Corporate has now posted the job for executive editor of The Cincinnati Enquirer, following today's confirmation that Tom Callinan, 62, is retiring, effective Jan. 1, after eight years. The paper is one of Gannett's biggest, with daily circulation of 157,574, and Sunday of 255,037, according to the latest ABC data, as of Sept. 30. (Updated at 11:53 p.m. ET on Sept. 24: I've posted a revised version of this job posting, after Corporate corrected the original.)
Earlier: As Callinan pivots, three possible successors with Ohio ties
Related: CityBeat has Publisher Margaret Buchanan's memo to staff
Me. Me. Please consider me.
ReplyDeleteLove how the ad says the new editor will report to the president and the publisher, as if they were two different people. The new hire, my friends, will report to Her Holy Royal Dominatrix Margaret Buchanan, who, having spent seven years disemboweling Callinan into complete submission, is eager to have a fresh victim in her torture chamber.
ReplyDeleteI also like how "Enquirer" is misspelled in the first sentence of the job description.
ReplyDeleteGannett often wraps these changes in a bow: i.e., presenting the new editor to the staff as the old editor is being ushered out. That lends a hurry-up quality to this announcement. One reader explains the timing this way: Buchanan may want to book Callinan's severance-related expenses in 2010, with or without a replacement.
ReplyDeleteWe are about to find out if Marymont has any weight in editor decisions at all. Does she have clout? We will find out if corporate has any interest in the editorial direction or interest in making a statement to the rest of the company about what it values.
ReplyDeleteLike it or not, the selection of the Cincy editor will be seen as an example to emulate.
1. If it is Love or Washburn, it'll be a sign the old guard and liaisons still have influence in editorships. Currie's bloodline is alive in those choices.
2. If the decision is made within two weeks (and isn't one of the two mentioned), corporate helped Buchanan line up the best choices.
3. If the decision drags out, it'll be a sign that Gannett was not prepared and there is infighting about what really needs to happen in Cincy.
4. If the choice is for someone outside Gannett or of Buchanan lineage, the system of accountability sits with the publisher will be in play. That will signal a new day and a new status for publishers.
If it's #4 and the selection is not signed off by Marymont, the news department will lose huge influence with newsrooms -- influence with those thinking their good work will get noticed and get them somewhere (oops).
5. If the choice is for a hard-working journalist with a current staff that actually speaks well of their departing editor, we could be seeing a sign of hope. Leadership that is connected to their own room and has a track record that withstands this blog's scrutiny would be a real surprise hire… that might tell us we might have reached bottom and our leaders woke up; the journalism matters.
On my 3:36 PM post: The clock on turnaround starts ticking Jan. 1, 2011 assuming they should know exactly what they want to do by then.
ReplyDeleteThis shouldn't be hard. They can list editors of newspapers the size they suggest for experience, Knock off ones that don't have a chance (in and out of Gannett), review and choose.
Spot-on, 3:36! Back in his day, no one got hired for a top editorial job unless they first kissed the ring of News Department chief Phil Currie. This is a high-profile test of the old system. How much authority does Bob Dickey vest in Currie's sucessor, Kate Marymont?
ReplyDelete3:36 share some of that pre USAT Ivy League Kool Aide with the rest of us. This is why we are where we are today. What's next digital bad, print good, consumers have not idea what's good for them?
ReplyDeleteWhether we like it or not, the politics of running this company play out in changes in positions like the editor slot in Cincy. If they don't, it is a sign of real change. I suspect we'll find out traditional choices will still rule rather than a "rethink" who might be the best candidate. Washburn is the younger of the old guard trying to reinvent herself. Non-traditional choice would be an up and comer or bringing back someone who left rather than an 'already arrived' like her.
ReplyDeleteGannett either makes a statement or stands by the cost-cutting insider (let the dominoes fall) option.
Insiders, take note: Wilmington's new publisher came from outside Gannett.
ReplyDeleteA delay, if any, would likely result from issues related to attracting top talent, not because Callinan’s departure is a surprise as rumors about Buchanan moving him out only grew in recent months, including who she wanted: Washburn.
ReplyDeleteAs for corporate involvement, when haven’t they? For all the bad rap it gets – much, well deserved, they know this is an important decision. They also know Buchanan’s been there long enough to own where the Enquirer is now, that all but one original OC member remains and that her style is well, to be kind, less than collaborative.
All potential concerns for any candidate, especially those expecting to use their expertise and talents, not just their hands.
3:36 -
ReplyDeleteWho ever does get the job, including you. Let us remember that we are talking about people. They have families. They are just trying to follow a dream that may be clouded now, but such is life. The job will be wonderful in the start and then like everything, reality will set in. No matter who makes this decision and why or with "who's" blessing. It will be, what it will be. Let's be nice. Tis the season. No?
Wonder if the two recently axed prominent black journalists will show any interest in the position. Does Gannett ever rehire people whose positions were eliminated?
ReplyDeleteJim - FYI on Wilmington's new publisher. He is a recycled Gannettoid, from the Honolulu agency. I'd be interested to hear someone from Hono give their impresssions of him?
ReplyDeleteThe Cincy move has been in the works for enough time that I think considering shifting the prominent black journalists was considered. The fact they were let go suggests it won't happen.
ReplyDeleteNote to 3:36 PM: Marymont has no clout with metros such as Cincinnati and only marginal influence in medium-size papers within the company. Publishers rule. The days of a corporate-level true journalist overseeing major newsroom hires ended with John Quinn. Poor ol' Phil Currie deluded himself into thinking he was a big cheese, but nobody paid any real attention to him. Marymont is a figurehead -- nice person, but no power. And yes, I know firsthand of what I speak.
ReplyDeleteIf nothing else, filling this slot will reveal how shallow the pool of Gannett editing talent has become, as have the papers.
ReplyDeleteIt is fashionable to dump all of Cincy's problems on Callinan, but now he's gone, I think we will soon see the real source of the problem. Callinan served as a convenient foil for others, and I think he shouldered the blame under the belief it came with the job. Now he's gone, there's no one to blame, is there?
ReplyDeleteTom is one of the good guys. He challenged people to take on big projects and taught them to take responsibility for making success happen.
ReplyDeleteTom Callinan was an empty suit. His reign of incompetence in Cincinnati began when he demoted John Kiesewetter, and that was followed by a long series of clumsy, intellectually moribund decisions. He almost never came out of his office and provided no leadership in the newsroom. He didn't know Cliff Peale from Cliff Radel, didn't know Jim McNair from James Pilcher. The only thing he challenged was the community's patience. I hope he points out to his students at UC that his tenure in Cincinnati included a 20% drop in circulation and the gutting of the staff. My advice to those students: Listen to what he says, then do the opposite. Yes, the Enquirer has problems, but as the saying goes, if you're not part of the solution.... Callinan offered no solutions. Good riddance.
ReplyDeleteHe certainly was not one of the good guys. The Enquirer is notoriously timid and gutless, and known more today for the mommyblogs and data banks than the news it presents. That says volumes of his legacy. The breathtaking collapse of circulation and ads shows what readers and advertisers think of it.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a good recipe for making a journalism professor, so I expect his adjunct status will stay just adjunct.
Probably the only thing in his defense I could say is that the powers that be in Gannett once wanted it this way. Beaupre scared them, and they wanted someone who wouldn't be so confrontational and controversial. That they certainly got in spades.
Let the record be clear that Tom Callinan presided over the Enquirer during the worst phase of its history. He demoted the paper's only investigative reporter to United Way duty and eliminated the position soon after his arrival. He de-emphasized the enterprise reporting mission of Ward Bushee, Rosemary Goudreau and Rick Green in favor of shallow stories that didn't require context or impact assessment. He eliminated all columns, including those of popular Laura Pulfer and Cliff Radel, only to turn around and make the loathsome Peter Bronson the lone and therefore de facto voice of the paper. He presided during the departure of some of the paper's best reporters and writers. He refused to grant the late Jim Knippenberg's wish to write the society gossip column that only he could write. He allowed reporters to be used as writers of advertorial material. He allowed subjects of profiles to read and alter stories before they were printed. He ended an internship program that had provided college students with valuable hands-on experience every year. And just when his leadership was needed most of all, he refused to stand up against the takeover of the newsroom by a publisher who sees the paper as nothing less than a tool to build partnerships with the powerful institutions it's supposed to keep a watchful eye on.
ReplyDeleteOther than that, 10:34, you liked him?
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone seriously think that an empty suit second level editor would remotely be qualified for the top editorial job at one of the company's top five newspapers? How inane a comment was that one. Give me a break.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBased on all of these descriptions it sounds like he qualified for an academic position or Union leader. Both talk a lot and DO very little.
ReplyDeleteAnyone taking shots at Callinan’s backbone obviously forgets how he ended up in Cincinnati: Sue Clark-Johnson, then publisher of the Arizona Republic, “fired” him for pushing back on her reportedly “business friendly” editorial coverage. With Buchanan, that was undoubtedly even more challenging.
ReplyDeleteMany of the attacks on Tom fall short of realizing the true problems at the enquirer. Ms. Buchanan runs the show. Anything Tom tried was shut down- and by the end, as mentioned above, he was broken down into Margaret's yes man.
ReplyDeleteYes, the enormous problems with the Enquirer come from the publisher's suite, or as they say with rolling eyes in the information center, "from 20" (the 20th floor of the Enquirer building).
ReplyDeleteI am with 10:18. It is all well and good to dump on Callinan, but that doesn't resolve the basic problem with this newspaper caused by the much-too-cozy relationship of the publisher with the business community. I fear no new editor will be able to reverse this. That means evaporating reader respect, and further declines in circulation.
ReplyDeleteCould all of this cozying up to business be a continued fallout from the Chicita Banana affair?
ReplyDeleteJust curious.
Journalists of real integrity don't tolerate it when the business side of the company micro-manage their turf. Read about Jay Harris of the San Jose Mercury News, Dean Baquet and David Hiller of the LA Times and Ann Marie Lipinski of the Chicago Tribune. All threw themselves to the wolves in the name of preserving the wall between the newsroom and advertising. To allow oneself to be a corporate toadie like Callinan is to show the shallowness of one's principles. Top editors and publishers of any real value always land on their feet.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think there is obviously a Chiquita connection. I have always believed the Chiquita story was really an slimy effort hatched to get Carl Lindner, owner of Chiquita and a former owner of the Enquirer.
ReplyDeleteLindner was not much liked in Cincy. He was a self-made billionaire, somewhat reclusive, and a Baptist who showered the GOP and conservative causes with money. He led the campaign to keep Robert Maplethorpe's photos from touring Cincy. But he was also disliked as an arriviste by Cincy's social dragons, who were insular old money and staunchly Catholic.
Lindner was part owner of the Enquirer when it was bought by Gannett in 1979, and Lindner ended up with 4 percent of GCI stock. According to Al Neuharth's biography, Lindner launched a takeover effort for Gannett with the plan of giving the company to his son to run. It failed, and Lindner sold his stock.
But I contend some in corporate sought revenge against Lindner for his temerity which would have cost them their jobs, and so the Chiquita story. I think the idea originated from th Catholic church, which cooperated with this story, too, as anyone who reads the series can clearly see.
If it was revenge, it backfired badly. What surprised me about the retraction is the speed with which GCI paid Lindner $10 million in damages, even though no lawsuit had been filed. There are also reports that I believe of an additional $50 million in GCI stock given him.
The whole incident only solidified Lindner's position in Cincy as the man who brought the Enquirer to its knees. The business community was also understandably upset the Enquirer was so incredibly loose with its editing standards.
Today Lindner has retired and Buchanan has reached out to the old social lions to try and repair the damage. The Enquirer lost a lot of prestigue in that scandal, and given its diminished position today, I don't think there is anything the publisher can do.
I don't think we will ever know the true story behind the Chiquita banana story. Corporate closed ranks after it was published and it has been hush-hush since.
1:54 great speech. This speech is usually reserved for the classroom given by journalism teachers that never had to deal with a payroll their entire careers. Where are all those "heroes" working these days? The outlook you project was great when print was king and the web didn't exist but folks like you make no effort to adjust in the new world. It's a new reality, deal with it.
ReplyDeleteCaptain Toid
"Lindner was not much liked in Cincy...."
ReplyDeleteYou ever BEEN in Cincinnati, Junior? I don't think so.
Lindner's one of the best-loved people in town (he's a terrifically generous employer, for starters) and he was in his day a smart businessman whose moves lifted the whole city.
But regarding The Enquirer, morale was low there twenty-five years ago. It was low when I left. It's low now. You could bring in Stanley Walker...or Santa Freakin' Claus...and it wouldn't help.
Closed circuit to Rick Green: While there is plenty of the OU mob working elsewhere in Cincinnati, and you could probably put together a good team, do yourself a favor and don't consider this job. Remember why you, and many of the smart people who worked there, left. I personally think you're too smart to consider it.
Sparky worked at the Enquirer during the 1970s. The staff's mood was "quite good" during the early part of the decade, he says. Toward the end of the decade, however, many of the old timers were burned out. And, as always, the newsroom staff was often pretty cynical.
ReplyDeleteA newsroom staff was cynical? I can't believe that! Haawaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
ReplyDeleteGreat post, 6:31. Jim won't get it, though.
ReplyDelete9:34 -- I didn't write the post you are bashing but I will say that I have little use for the mass media today because of the "realities" you point out. Newspapers -- and other news organizations -- would do well to go back to the old school values of distinct separation between news and advertising departments.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure I'm not the only one who has figured out that most of today's mainstream news sources are far from unbiased. And it's getting worse.
If, like you say, we all adapt to this reality, what will happen when the adapting audiences leave all media high and dry?
Ask anyone on the street how trustworthy they find newspaper and television stories and most will tell you that they are biased. The more tilt people perceive, the less inclined they will be to tune in or read.