Letters

SWAN SONG IN HOUSTON

Geneva Overholser's quoted comments about the relentless squeeze on newspaper budgets ("A Swan Song in Des Moines," cjr, May/June) had a familiar ring, one that I fear too many reporters and editors are hearing these days.

I worked at the now-defunct Houston Post in editing and management positions from 1973 to 1992, the final one being assistant editorial page editor. The last five of those years, under Dean Singleton's MediaNews ownership, were not happy ones. They were filled with concerns for the paper's future along with a perception on my part and that of most of my colleagues that the corporation's top management had a disregard bordering on contempt for staff and readers alike. I mention this to alert cjr readers that I may have an ax to grind.

That said, let's look at a few facts -- or as close as you can come to facts regarding a closely held corporation that never shows its books to anybody.

First, it was cynical and misleading of Singleton to point to the newsprint prices of May 1995 (roughly $675 per ton) against those of a year earlier (less than $400) as though that tells the whole story. Any competent industry observer knows that these represent record highs and lows of the last fifteen years. Although $675 a ton is decidedly hurting the whole industry, newsprint topped $600 a ton the year after Singleton bought the Post, but no one threatened to fold the newspaper then.

Second, April's sale and closing give truth to the widespread rumors that the Post had been a financial house of cards since the day Singleton bought it. It speaks volumes that he paid $150 million -- heavily leveraged -- in 1987, sold it to Hearst in 1995 for $120 million, and told The Associated Press that his Consolidated Newspapers (which succeeded MediaNews in Houston as the owner of record) would make a profit. Add to that the fact that Singleton's various corporations are legally walled off from each other so that if one fails, it can't drag down any others. There is a certain hard-eyed business merit in this, I suppose, but it also means that if one hits a rough spot, the others aren't in a position to help carry it, even briefly. There are 1,900 people now out of work in Houston who could tell you a lot about that.

Less than four years ago, a Post staffer told me that the operating philosophy there seemed to be that "a dachshund can pull a freight train, if you have a big enough whip." That about captures it, but for good measure, add in a supposition that the readers don't notice when quality of coverage declines. When the Post closed, it had a circulation of about 290,000 and a newsroom staff of about 180 -- skimpy proportions by any standard, and down from an all-time high of nearly 200. David Burgin, the first of three editors-in-chief under Singleton, told me early in his tenure that he expected a 50 percent newsroom turnover in the first year, as though this were something to be proud of. The point, clearly, was to replace seasoned hands with cheaper new hires.

The Houston Post was not without its flaws, but for 111 years it faithfully printed the news, got a few rascals thrown out, earned a Pulitzer along the way, conceded nothing to the competition, and showed great heart. In April 1995, Dean Singleton killed it without even the decency of a farewell edition -- a death without a funeral.

Charles Reinken
Fayetteville, N.C.

JUNGLE WARFARE

Yes, "It's a Jungle Out There" (cjr, May/June). But very few reporters have ever looked at the core issue here, which is the lack of local representation on the Adirondack Park Agency, which was state-imposed, governs without the consent of the governed, and essentially puts residents under colonial rule. Very few have ever delved into the finances of the "environmental" organizations here, or made known their interlocking directorates and political connections. Very few reporters have gone beyond the easy, extremist quotation to find out who, if anybody, really speaks for Adirondackers.

Yes, there have been scattered incidents of violence in the Adirondacks, which by the way also involved "Earth First!" and Adirondack Council activists on the other side of the spectrum. Kevin Carmody should concede that point. But more important, he should acknowledge that further heavy regulatory and legislative proposals, particularly when crafted behind closed doors, are acts of violence themselves.

It was reporting like Carmody's that prompted me to start my own newsletter, covering the powerful Adirondack Park Agency with a cold eye. I see from your masthead that your publication is supported in part by the MacArthur and New York Times Foundations, both of which were heavily connected with the last attempt to take from Adirondackers what those in their circle won't give up themselves. How cold is your eye?

Susan Allen
Editor and publisher
Adirondack Park Agency Reporter
Keane Valley, N.Y.

Kevin Carmody replies: A key point of my article was that journalists do need to dig deeper into all aspects of such issues, not blindly accept the perspective of whatever side at that moment seems to represent conventional wisdom, be that Greenpeace or the property-rights group (the Fairness Coalition) that Allen helped lead. But I cannot concede something that, according to sources including a New York State Police investigator, would be incorrect. Senior investigator Richard Sypek, who for several years handled park-related cases including arson, threats, assaults, and criminal mischief, told me that to his knowledge the environmental activists have been "involved" in violent acts only as victims. "The wise-use people are the aggressors," he said. Earth Firsters do carry out acts of civil disobedience. That might make them pests, but I'm not sure that using their own bodies to block access to a road or a pond qualifies as violence.

THE NEW CYNICISM (CONT'D)

"A Generation of Vipers" (cjr, March/April) has the ring of truth. I was in the world of journalism for thirty years, first in a West Coast bureau of a national newspaper and then in the Washington bureau of a major news organization, before switching to public relations.

My public relations experience has been at universities and large nonprofit scientific organizations. During the time I have been on the other side of the fence, I have seen the relationships between institutions and reporters steadily and inexorably deteriorate. The legacy of Watergate has been unbridled ambition by reporters to make a name in the news business by exposing somebody doing something. That preoccupation is the hallmark of journalists, particularly in Washington. And their guns are not just trained on politicians. The truth is that reporters do not believe that institutions of any kind have legitimate points of view. In fact, the assumption is that all institutions, like all politicians, lie.

Cynicism among journalists is no longer acquired, it is congenital. And the possibility that this profound distrust, which plays itself out every day in a thousand news reports, has helped unleash the hounds that invaded Oklahoma City is something that should give all of us pause.

Robert A. Potter
Annapolis, Md.

On the other hand, who among us is sufficiently noble in spirit to consider the adulation of traitorous perjurers, the political rehabilitation of a repudiated president, the assumption of power by mindless reactionaries, the "defense" budget, and Alfonse D'Amato, without casting the jaundiced eye of cynicism upon res publica?

I ain't.

Robert C. Sommer
Westport, Conn.

Too much cynicism? Christ, I wish there were more! The biggest problem in today's print is the studied detachment, mixed with sheer laziness, that passes for "objectivity." Where is the sense of outrage that should motivate reporters to dig out the truth? Reporters don't have to be biased or judgmental to do their job. They just have to be honest -- with themselves and with their readers.

Take those stories about politicians using their office to line their pockets. We give them space to deny the allegations, to denounce us, to let their lawyers denounce us, to say they've done nothing wrong, and then nothing illegal, and then nothing that actually hurt anyone. And when they finally plead guilty, we give them plenty of space to explain that they're only pleading out in order to "spare their family," keep the costs down, and avoid the continued persecution in the media. It's a routine. But you owe it to readers to question the whole circus. If that's cynicism, give me more.

Take negative stories about the government. For years I covered the CIA and the suit against it by Janine Brookner, a.k.a. Jane Doe Thompson. Ilistened as the CIA denied they'd covered up wife-beating by a male agent; that they punished Jane Doe for disciplining him; that they'd retaliated against her. I was called to a semi-private briefing about the perfection of the CIA's personnel system. And when the agency finally settled the case (being caught red-handed with false evidence), we in the press had to report, in the name of fairness, the CIA's pathetic insistence that they'd done nothing wrong. They were merely settling the largest sex-discrimination case in their history -- for $410,000 plus legal fees -- because they needed to go on with their real work and stop letting that nasty court business upset "the community."

In print, only The New York Times and U.S. News and World Report took the time and effort to follow the CIA's official spin with the spin-busting facts. It would be good for the government as well as the readers if more reporters on this story had been sufficiently cynical.

Spin was the essence of the Contract with America. Pardon me for not believing the contract is the greatest government policy tract since the Federalist papers. How much credence should a reporter give a campaign ploy that turns out to be nothing more than the carefully crafted work of a pollster? Who was more cynical? The press? Or the politician -- Gingrich, who, with pollster Frank Luntz, determined which points would be included in the contract based on whether they registered 60 percent popularity or more in a focus group test? That's as cynical a view of the voters and readers as I've seen.

Please give Maureen Dowd her due. She's slick, but at least she goes for substance. Too many "writers with attitude" still lack a perspective. As Starobin notes, they can kick the subjects with flair. If only their savaging had a point, if their surface cynicism revealed a deeper truth about their subject. Instead of being merely satirically cynical, they'd do readers a service if they were genuinely outraged.

Starobin suggests that we don't trust our politicians' motives, even when they amazingly do the right thing. I hope the hell we don't. We are swamped with notices of "photo ops" from Democrats and Republicans alike. There isn't a disaster that doesn't attract politicians like barnacles. And presidential and congressional candidates jump on police heroes like sea gulls on a French fry. Do they sometimes say courageous, thoughtful words? Yes. Do they help publicize the needs of the victim or the deeds of the rescuer? Yes. But is their activity legitimate? Well, let's just say they're politicians, and they're doing what they're supposed to do. (Like the scorpion who's supposed to sting: you can't get mad at him because he's a scorpion, but you can report that he is one.) When a politician is being opportunistic, it would be dishonest for a reporter to overlook it.

In closing, I do agree with Tom Hamburger that it helps to get away from "operating norms" -- for example, looking at foreign health care reforms, to see what works and what doesn't. After the Oklahoma bombing, some papers actually researched and reported on how other countries were dealing with different forms of internal and external terrorism. The stories were informative and much more useful than another report on Washington politicians bickering about blame.

However, a good, cynical reporter might follow up with stories on how and why some of those effective responses to terrorism would be rejected or accepted on the basis of political expediency. Does that sound cynical? Maybe, but that's how the world works -- inside the Beltway, and beyond.

Alicia Mundy
Alexandria, Va.

CORRECTION

CJR's November/December photo essay on the late South African journalist Kevin Carter failed to correctly identify the source of the photos. The small photograph of Carter and Ken Oosterbroek should have been attributed to Nike Zachmanoglou/Sygma; all of the others, to Kevin Carter/Sygma.

cjr  |  archive  |  resources  |  contact  |  search  |  subscribe