Meet the new boss, same as the old boss: NWA newspaper merger shakes only at the bottom | Ink By the Byte
Banner, Ink By the Byte, Opinion — By Christopher Spencer on November 1, 2009 at 3:57 AMBy Christopher Spencer
Ozarks Unbound
(Disclosure: I’ve worked for both the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and The Morning News of Northwest Arkansas. I was laid off from The Morning News in April 2009 along with others.).
“Jeff Jeffus will continue … Rusty Turner will continue … Susan Scantlin will remain … Tom Stallbaumer will remain …”
So reads Bill Bowden’s story in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette last week about the merger between newspaper properties owned by Wehco Media of Little Rock and Stephens Media of Las Vegas, Nev.
Each of these folks will keep their job or have their duties expanded as Northwest Arkansas Newspapers takes over the print game today in Northwest Arkansas.
After painful cuts to staff at both companies this past week, it’s become evident that the only real changes are at the bottom, not the top, of this consolidated media marriage between a newspaperman and a banker with inherited fortunes.
Independent, editorial voices, already a rarity in print, will now be further rendered either toothless or extinct. News coverage will shrink and less eyes will play watchdog on a daily basis.
Many talented people who remain at the new company will not go gently into that good night, and I thank them for that.
By the way. congratulations, Mr. Warren Stephens, on climbing to 97th on Forbes 400 Richest Americans this year. And to you, Mr. Walter Hussman for being named one of The Atlantic’s Brave Thinkers this month. Please save your applause to the end, gentle reader.
I watched and hoped in vain to see someone new brought into the insular newspaper world of Northwest Arkansas. I would welcome fresh eyes from the outside or a voice found and promoted from deep within, pulled past the risk-adverse thermocline of upper management.
It should be someone willing to try and fail and fail again in order to reach out to two generations of Arkansans who will likely never take to frozen ink on dead trees. It should be someone who can help newspapers shake off some of the commercial and creative paralysis that rises as a rigid “no” in far too many editorial meetings.
No such luck. The same bus drivers who navigated while their respective newspaper properties dropped into a financial abyss are again at the helm.
The economy is largely to blame for this merger. No one would question that, but other factors are also in play.
Society changed and newspapers refused to budge. These are smart people at the top. I know many of them personally and like them, but there’s a misunderstanding among many of them that to save journalism is to save newspapers in their physical form.
Personally, I’d like to see newspapers remain. At 34, and with almost a decade in the business, I retain some nostalgia for print. But even if newspapers continue their creep toward becoming advertising delivery devices, I’m comforted that journalism will continue.
Journalism exists independent of the medium. The craft’s core attributes – transparent and accurate information from sources that stand behind their words – have never been more in demand than now. There is a craving for it on the Internet.
When feeling generous, I’ve often wondered if those newspaper folks at the top, those below the actual owners, realize newspapers have an expiration date. At some level, maybe they are doing their best to bring the doomed plane down to the ground safely and slowly with as few casualties as possible, providing parachutes whenever possible so those forced out in mid-air retain some possibility of survival.
Arkansas’ online media world isn’t mature. It’s an infant, loud and impatient that sometimes gives little thought to the consequences of what it says. That’s not universally true and it’s not universally bad. I count Ozarks Unbound among that fold.
There are several exceptional blogs, and some hybrids such as the Arkansas Times blog, that point the way toward a form of online journalism still undiscovered.
The state’s blogosphere isn’t ready to take up the journalism mantle, but we’re learning. We’re trying and getting better with each passing month.
As time passes, things will hopefully solidify into a network of independent sites with different editorial voices. Ideally, these sites will rise and fall based on their earned merit. None will have a geographic monopoly. Their choice of content will dictate their audience.
On Dec. 1, The Morning News of Northwest Arkansas will pull the majority of its content behind a paywall to join Wehco Media’s properties. I wish the newspapers luck, but I fear this is a fatal mistake by our largest newspaper chains.
I’m sorry to see that they’ve chosen to pull away from Arkansas’ fledgling hyperlocal news sites rather than help them foster unique voices that could slow some of the lost coverage by professional journalists.
From today forward, instead of a newspaper war in Northwest Arkansas between two wealthy Arkansas families played out as a proxy between Wehco and Stephens Media, newspapers are likely to face increased decentralized competition. A newspaper as the definitive source of news in a community will be challenged by a 100 blossoming blogs, each with a real resident, each resident a virtual Gutenberg.
What’s to prevent bloggers skilled as rewriters to take a nod from television and radio, the original content rewriters, and lift just the facts from stories behind a paywall? What newspaper reporter hasn’t heard their handcrafted sentence read verbatim over the air with no attribution?
Let me be clear, the possible, the legally permissible and the ethically sound can diverge in this gray area.
It’s clear that Hussman and Stephens have chosen to stake their claim in print with the merged Northwest Arkansas Newspapers operation. Their claim online is still unclear.
At the moment, advertisers appear to agree that it’s worthwhile to spend their money in print to reach audiences. That will change as advertisers realize the effective power of openly interacting with their audience online in new ways, potentially personal and authentic ways, for less money.
It’s a lesson our new merged newspaper conglomerate appears unwilling to learn.
Ink by the Byte is an occasional media criticism column.
** Correction: Warren Stephens middle initial is A. His middle initial was incorrect in an earlier version of this column. **
SIMILAR POSTS
- Wehco and Stephens marry as Northwest Arkansas Newspapers LLC. is formed Friday | Ink By the Byte at 12:24 PM on October 24, 2009
- Morning News falls through the cracks | CF at 8:30 AM on March 8, 2010
- Warren Stephens, owner of Stephens Media, pushes Republican Tim Griffin | CF at 1:18 PM on January 18, 2010
- NWA newspaper merger becomes “officially” official as papers drop simultaneous press releases | Ink By the Byte at 6:30 PM on October 26, 2009
- Warren Stephens: The heavy hand of publishing | CF at 1:36 PM on September 21, 2009
Subscribe
31 Comments
I’m rather disappointed that you left me out, Christopher.
*applause*
I think your being hired was a step in the right direction, Jon. I look forward to seeing more of the results online of that hire. I’ve seen some baby steps, and maybe a big reveal lurks in the wings. I don’t know.
I was thinking more of an upper management position.
I hope we see some really interesting things happen online at Northwest Arkansas Newspapers. Please make me eat my words.
“We’re trying and getting better with each passing month.”
Bravo, Mr. Spencer, for not only this brilliantly well-considered analysis, but for the forum you have provided during this key shift in the region’s history. Given the range and passion of the comments, you have obviously found an audience who craves your voice.
Many of those in charge at the dinosaurs have taken to eating their own to delay their extinction. Sad and somewhat shameful. Rarely do people get into journalism for the money — it’s never really been there for rank-and-file personnel. People join this business for the thrill of being in the know and of sharing that information. There’s a certain nobility to real journalism, to performing that watchdog role, that no amount of money can provide. We do this because we love it and because we think it matters. Because as dirty and ugly as the world can be, by shining a light on the things that are bad or wrong in society, we can inform the public and perhaps spark improvement that will lead to the betterment of all.
And by shining a light on what’s good — because despite what some say, the “MSM” does that too — we can hold up what is great about our brief passage on this plane, and exult in the realization of what we can be.
Somewhere along the way, the management types at the helm of the newspapers here (if they ever knew at all) forgot what journalism means and worse, forgot their own humanity. Did they take pay cuts? How much of the upper crust was sacrificed? They won’t say, of course, but the facts speak for themselves. It’s business as usual – not journalism as usual. They have not been journalists in a very long time.
Ozarks Unbound has in my mind officially turned the corner during this crisis. OU dug into this story, found different angles (Mr. Arnold’s impressive words seemed to open the door wonderfully), got verifiable, important data on the record, and let the public in on the discussion. In no small part — although those blind folks will likely never acknowledge it publicly — OU helped fuel the return of at least two vital voices (Mr. Arnold’s and Mr. Caudle’s) into the fold. Bob is back at work. And hopefully we will hear more from Mr. Arnold.
Very well done, sir. OU’s flag is firmly planted and we are all in your debt. As the above quote states and this past week proves, you and those in similar pursuits are growing and improving.
After the time of the dinosaurs, the remains of these creatures settled into the earth. Millions of years later, they became fuel that contributed to a great development of the civilization. Now that civilization is changing again to improve and leave behind an old technology for bold innovation. The analogy is apt though the timing will be exponentially swifter. You are this new wave; and down the line another will come. But for now, you are helping us find the new world of journalism. Godspeed.
Ozarks Unbound needs a copy editor on staff.
@Casual Friday – Thank you for those incredibly kind words, Casual Friday. It’s gonna be painful for the first few years as media transitions or entrenches.
I hope we can continue to earn your readership, not because you agree with everything we write, but because you find the opinion or news story valid and interesting.
@Marenka – I completely agree. One set of eyes is never enough. Call us out, let us know where grammatic errors are. Please.
How about “One set of eyes if never enough.” Should be “is never enough.”
One of my big problems with blogs and the internet in general is that people do not have to take ownership or responsibility of their words. If you don’t put enough stock in your words and opinions to own them by putting your actual name to them, why the hell should I put any stock in them? It’s easy to spout under the cloak of anonymity.
Yep, just caught that one. Thanks. *chokes on humble pie*
Morgan, I’m with you. I treat anonymous blogs as rumor mills, at best. Without a names attached that stand behind their words, I take everything with a large grain of salt.
Two of Fayetteville’s anonymous blogs, The Iconoclast and The Fayettevillage Voice raise sometimes valid questions in the community.
However, unless we know who writes for those two blogs, their motives will always be suspect.
At the end of the day, I think there is a net positive in having sites like that in the area, but we need more people willing to put their name on the line in order to make online-only news sources more valid.
That’s part of the maturation process of the area’s blogosphere, I think. I hope to see it happen sooner rather than later.
I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, Chris. I’ve learned over the years that if someone isn’t willing to put their name to their opinion, be it on a blog they own or as a comment on another blog, then their opinion is just so much hot ethernet air. It’s too easy to blow and spew when there is no accountability or consequence like when you don’t sign your own name but hide behind some cute nickname.
I may not agree with everything you write (and I don’t) but at least you put your name to it. I can respect that.
@Morgan Dooley… Some of us hold positions in the community and in our respective businesses that would not lend themselves to spouting off opinions freely on Internet blogs. I don’t discuss my political and religious views at work not because I have a secret agenda, but because it can be career suicide. Likewise, my *opinion* posted anonymously is just that, and opinion, and I would never claim to have grasp on any facts. Listen, facts change, but my opinion can stay the same FOREVER (via Stephen Colbert). i believe OU has done an admirable job of taking a hot topic among journos and treating it with dignity and with as little vulturism as can be considering Christopher being RIFed several months back. Don’t put too much stock in Internet comments.
Was a little surprised this morning that no Northwest Morning Arkansas News Times of Anaheim was sitting on my porch today. Seems to have squandered an ideal marketing opportunity to display this great new product to the communities. You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
@Christopher Spencer: Good job!
@Bruce C: I heard it was a Frankenstein’s monster of amalgamated sections.
I agree with Christopher’s assessment of the anonymous blogs that have risen to a place of prominence in the local blogosphere. Their very anonymity devalues much of what they say. It’s one thing for people to post comments anonymously for the reasons that Casual Friday (more on that in a moment). But people who place themselves in the position of offering a supposedly opinion-leading blog owe it to their reading public to say who they are. If they can’t do it for whatever reasons, they ought not be in the business of putting it out there.
What credibility is there in such blatant anonymity? Those blogs frequently call on city hall, with thunderous declarations and equally loud praises from their followers, to do one thing or another. Why should they expect the city administration or anyone else to pay any attention to people whose identities, agendas and associations are completely unknown?
Ozarks Unbound and Fayetteville Flyer follow the correct path, with their publishers and contributors known from the start. I suggest they take one more step: abolish the anonymous comments. OU uses the SPJ Code of Ethics and is clearly attempting to meld some of the better traditions of the print culture into the online culture. No newspaper would print an anonymous letter to the editor, no matter how well thought out. Why should online pubs allow anonymous comments, so often written on the fly and too frequently serving as launching pads for broadsides against individuals against whom they have personal issues?
Well, that felt good. And my real name is at the top.
Hey Dave Edmark, damn glad to meet you! My name is Morgan Dooley and I couldn’t agree with you more. My thoughts, opinions and beliefs may not always be pretty and sometimes I may regret the manner in which I state them but I will always own them and admit they are mine.
“Common Sense” and many other publications were originally published anonymously because the climate was a little too dangerous to attach a name to the work. Just sayin’.
Thanks, David for the comment. Very nice to hear your opinions.
We are trying to hammer out a separate piece with old school print journalism ethics. Some should be retained – like clear barriers between opinion, news and advertising – while others are antiquated relics.
I put the print rule of That Shalt Not Comment On Your Own Story into this category of outdated thinking. We’ve made a decision here to write a story and then comment as needed underneath. Personally, I think it only makes sense if you are trying to develop a relationship with readers.
I’ve gone back and forth about commenting here. At one point, I only allowed people who registered to comment. That was too restrictive. Also, letting just anyone comment anonymously anytime will likely lead to flame wars and trolling, in my opinion.
So I’ve settled on this formula – I must approve each person the first time they comment. They are required to leave a name and an e-mail in order to post. I have no idea if the name or e-mail is accurate, but I think having that one step creates a little more investment among those that post.
There’s no way to ensure that people use their real names online and I wouldn’t enforce that anyway. Even anonymous voices have value. I think the chilling effect of forcing everyone to be public with conversations online would create more negative than positive.
I’m open to revisiting the topic, but that’s my thinking on it for now.
You’ve made the right decision, Chris. You need to filter some comments because for this community to work we all need to agree to a certain level of politeness and mutual respect. Someone has to be the enforcer, because we all need to know that stepping outside those boundaries won’t be rewarded.
Back to the topic at hand… What did everyone think of the “new era” talking point recently published by every paper? I wonder if the editorial boards really believe NWA is a “blessed spot” for print journalism.
@MPetty — It’s just a design element, something meant to break up the gray on the page, a point of entry, a piece of flair. It often simply restates the lede. In my experience, the editors frequently forgot to write it, and the page designer was left to come up with something to fill the space.
In related news, C. Montgomery Hussman is touring the NWA properties today. He was spotted at the Fayetteville office about 11:30 a.m.
Anonymous remarks carry the same weight as a comment with a name attached. A name does not change the information you are presenting. Moderate the manner in which the responses are given by context… i.e. staying in bounds and civilized (yes), worrying about exactly who said what and when it was said (so so), deleting a comment or pointing out all grammatical errors (no).
Spend your time on holding the source and those who leave comments accountable for accurate information.
1. ‘Needs a copy editor’ (blah)…mistakes can be pointed out by the public and corrected quickly if they slip by before publishing. That is the joy of the online media…the ability to correct mistakes and update information in real time. spell check and quick responses from readers eliminate the urgent need for hiring this position. Especially in the case of a young start-up that is low on capital. Don’t spend your limited money in this area when it is not absolutely necessary.
Ben Franklin would not have reached the audiences he wanted without the numerous anonymous letters of opinion and fact.
You have to remember THE best feature about social media. It allows us to let down our guards for once in history and read the opinion of many at the click of a mouse. we are all reading this forum in order to gain more knowledge on the current merge. we continue to read past the OU article because we are interested in those opinions outside those of chris. therefore we feel comfortable expressing our own opinion whether identified or anonymous because this story gives us a common bond. in the end we all get a much clearer picture of how EVERYONE feels as a whole. we take those facts/opinions…both good and bad, and you can really move a community in a positive direction (with or without typos).
-anonymousISgood
@mpetty Thanks, it seems like the best compromise. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act covers me in cases of libel for things not written by myself or staff. That’s a good thing. I don’t need to be the person policing comments for possible libelous material.
The editorial used the sort of language that struck me an emotive plea to the audience not to turn on the papers. We’re part of the community also, it seemed to be pleading.
@anonymousISgood For me, anonymous comments don’t hold the same weight as comments with someone’s name attached that lives in your area, but I agree they have value. I appreciate you pointing out that the issue of anonymity and commentary has historic roots in American society.
And you’re absolutely right that one of the most amazing things about online articles with comments allowed is that, when comments are at least civil, they do create a space for strong discussion. The editorial I wrote – my own opinions – has a half-life of a day max (more like a few hours), but the conversation that continues below is ongoing. I love that about new media.
What do anonymous commenters have to be afraid of these days?
It’s a serious question, because with very few exceptions, our lives and livelihoods are not endangered by our opinions. That’s the strength of democracy, and the way to make social media work is to commit to the discussion and the process instead of spending so much of our time wondering what others think of us.
@mpetty
http://bit.ly/1×5bUa
anonymousISgood!
I think Mr. Petty should do a little research about how commonly people have lost their jobs for blogging, unwise social networking exposure, etc. in the past few years.
No biggie. Next election he’ll lose his, so…
Bruce, you glossed over the question. You said people lost their jobs for “unwise” exposure.
Isn’t that the essence of the question? One could argue that if you can’t frame your opinion in a wise, careful way, then you shouldn’t make it public at all, anonymously or otherwise. Are anonymous commenters so disrespectful that they are only able to sow controversy instead of stimulating debate?
I don’t think it’s that simple, but hiding behind anonymity is often just an excuse to abandon reason and mutual respect.
PS – Who says I’m running again? :P
@Mpetty. So I bit and went to figure out who you are. Kudos to you for being involved instead of just talking the talk. You may suck at your duties as alderman, I don’t know since I haven’t lived here long enough yet to decide that. What’s interesting though is your position here about anonymous comments on blogs. You have a fairly substantial blog to which you obviously devote significant energy. You discuss matters you deem important to your community and invite the internet at large to converse and debate with you there.
And you allow them to do so anonymously. Can you say, “DOH!”
Matt,
Anonymity is a useful thing. Many times employers do not agree with your particular stand or politics making life in the workplace a miserable existence. If you had a job you might come to realize this to be true.
However, for the vast majority of us, our opinions remain something we only bandy about amongst friends. The internet is full of folks who are not our friends.
For some, like yourself, expression of personal opinions and actions are political suicide. If you mature you might lose your naivete. Tricycle theft, making decisions about personal property when you don’t own any, and blatant electioneering, etc. will be long remembered by those of us who go to the polls.
Christopher,
I am glad to see your blog appear upon my computer screen. I am pleased you have the moxie to put your name out there with your opinions and reporting. Keep on keeping on. The public will support you where we can.
In defense of blogs like the Iconoclast, I believe the writers are in a profession where their opinions would make their jobs difficult and possibly lose them business.
Of course these are only my anonymous opinions. (read as first amendment rights.)
Mr. Petty, I did indeed say people have lost jobs due to unwise online posting. I did not say that specifically related to anyone here. I do not know if that has happened. I do know it takes a very quick search to find many instances of people losing jobs because of their online life. I recommend the highly entertaining and well-written site http://www.dooce.com as a prime example.
While you are at it, look up the the Federalist Papers. Written anonymously. Now obviously, I hope you do not think I am attempting to equate online posting with what was considered treason several hundred years ago. However, there are a number of ways that people feel compelled to cloak their true feelings in public for fear of being ostracized. The online world provides a freedom of expression for these people. You would be extremely naive to think that some people in northwest Arkansas would not be at risk in their careers if they were to speak completely freely about their religious views, their views on sexual preference, their views on reproductive rights, their political affiliations.
In northwest Arkansas, you can put your job at risk for being gay, voting democratic, being pro-choice, not being Christian, being pro-union. Especially given this state’s strongly anti-worker stance regarding protections, you’d have to have your head totally stuck up a dark place to not understand this.
@Bruce – You said “You would be extremely naive to think that some people in northwest Arkansas would not be at risk in their careers if they were to speak completely freely about their [views].” You’re exactly right, and my point is that often it’s not the sharing that got people in trouble, it’s sharing too much.
@Morgan – I don’t think it’s hypocritical to allow anonymous comments on my site. People have a right to be anonymous, and I’m not interested in taking it away nor am I interested in making that choice for them.
@DC – Personal attacks, really? Your anonymity in your comment is a case study for what I am trying to communicate. You have an opinion which could be shared with civility, probably garnering you respect from the rest of us, but instead you take a disrespectful tone and resort to personal attacks, using your anonymity to protect you from the ramifications.
I wholeheartedly agree that in some cases anonymity is a good thing. It’s an important right that shouldn’t be taken away. But more often than not anonymity is an excuse to avoid ownership and responsibility.
There was a real opportunity to revamp the staff and get rid of some of the problems at the top. Instead, it became opportunity time for those in power to become a bigger hairball clogging up the pipes.
Look at these shrewd moves:
Editorial Page Editor: They eliminated this position a couple years ago, and moved the former editor to the desk, then finally let him go last week. The new position was filled by the ME’s husband.
Special Projects Editor: The ME jumped at the chance to hire a recent j-school grad when she married one of the sports guys. They put her on the desk, but she didn’t like the late hours and weekends, so they kept moving her around and creating jobs to accommodate her. Now they’ve created another job just to accommodate her, and she gets “editor” in her title.
Sports Editor, ASE: The SE is a buffoon who at one time was allowed to have his entire family on TMN payroll. He manages his staff as if they were a posse. You can find them together bowling, playing basketball and softball or golfing. The ASE job used to be a desk job and the guy they just demoted did a good job of tracking down the posse each night so he could get their stories turned in. But they dumped him, did away with the ASE doing any desk work and promoted the author of “Year of the Dog” to ASE. How appropriate. A do-nothing guy for a do-nothing job.
Photo Editor: What exactly does he do? No one is sure, but he is buddies with the ME and her brother. So his job is safe.
Bureau Editors: By closing down the bureaus, you’d think dumping the bureau editors would be a foregone conclusion. Nope. They figured out a way to keep every one of them.