Sports Editor, Richmond, Va.

Pretend they don't exist? The problem with that is they DO exist.

Well, you see them in the stores, a lot of them are more profitable then daily newspapers, a lot of them are growing while daily newspaper circulations decline, and some have more interesting stories in their weekly edition than a daily newspaper will in an entire month.

Pretend they don't exist? Well, why not pretend sports talk radio doesn't exist. While we're at it, why not pretend sports on television doesn't exist? The results are in the newspapers, so the fact that they are on television isn't really important.

And those people at the Poynter Institute and Columbia Journalism School? Are they "beneath" the fine folks at daily newspapers?

Heaven forbid an alt-weekly might be critical of a daily newspaper. Next thing you know, politicians, businesses, and even people on your own newspapers might be critical! Que horror! It comes with the territory. If you are big and important, you can deal with it.

Frank, answer this - after the responses on this board, why would you give more credibility to the publisher of the Richmond paper than to Greg Weatherford? Please explain this to me.

 

OK, some more. Frank R's response is exactly what is wrong with newspapers today. It's tunnel vision looking backward. There isn't only the alt-weeklies, there are blogs. Maybe most of the blogs aren't worthy of mention, but some of them will be and some will gain respect.

My wife used to teach stenography. That skill has very limited value today - the tape recorder, personal computer, and expectation that people will type their own correspondence makes it obsolete for the most part.

People ignore change and competition at their own peril.

 

Gold, you misunderstand. Your advertising and circulation people compete against them for business. And of course you try to break news, you understand that you're not the only one out there digging. But in print you never acknowlege they exist, you do not assign them that kind of credibility in front of your readers -- they are illegitimate as far as you're concerned. They are not remotely in your league. They are not worthy of your comments. You never want your readers to believe you take the other guys as serious journalists. They are pretenders on a throwaway that doesn't even cost a dime -- God knows if anyone actually reads anything except the sex ads in back. That should be the attitude.

Now if the T-D had ducked E&P or the NYT or the Wall Street Journal, that would be one thing. But you do not play that game with the alt-weekly or the TV stations in town.

Remember 10 or 15 years ago when the New York Post ran a regular column about the New York Times. Made the Post look small time, like dwarves throwing pebbles at the giant. If you're the big guy, you ignore invitations to pissing matches like that, same as any boxer with a brain scoffs at some drunk who wants to mix it up. Not worth it.

 

Frank, I must disagree. I am an alt-weekly alumnus, and one of the Phoenix' main roles was to cover the Globe and Herald. Were we unbiased? No, but we were a hell of a lot less biased than they were (and are) about each other. In a one-paper town, that role is even more important.
I don't know enough about Richmond to know if the article in question is the real scoop, moonshine, or in between. But I don't think it's a good policy for a daily to refuse comment to a not-quite competitor. It looks furtive and guilty, and probably is.

 

From a business standpoint, Michael, it makes absolutely no sense to tell the readers there is anything remotely credible to be found in the other publication. If people in the community want to ask questions about us, fine, we are open to that. We even run letters to the editor that are critical of our coverage, and sometimes an op-ed piece, too. But there is no earthly reason why we need to give another publication in our city the time of day.

 

Frank said:
"Every alt-weekly in the country makes a big deal out of pouncing on any problem, real or imagined, at the daily and blowing it out of proportion. And we're supposed to cooperate with that?"

Now, I guess you'd say the Bush Administration shouldn't talk to the media either? In fact, no one should EVER talk to the media. Perhaps, Frank, you might consider a career change if the thought of speaking to the media is that unsavory. What's the difference between the NYT or E&P and this alt-weekly? They both print words in English, right. Perhaps the T-D should only speak via their PR dept. Would that be acceptable?
Anyway, I hope whoever gets/takes/applies for this job thinks about the mindset in the building. What else can't you do?

 

And let me say this. I NEED a job as much (if not more) than anyone on this board. But if my paper told me I COULDN'T SPEAK, I'd at least consider resigning. You have to stand on ethics and beliefs at some point. And good job of that columnist speaking out on the record!
That's a journalist! (no, I'm not him)

 

The New York Times and Editor & Publisher are not based in Richmond. They are, in the management's opinion, respectable media that operate according to traditional media ethics. We reserve the right to not comment to Local Alt-Weekly, the Morning Drive-Time Cretins on the local radio station, John Doe's local political blog and the Unibomber Wannabe's mimeographed, stapled-together monthly rant that is distributed only at your local gun shop.

 

An update I had not seen posted:

http://styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=12641

 

The New York Times has handled media inquiries pretty much the same as this for many years. Google "New York Times spokesperson" or "New York Times spokeswoman" and you'll get hundreds of hits. You'll also see references to reporters and editors referring a question to a corporate spokesperson. Catherine Mathis, the VP of corporate communications, is the person who most often speaks for the NYT.

I think that when we do deal with other news organizations, it is only common sense that we'd want the appropriate person speaking for the organization and that when speaking about any kind of sensitive situation, we'd want to be deliberate in our answers. I work for one of the least paranoid companies among those on my resume, and we do have a written company policy (I just checked the employee handbook) that restricts employees from talking about the company with other media. The company wants to choose who represents its point of view to the public, and I find it hard to argue with that.

 

Every company pretty much has the same policy. However, unions can speak about conditions.

That is why we sometimes need to quote people who wouldn't be identified. If a probation officer works in a building that is infested with rats (I know this is a situation which happened), of course management doesn't want people talking about it. That is why if you were doing a story on it, you couldn't quote people by name.

In a lot of cases, management would care more about finding out who spoke to the media than getting rid of the rats.

The difference between the New York Times and the Richmond Times Dispatch is that the New York Times is generally more permissive with reporters appearing in other forums. If you allow them to appear in other forums, they probably will say things which won't exactly match the company line. My guess is the New York Times does it because they perceive of themselves as a prestigious organization and act like a big timer.

Compare that with the Richmond newspaper. They come across as Bush League and petty. They may be a bigger operation than the alt-weekly, but are they better? Or do they just "pretend they don't exist"?

 

Will somebody please get this discussion back on track about the sports editor's job, please? All this crap about the NY Times, etc. belongs somewhere else on this Web site.

Let's stay focused here. Tell me about the job opening and where things stand.