to mention pay, would embrace all this re-training wholeheartedly.

But nope, they're forcing employees to reapply.

Here in Vermont, one reporter, Lynn Monty, was laid off because she declined to reapply for a position. She understandably found the process degrading and insulting.

I'm not worried about Monty. She's a talented and passionate journalist who will land on her feet. But Monty's exit captured the attention of such national media watchers as Jim Romenesko, which further helps blacken the reputation of Gannett as a soul crusher and a model of weird management incompetence.

Monty's experience has been repeated all up and down the Gannett chain.

At the Cincinnati Enquirer, several journalists left rather than reapply for these supposedly reconfigured jobs, says the Cincinnati Business Courier.  

"Veteran employees told the Courier they are heading for the door because they would rather take a buyout package than go through another round of upheaval and the indignity of reapplying for jobs at a company they've worked at for decades."

The Arizona Republic is going through the same thing, and the accounts of what's going on there, as they appeared in the Phoenix New Times is grim. 

Gannett is splitting its business into two, a newspaper division and one for its television and non-journalism Web sites. I wonder if this upheaval is a tortured way to spin the newspaper end of the business into something value-less? Something that can be jettisoned more easily?

Gannett is certainly jettisoning staff pretty easily.

Looking back, I think Gannett was right to get rid of me last year. You want to work for a company at which you care whether they succeed or not. Gannett has created an atmosphere where I don't think that employees care whether Gannett fails.

Face it. Morale stinks. More than stinks. It's not there anymore.

I was in that boat. Like most journalists, I cared about the quality of my work, and wanted to demonstrate that through my work. Gannett, with its cutbacks and lack of resources, wasn't letting me do that.

The management at the Burlington Free Press tried their best to support us journalists and turn out the best product we could given the constricted circumstances. I have to give the editors at the Free Press tons of credit for that.

But the corporate overlords at Gannett made things impossible.

I, too stopped caring whether Gannett succeeds. So it's good that I'm out of there.

Now I've cobbled together a couple jobs and am getting by. And most importantly, I care for both the quality of my work AND I care whether the companies I work for succeed and thrive.

It's too bad Gannett seems to care a lot about its shareholders, but doesn't care much about its employees.

More importantly, Gannett doesn't seem to care much about the communities it serves.

For that, Gannett unfortunately deserves its apparent slow, painful death. It's just sad they're taking so many good people down with the ship.