[Nearly 70 newsroom employees face job loss March 21]
The U.S. Justice Department is examining the Tucson Citizen's sale, the paper is reporting, as Gannett imposes unusually strict bidding conditions, apparently designed to thwart serious offers -- effectively, guaranteeing the paper's death in less than three weeks.
Potential buyers must agree to continue printing the paper in order to qualify to bid on the Arizona daily, the Citizen story says. Web-only offers are not permitted, even though they would preserve a second editorial voice. Also, the rules require buyers first prove their financial viability before seeing any financials -- key data needed to complete a standard due diligence review.
Gannett put the paper on the block Jan. 16, saying it would close the 138-year-old afternoon paper if no buyers emerged by March 21. The Citizen is the weaker partner in a joint operating agreement with Lee Enterprises; it has been a GCI paper since 1977.
'Highly unusual' bidding rules
The former chief of the Litigation III section of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division said inquiries to potential buyers are "standard procedure" in the sale of newspapers involved in JOAs, the paper says. "But it would be 'highly unusual' for the government to impose specific conditions requiring the production and sale of a printed version of the paper."
"The alternative explanation is that the seller is imposing that condition," James R. Wade, now a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Haynes and Boone LLP, told the Citizen.
The paper called Gannett spokeswoman Tara Connell for a response; she replied in an e-mail, saying: "Sorry, but we are not going to comment on this."
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green sidebar, upper right.
Which Tara Connell is talking to the Citizen for this story:
ReplyDelete* The publicist who spins the news for Gannett?
* Or the aspiring journalist who wants to return to the newsroom, in an even bigger role?
Can she credibly do the later, after doing the former? If so, what does that say about Gannett's ethical standards going forward?
More thoughts on the “closing” (or sale) of the Tucson Citizen...
ReplyDeleteYou have an afternoon newspaper with low circulation (19K) located in a veritable backwater called Tucson. Gannett can still make money off this paper even after its doors are shut because of the wording in the Joint Operating Agreement with the Arizona Daily Star. Does Gannett stand to make more money now with no newsroom overhead? Humm? From a business standpoint it seems the “right” thing to do. However, as terms of the possible sale of the Citizen come to light, it is obvious that Gannett has “conditions” that may (intentionally?) make it unattractive to any potential buyer. Again, Humm?
So, what is Gannett up to here? Keeping their finger in the Tucson pie in the hopes that Lee Enterprises (owner of the Daily Star) might stumble and have to sell out? Gannett plays a waiting game while being in an inert status in the Tucson market? Plausible.
Another bonus of Gannett “closing” the Citizen, a losing afternoon paper, is that it may have been intended as a pawn, a sacrifice so-to-speak, meant to send a none-to-subtle message to the rest of Gannett’s employees that THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU! if you don’t work harder, smarter, for less money and benefits, etc., etc. Couple this with the indifference shown by Gannett to Tucson Citizen employees by announcing the “closing” in conjunction with an executive’s golf game.
Anyone care to comment?
They already used the "this could happen to you" in Honolulu where they held up Tuscon as an example to achieve 10% wage cuts from the unions and agreeing to over 150 job cuts. The unions rolled over for them and even cited to their membership "Tuscon"...like it was the Alamo. Jim, this "arrangement" and trust me it is....sounds very similar to what happened in Honolulu about 8 years ago when they tried to shut down the smaller JOA partner...but they are not alone. Do you think Dean Singleton didn't pay anything to the "partner" to quietly slip away...
ReplyDeleteI'm in Tucson. This jibes with a lot of the whispers that have been going around the building lately. It's hard to separate rumor from fact, but the article confirms a lot of what we've been hearing. People have been asking questions along these lines, and I suspect there will be a lot more of these questions now.
ReplyDeleteJim, those are my exact thoughts upon reading your post. If this PR flack is allowed to return to the newsroom, then that newsroom has zero credibility. Although some would argue on how much it has now ...
ReplyDelete