News Cycle

The Los Angeles Times announced yesterday it will cut 300 positions. Here is Editor Russ Stanton’s note:

As you know from reading our front page and our homepage, not a day goes by that we don’t give our readers the latest news and analysis on the deepening troubles of the US economy. The same challenges that face the companies we report about also are affecting us. We need to implement changes to our flagship print product, and throughout our organization, that will ensure our future as the #1 source of news and information in Southern California.

In the coming weeks, we will introduce a number of changes to the way we do business, including a new sectional line-up for the paper. These are necessary to facilitate greater efficiencies in how we approach our operations, production and distribution and, as a result, we expect to eliminate approximately 300 positions.

The Times later said 70 of those positions will be editorial, representing 11 percent of the department.

Nineteen newspapers or chains have announced about 1,400 job cuts this month.

Facing hard times like every newspaper chain, Belo decided today to let 500 employees go in a cost-cutting move, writes Mark Fitzgerald of Editor & Publisher.

A.H. Belo Corp. will lay off approximately 500 employees at The Dallas Morning News and its three other dailies, CEO Robert Decherd told employees in a memo that said pay cuts and the newly popular industry practice of furloughs had been considered and rejected by management.

The staff reduction, amounting to nearly 14% of employees, is the second big round of job cuts in the past six months. Last summer, A.H. Belo reduced about 500 jobs nationwide with voluntary severance packages followed by layoffs.

“The revenue trends we continue to experience simply do not support or require the same number of people as we have previously employed,” Decherd said. “This reduction in force will impact all of the operating companies and corporate, and will probably be in the range of 500 jobs. Specifics about the reduction in force plan will be communicated as soon as possible, but no later than mid-February.”

David  Cay Johnston expressed some frustrations with President Barack Obama’s press office yesterday in the Columbia Journalism Review. These are the same concerns I voiced in earlier posts here and here.

It’s 3 p.m. and the phone in the White House press secretary’s office is ringing. It rings and rings and rings. Eventually, a recorded voice asks callers to leave a message — followed by a second voice saying the voicemail box is full.

After a full week of such calls, a human being answers. But Ben Labolt immediately bristles when asked to spell his name, refuses to give his job title, and says he is going “off the record” until I stop him to explain that the reporter grants that privilege, not the other way around — a basic journalistic standard that Labolt seems unaware of. He soon hangs up without even hearing what I called to ask about.

A return call is answered by Priya Singh, who spells her name when asked, but does not know (or will not say) what her job title is and several times describes requests for information about how the Obama administration press office is operating as a “complaint” which she would pass on. She says she is not authorized to comment, though she at one point tells me she is a spokesperson.

This might be the simply the problems of a new administration struggling to cope with a flood of calls and perhaps the complex machinery of the modern office. But it might also indicate that President Obama’s messages about open government have not reached press secretary Robert Gibbs and his staff.

While it is too early to judge just how this will work out, the early signs are troubling. And interviews with a dozen Washington reporters indicate that the Obama press operation tends to embrace friendly questions, while treating skeptical questions as not worth their time or, worse, as coming from an enemy.

This is  a troubling sign. There have been indications starting with the campaign that the Obama team views press coverage and questions only to be used as a tool to put out their message in their own way. And it’s a philosophy that starts at the top. Obama once told a reporter during the transition to not “waste a question” when asked about a subject that was difficult and not a part of that day’s message.

Obama, when touring the White House press room two days after the inauguration, was asked a tough question about the deputy Defense secretary whom Obama has appointed. The appointee had lobbied for Raytheon, but Obama’ had just issued new rules against lobbyists coming to work for him. Obama responded: “I came down here to visit. I didn’t come down here — this is what happens.

“I can’t end up visiting you guys and shaking hands if I am going to grilled every time I come down here.”

Hint to the president … yes, expect tough questions in the press room at all time.

In addition, Gibbs’ relationship with the media has always been a bit cool, as he had limited the access to candidate Obama to only venues that put the senator in a good light. That’s a tactic that played out well during a campaign, but may not sell when dealing with the leader of the free world.

There is a difficulty in what had been standard procedures. Transcripts of the gaggle and press briefings are not being released online, only edited snippets.  Gibbs at one point did not know that the press wanted the “week ahead”, (the president’s schedule for the next week), which is traditionally released on Friday.

It’s all about managing the message (and the press) for the Obama team right now, spoon-feeding only what it wants to spoon-feed, and not dealing with the difficult day-to-day questions from reporters. But why should it be difficult to spell your name or give your title? Many other reporters have describe similar difficulties in dealing with the press office. The question is whether this these missteps are a matter of getting your feet wet or is it a matter of policy? Could they be acting this way on purpose?

On the podium, Gibbs is also struggling to find his way in the early going. His answers have been evasive, and not very enlightening. Here is an exchange from an earlier press briefing:

… Among the lessons that Gibbs will learn from his predecessors is the necessity of having an answer when the tough questions start coming.

That lesson started unfolding today.

On Pakistan, was Obama consulted before the newest missile strikes or did he consult with Pakistan on that?

“I’m not going to speak about these matters today,” Gibbs said.

“I was just a little confused because you took the question,” said a reporter, who had asked a two-parter about this and the economic stimulus bill’s job creation and got his jobs answer but not his Pakistan answer.

“I gave you my answer,” Gibbs said.

“Second question,” the reporter pressed.

“My answer was I wasn’t going to talk about that.”

A little later, a reporter asked: “Other U.S. officials have confirmed these Predator drone airstrikes in Pakistan. What is it about not confirming whether the president was consulted?”

“I’m not going to get into these matters,” Gibbs said.
“How does that compromise operational… ?”

“I’m not going to get into these matters,” Gibbs said. “There are many things that you should be justifiably curious about. But I’m not going to get into talking about….”

“If other members of the U.S. government are confirming this, why is it that you can’t comment?

“I’m not going to get into these matters,” Gibbs repeated…

“There was a report today that the president is withdrawing Jim Jones and Larry Summers from the World Economic Forum at Davos,” another reporter asked later, after a number of questions were answered at length. “Is there a reason for that? Is there some message that’s trying to be sent for the fact that the two of them are not going, as originally planned?

“I don’t know anything about that, so I don’t have anything for you on that,” Gibbs said. “I apologize. ”

And later, why has the White House asked for the resignation of Mark Dybul, the Global AIDS coordinator in the Bush administration, after first indicating that he might stay on the job.

“I don’t have anything on the AIDS office,” Gibbs said. “I have not read anything on that.”

Johnston’s conclusion is right on the nose:

Talking to working reporters is not the only way to communicate with the people. The Obama administration seems to be embracing direct delivery of its messages via the whitehouse.gov website and YouTube. They seem to be saying “We don’t need the press to communicate our messages to the people. We can talk to the people ourselves.”

That’s entirely appropriate. But it doesn’t mean that the press should be cut out of the loop—for one thing, most Americans still get their news via traditional sources. So far the Obama administration appears to be treating its political opponents with more grace, and smarts, than journalists.

Chicago Tribune editorial page editors Bruce Dold and John McCormick answered questions in the McCormick Tribune Center Forum on Monday evening in an event called “Life on the Governor’s Enemies List.” writes Ali Elkin of The Daily Northwestern.

Northwestern University has the audio here.

President Barack Obama gave his first interview to a television network as the leader of the free world to the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya today. He told the network in an interview that was taped Monday that the United States would listen to the leaders in the region “because all too often the United States starts by dictating.”

Here is an excerpt from this morning’s AP report:

Obama said he felt it important to “get engaged right away” in the Mideast and had directed [his newly appointed Mideast envoy former Sen. George J.] Mitchell to talk to “all the major parties involved.” His administration would craft an approach after that, he said in the interview.

“What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating,” Obama told the interviewer.

The president reiterated the U.S. commitment to Israel as an ally, and to its right to defend itself. But he suggested that Israel has hard choices to make and that his administration would press harder for it to do so.

“We cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what’s best for them. They’re going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people,” he said.

Obama added: “There are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.”

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich couldn’t make it to his impeachment trial in Springfield today. He was too busy with his Imploding Tour by making the media rounds, including a spot on “The View.”

Ray Long of the Chicago Tribune reported on the trial this afternoon:

House prosecutor David Ellis began his opening statements in the impeachment trial of Gov. Rod Blagojevich shortly before 3 p.m., thanking senators for their role in this “awesome task.”

“Thank you for the awesome task that you are undertaking today for, indeed, it is an awesome task,” Ellis said.

“Impeachment and an impeachment trial is not a criminal proceeding. It is not punitive in nature. We are not here today to punish Gov. Blagojevich. The purpose is remedial, to protect the people of this state from the abuses of a public official,” he said.

Blagojevich, Ellis said, “repeatedly and utterly abused the powers and privileges of his office.” He said Blagojevich demonstrated that he was “actively plotting” to enrich himself in carrying out official actions of the state, violating the public trust and his oath of office

Blagojevich can read about the rest of his impeachment trial at the Tribune, which is providing live blog reports.

UPDATE, JAN. 25, 3:25 P.M. EASTERN: Here is an audio clip of the mulligan on the oath of office as provided by CBS via Politico.  Also, I wrote in this post that three news organizations (The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse) were refusing to run the White House-provided photo of the second taking of the oath of office in protest of not allowing them access to the event. One commentator to the post noted that I may have gone a bit too far in equating not running the photo to “a protest.” I will concede the point in that as far as I can tell none of the three agencies used the word “protest” in their discussions with White House officials. In addition — and I’ve supported this position all along — their refusal to run the photo is a legitimate action on their part. These White House events have been traditionally covered by at least a pool photographer, not solely by a White House staff photographer. But by not using the White House-produced photos, they are voicing their displeasure with the process as controlled by the administration, and to me that does signal a protest. Here is AP’s story concerning the flap.  Here is the report from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and here is The New York Times’ report on the incident. Thank you for your comment.

There are signs that any honeymoon period between President Barack Obama and the White House press corps is morphing into a first quarrel.

White House reporters at Press Secretary Robert Gibbs briefing expressed their frustrations today at a number of issues that have cropped up in the first hours of the Obama administration. Namely a re-do on the presidential oath that had no pool reporter or video representation, and a question over why ABC got exclusive access to the president after it sponsored one of the inaugural balls.

Michael Calderone of Politico reports tonight:

Veteran CBS newsman Bill Plante was one of the most vocal critics, questioning the White House’s handling of Wednesday night’s second swearing in – which was covered by just a four-reporter print pool that didn’t include a news photographer or TV correspondent.

He also asked new press secretary Robert Gibbs why ABC, which paid millions to host the DC Neighborhood Ball, was granted the only inauguration day interview with President Obama – a move he equated to “pay to play.”

“We have a tradition here of covering the president,” said Plante, who is covering his fourth administration.

Gibbs defended the White House’s moves, insisting aides acted in a “way that was upfront and transparent” in allowing the standard pool into the swearing-in. And Obama himself seemed mindful of making a good impression, paying a surprise visit to the White House pressroom a few hours after the briefing.

Transparency was one of Obama’s campaign mantras. But there have been problems in the first few hours of the administration. If the chief justice was invited back to re-administer the oath of office over an abundance of caution, why not allow a pool reporter and video? Only still images from White House photographer Pete Souza were released, and The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse refused to use them in protest.

Wasn’t the idea to show the world that the president said the words in correct order? Not that it legally matters much, but taking the oath again does squelch any loon lawsuits. So why not make it public? Gibbs’ answer to the question why not show the world was “well, I was there.” That doesn’t cut it.

The ABC question is a good one, and the Obama team has to come up with an explanation. Are future interviews going to granted to news organizations that make some kind of financial contribution?

Calderone also points out confusion about background briefings:

Before Gibbs took the podium, reporters were given a background briefing under an agreement to only attribute information to “senior administration officials” — a policy some news organizations object to as a matter of policy.

But when Gibbs let slip the name of one briefer, Greg Craig, a couple times, The Wall Street Journal’s Jonathan Weisman asked, “Are we allowed to repeat that name?”

During the earliest days of the Clinton administration, such abrupt changes in the traditional press access were often met with harsh criticism from the briefing room pack, most notably, the blocking off of access to the office of then press secretary George Stephanopoulos.

Former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers, who succeeded Stephanopoulos, said in PBS’s “The Clinton Years” that the move “made the press very angry because they lost access to a part of the building that they had had access to.”

“And it didn’t serve us,” she continued. “And it was stupid and didn’t last very long. I can’t remember when the decision was made and the door was finally reopened but it was a complete waste of energy. It alienated people for no purpose. It served nothing. It served no one. And it was a rookie, rookie mistake.”

Myers said Thursday that the Obama’s decision to bar widespread access to the re-do of the oath wasn’t in the same category as shutting access to the press office, but wouldn’t help in relations with the media.

The Bush White House would normally post transcripts to press briefings here. The whitehouse.gov site now has a few PR links, including the pdfs of the executive orders and a partial list of appointees (here is a more complete list), but no sign of where to get the official transcripts. CQPolitics.com is publishing the transcripts. It’s not a good sign early on if the Bush White House was more transparent than Obama’s. Ellen Moran, director of communications, and Gibbs have a bit of a learning curve ahead of him.

President Barack Obama made a surprise appearance during the daily White House briefing today to chat with reporters. But what he wanted to chat about wasn’t what the reporters wanted to discuss.

Here’s what Ben Feller of The Associated Press wrote this evening:

When a reporter tried to quiz him about a lobbyist chosen for a top Defense Department job, Obama begged off. “I came down here to visit. I didn’t come down here — this is what happens. I can’t end up visiting you guys and shaking hands if I am going to get grilled every time I come down here.”

Obama was willing to field some lighter questions. Yes, he’s discovered the gym in the White House residence. No, he hasn’t played basketball yet on the outdoor White House court because it’s been too cold.

Obama may have to get used to reporters firing tough questions any chance they get. It’s a White House tradition. If you don’t want to answer tough questions, don’t put yourself in that position.

James T. Madore of Newsday writes this afternoon that he does indeed have a boss, and that boss is John Mancini. It appears that Mancini and executives with Cablevision, the owner of the Long Island newspaper, have patched their differences.

A dispute between Newsday’s top editor John Mancini and owner Cablevision Systems Corp. over editorial content appeared to have been resolved Tuesday, when he returned to the newspaper’s Melville headquarters. Mancini, speaking to newsroom staff, said his absence since Wednesday “was due to a difference of opinion with ownership over the editorial policy of Newsday. That has been settled.” He declined to offer details of the dispute, but said: “No one outside the newsroom influences . . . our news coverage in any way.” He added there would be “no change in direction. Our only concern is that we get it right. Let’s do our jobs and tell the story straight.” Mancini acknowledged his disagreement with Cablevision executives had grown heated. When asked whether the words “you’re fired” or “I quit” were used, he said “words to that effect were uttered.” Rumors have circulated that Cablevision was angry about coverage of a sex harassment lawsuit filed against Eddy Curry of the New York Knicks; the team also is owned by the Bethpage-based cable operator. Mancini declined to comment when asked whether Knicks’ coverage sparked the dispute. He said he had decided not to return to the newsroom “until I had clarity that the editor was expected to perform his job as he had done.” When asked when he got clarity, he said “this morning.” He said Publisher Timothy P. Knight and Cablevision had been supportive of his stance. Mancini said he felt the disagreement had produced an “understanding” of the need for newsroom independence. He also said Newsday’s coverage is “valued at the highest levels” of Cablevision. “They said they liked the paper.”

Newsday’s James T. Madore wrote today that Cablevision and Newsday officials would not comment on the status of editor John Mancini, and managing editors Deborah Henley and Debby Krenek. Whether the three were still employed was the subject of a story by Keith J. Kelly in Sunday’s New York Post that was based on unnamed sources and speculation.

The gist of the Post story is this:

“Nobody knows what’s going on,” an insider said. “At first, we just assumed [the meeting] meant more layoffs, because advertising was off by 40 percent last quarter.”

A rumor making the rounds had the Dolans furious over Newsday’s coverage of a sexual-harassment suit filed against Knick center Eddy Curry by his former chauffeur. Cablevision, which owns the Knicks, the Rangers and Madison Square Garden, bought Newsday from the Tribune Company last July for $650 million.

When Mancini, Henley and Krenek failed to show up for work Thursday and Friday – as papers scrambled to cover the US Airways crash in the Hudson River – it ignited speculation that they were summoned to Cablevision offices Thursday and asked to justify their jobs.

Adding to the intrigue, Mancini’s office had been cleared out by Friday morning. And by last night, voicemail was not connecting to any of the top three editors.

At least the Post was able to quoted “a rumor making the rounds.” Madore’s story responded with this:

But newsroom sources told Newsday that Henley was involved in the coverage Thursday of the US Airways plane downed in the Hudson River, and another source said Krenek was in New York City for scheduled meetings.

Voice mails for the three editors were back on yesterday after a wider outage had been corrected. Their names also continued to appear on the masthead.

Yesterday, Cablevision spokesman Charles Schueler referred questions to Newsday spokeswoman Deidra Parrish Williams, who declined to comment. Mancini would not address any questions. Publisher Timothy P. Knight, Henley and Krenek did not return telephone messages left for them.

Once again, no sources were quoted by name, which in itself isn’t a ringing endorsement. I’d hate to see Mancini go. One, on a personal level, we worked side-by-side at Newsday for years (he did rise much higher in the organization than I did!), and I always liked the guy. But on a professional level, he’s one of the best in the game. He can get to the root of any story, especially a New York story, and he knows what readers want and need. It would be a shame if he lost his job because he stepped on Cablevision’s toes over the Curry story. If it is the case, the three of them are better off leaving.