"Rick brought an entrepreneurial spirit to the watchdog journalism and community leadership of the Desert Sun,'' said Thursday's edition of the News Department's newsletter, News Watch. "His reinvigorated focus on quality journalism led to 'How They Spend Your Money,' which tracked how cash-strapped governments spent taxpayers’ dollars."
$700K for advertisingMy curiosity about that tax-spending series was aroused by memories of a story the Sun published deep on an inside page a year ago, one about an absurd six-figure tax giveaway that appeared to benefit, yes, the Sun itself.
The staff-written story, published April 20 on Page B3, said the nearby Cathedral City Council had voted in favor of the Redevelopment Agency spending $700,000 on -- get this -- advertising on behalf of local automobile dealerships.
Although some of the money would support other businesses, auto dealers were the ones mentioned prominently in the Sun's account. No doubt, some of the $700K was going to advertising on TV, radio and other local media. Yet, it seems more than likely that a chunk would wind up in the pages of the dominant Desert Sun.
Deal 'beyond belief'
Amid the Great Recession, the proposal's backers argued that residents were hurt by declining auto sales, which comprised 45% of the city's budget. The mayor recused herself from the council's vote, because her husband worked for one of the auto dealers. But (surprise!) she nonetheless supported the measure. It passed unanimously, 4-0.
At least one Sun reader was outraged. "The idea of using redevelopment money to give to auto dealers is beyond belief," reader CoveDweller1 wrote online. "And to listen to the mayor try to justify it is just plain crazy."
The newspaper not only ran the story inside the B section, but it didn't publish the account until 12 days after the city council vote.
Did Sun investigate?
I don't know whether the Sun included the auto dealer bailout in its "How They Spend Your Money" series. Unhelpfully, News Watch didn't include a link to the project. I searched the Sun's website, but none of the links to the series mentioned the auto dealers. Indeed, the few links provided required readers to pony up to read the stories.
Related: The Sun's 379-word story about Green's award
Earlier: 10 President's Rings for publishers, and another 35 for everyone else
[Image: today's paper, Newseum]
This is typical. Gannett newspapers never seriously report on issues political issues that benefit them. For that matter, they won't do serious reporting on most issues that would negatively impact an advertiser.
ReplyDeleteThat's one reason this current push for investigative journalims is so stupid. What that means is Gannett will go after a lot of the easy targets, like government agencies. I say they're easy, not because there's no corruption but because they don't advertise.
You can bet we're not going to see any serious investigations of the business practices of companies that advertise with Gannett. That would hurt the bottom line.
The trouble is, anyone who's paying attention knows that big business is responsible for nearly all the corruption in our society. Government is the way it is because most political officials are bought and paid for.
So, Gannett's model of investigative journalism will never tackle the big issues. The only time you'll see us report on a really big deal that could hurt an advertiser is if someone else breaks the story and we're forced to react. Sad but true.
I agree that honorable journalists don't want to compromise on covering news, whether it concerns advertisers or not.
ReplyDeleteBut in these leaner economic times, where jobs are threatened, the pressure is great to not bite the hand that feeds us. There's also pressure, borne out by surveys of editors, to work more closely with the advertising department -- a step that weakens the wall that historically separated news-gathering from a paper's commercial interests.
This has come when some of the biggest cutbacks in community journalism -- across the industry, not just in Gannett -- have been in business reporting. I've seen a lot of business news desks cut way back, and merged into metro news -- along with their newshole.
Ironically, of course, solid business journalism is now needed more than ever. The biggest issues we face today are about business: the credit crisis, growing national debt, cost of health care, decline in real wages, and money in politics after the Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete1:31 -- You can call me a jerk if you like, but if you've really never met an editor or publisher who would kill a story (or simply refuse to investigate it) because it could hurt advertising, then I wish I worked at your site. I not only have colleagues who have been asked not to pursue stories that might offend powerful businesses, I have a friend who was reprimanded after writing an opinion piece that a business complained about ... after the fact.
ReplyDeleteDo I have an axe to grind? Absolutely, as I find that kind of newsroom behavior deplorable, as it sounds like you do. But like it or not, it's happening.
Note that I didn't say it was reporters that have led the industry to this. Generally, this sort of thing comes from the top. Publishers, executive editors, sales directors, etc.
That said, think of the chilling effect the recent layoffs have had. A lot of reporters still have integrity, but do you think most of them are itching to go toe-to-toe with the executive editor or publisher over a story -- big or not? Some might, but many will simply do as they're told because they need a paycheck. And who can blame them?
Call bullshit all you like, but the hostility of your post makes me wonder if you aren't well aware of the situation yet are having trouble reconciling it. Perhaps you're just naive. I'm not trying to be mean, but there's no question that this sort of thing is happening, and it's not only within Gannett.
Want an example of an editor who sold his journalistic soul? Look no further than Jim's posts on the Gannett editor who is allowing the New Jersey Devils hockey team to cover itself. Professional sports teams are often advertisers and they have a lot of money. There's a well-documented example for you. Now you at least know of an editor who places little value on journalistic integrity.
Also, this very post points out how Palm Springs downplayed a story that could have been a front page expose. Was that because all the editors there have poor news judgment or was it because they didn't want to risk losing advertising dollars? Be careful how you answer this. Pick answer No. 1 and you've got a bunch of incompetents running a mid-sized daily. Pick No. 2 and you now know of another editor or two who will choose advertising dollars over properly reporting the news.