Secrets of the City

what is the Guild’s role in making actual personnel decisions?
Do they hold any actual authority? Would this serve merely as a recommendation to the ownership, who actually hold all the cards?

The way I understand it, yeah. This would basically be all of his employees saying, “we don’t want to work for you.” Which they would then probably have to do.

As I understand it, the Guild is the union for the reporters. They don’t hire and fire personnel, but negotiate contracts for their members, etc. I’m not sure if they could or would call for a strike (if they’re that similar to a traditional union or not).

Put simply, this is kind of like the entire Pipefitters Local 348 saying we really don’t want to work for Contractor Bob anymore.

Much would depend on the proportion of Guild membership in the newsroom.

It’s pretty embarrassing, but it’s mostly symbolic. Short of industrial action, which would be silly, there’s not a lot the Guild can do. As I understand it, anyway.

I thought every reporter was a member of the Guild? Give or take, anyway. It’s been a while since I’ve talked to anyone who works over there.

I just read Brian Lambert’s blog entry on the subject of the vote; he has provided some handy analysis.

Remember when Unions held sway? Yeah, me neither.

Gotta admire people who won’t allow those pesky due process concepts to interfere with their judgments. Proof and evidence and those dumb “did he really do anything wrong” questions shouldn’t even come up when a large group has already formed a consensus. That’s what mobs are for, right?

I do. But it wasn’t in this country.

Actually, they did rather abuse their position, when they had the upper hand. On the other hand, the unbridled corporate rampage that followed after all the union teeth were pulled was even worse for a lot of hard working people.

I will join a union if you can tell me where Jimmy Hoffa is.

bobby, he admitted taking the data to a competitor and voiding non competes for the benefit of the competitor. Sounds like it’s pretty cut and dried to me.

He “admitted” to doing some things with data that may or may not be wrongful – that’s yet to be determined. He, like everyone else, moves jobs with all of the built-up knowledge of the prior job still residing in his mind, too – should he forget all of that? Should he forget everything he knows about Paper 1 when moving to Paper 2? The facts and figures, the future plans, the personnel strengths and weaknesses . . . all of these are every bit as valuable as ad rate data. Any testimony by anyone that, aside from “bringing” the data to Paper 2, he did anything with it? Took any advantage? profited in any way from that data? Not that I heard.

And, he “voided non competes”? By my reading, he says his own noncompete agreement was (a) improperly imposed upon him, which would make it unenforceable (we sort of insist that employers not simply unilaterally change the contracts and promises they make with and to employees – imposing a noncompete all on its own, after the hiring deal has already been struck, without some new and separate “consideration” (payment) for the noncompete generally gets thrown out), and (b) cancelled anyway by one of the paper’s Big Grunts – yes, you can do that orally – and so the piece of paper was void and meaningless.

This isn’t the simple, binary, “good or evil” choice the seemingly partisan people being quoted here would like to present it as. If you’re saying you already know who’s lying and who’s telling the truth, cool. You should get in touch with the judicial system, ‘cuz it sounds like you’ve found a streamlined way to arrive at determinations of fact and law that would save us all a lot of time and money.

You’re also forgetting that those “pesky due process concepts” largely only apply in the court room. A private organization has the right to make its decisions under its own criteria.

There are plenty of jobs where even the appearance of impropriety/conflict of interest can and arguably should result in sanction.

But that really doesn’t apply in this case, since as sayin’ too points out, Par ADMITTED in court to the various acts that the guild was concerned 1) violate the standards of ethics and conduct of the guild, and 2) could compromise the integrity of the paper.

The guild would have a legitimate concern because of the impact those could have on it’s members immediate job conditions, as well as the impact on member’s attempts to find new jobs (how many former Arthur Anderson employees had to do some mighty fancy footwork to distance themselves from THAT company?)

Proof and evidence

Testifying to it in court isn’t enough proof and evidence for you?

Fake Par’s response? “Fine. Go ahead. See what difference it will make.”

It really boils down to a business question for Avista, in my opinion. Do they want to keep a boss that people hate, and all the disgruntled employees that go along with that?

Not to mention the legal fees.

And, bobby, I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that Par got a big “change of ownership” bonus. Could that, perhaps, have been the compensation for the non compete…or even a raise contemporaneous with the non compete as part of the “stay put while the paper is being sold” clause?

Also, was it represented to Singleton that there were non competes going along with top management in the sale? Every business sale agreement I’ve ever seen has such representations. So, maybe if Par isn’t liable, Knight Ridder/McClatchy is?

And, a manager can void employee agreements if it’s in the best interest of the company to do so. Making an argument that such a thing happened for the benefit of the PP would probably be a stretch, even for you.

Well, maybe not.

Bobby, regardless of what his explanation for his behavior was – the “I just wanted the spreadsheet format” struck me as particularly ridiculous, since how hard is it to make a spreadsheet – and whether or not he was right or wrong in the eyes of the law, I think his behavior is certainly unethical, which is what I feel is what the Guild members voted on – that they work for an unethical man and they want him dismissed. And the field of journalism, you can and should be held to a higher standard of behavior, considering you’re supposed to be the steward of public information.

If Alix Kendall, an anchor at the lowest rated local station, is going to get into hot water over giving $250 to whatever political cause it was she donated to, I think it’s perfectly right and just that the publisher of the state’s largest newspaper take a little heat for what he did, especially from his employees. I would be embarassed to work for this guy too.

Faux par? Someone has to have made that joke already. Probably about 20 times.

Apparently, I write run-on sentences on Fridays. Sorry.

“we sort of insist that employers not simply unilaterally change the contracts and promises they make with and to employees”

Tell that to the employee’s of Northwest.

“You’re also forgetting that those “pesky due process concepts” largely only apply in the court room. A private organization has the right to make its decisions under its own criteria.“

A truly honorable defense of the Guild, that.

And, this “unethical” meme we’ve got going here? Which conduct? The keeping of data for no purpose? Please. The ethics of people here (like me) who are posting on their employers’ time are arguably just as questionable as what’s been trotted out for this Par guy, unless I’ve unwittingly stumbled into a blog populated by Mother Theresa’s mentors (who also happen to discuss lots of fainting sex and oral goats, and sex dungeons.)

I just don’t see it. Is there a ton of institutional hatred for the guy amongst people in the trade? ‘Cuz what’s been disclosed really doesn’t rise to the level that people here seem to believe.

Taking a spreadsheet containing all of your former employer’s ad rates isn’t unethical? Unless you have a photographic memory, there’s a big difference between trying to remember off the top of your head all the data on there, and having it on screen in front of you.

Even if you don’t intend to use the data, there is still the appearance. A judge does nothing illegal when he holds specific stocks, but he is expected to recuse himself from cases involving companies he holds stock in. Not because he will necessarily allow that to influence his decisions, but because of the APPEARANCE.

“You’re also forgetting that those “pesky due process concepts” largely only apply in the court room. A private organization has the right to make its decisions under its own criteria.”

A truly honorable defense of the Guild, that.

Happens all the time.

The Vikings cut several players last year, not because they were convicted of anything, but simply because they were arrested.

Time Warner recently fired the head of HBO. Not because he was convicted of anything, but because he was arrested for assault.

Businesses go to great lengths to protect their images and reputations. In a business like journalism, where integrity of the organization is important, the guild is legitimately looking after the interests of its members.

Like it or not, a CEO (or publisher) is going to be held to a higher standard than a member of the steno pool. And the organization can choose a much lower bar than “legal” if they want.

Is there a ton of institutional hatred for the guy amongst people in the trade?

Absolutely. I’ve heard from more than one journalist friend in the Cities that Par is pretty much universally viewed by the rank-and-file reporters as a spoiled rotten trust fund baby, a Daddy’s Little Team Player! who has had every last thing handed to him along with that silver spoon, that he couldn’t get a job as a janitor unless Pops made a call for him.

And those are the nice things people say about him.

What a bad guy.

ZooTrouble

Jason got a letter in METRO today…

Ctrl + A, Delete (or right click, Clear Contents), Save As… is a pretty slick way of maintaining the format of a spreadsheet without bringing the data along with you. Uh, there’s really no excuse.

Course, he’s just figuring out Font Formats, so we can’t expect him to know this stuff.

“I’ve heard from more than one journalist friend in the Cities that Par is pretty much universally viewed by the rank-and-file reporters as a spoiled rotten trust fund baby, a Daddy’s Little Team Player!“

Makes more sense, then. If this episode involved a 3M exec moving to ConAgra, no one on this site would be ranting about unethical scumsucking babyrapists bringing business data with them in the move. Fainty goats would have likely invaded the thread after three comments about how the story was only put in the paper to take our minds off of how Bush lied about Argentina.

I thought it was Venezuela.

He told me it was Argentina!

Dang, what a liar he is!

“Makes more sense, then. If this episode involved a 3M exec moving to ConAgra, no one on this site would be ranting about unethical scumsucking babyrapists bringing business data with them in the move. Fainty goats would have likely invaded the thread after three comments about how the story was only put in the paper to take our minds off of how Bush lied about Argentina.”

That’s pretty far out there for such a literalist, since I haven’t seen anyone call Par a babyrapist.

If it made it to a post, I’d still be willing to call a spade a spade.

The reason the Par situation is a bit more troubling though, is that when journalism loses when it’s integrity is compromised, and if the top official of the paper can’t conduct himself with integrity, what expectation can one have that lower level employees will?

I hold journalism to a higher standard than a company like ConAgra, because an informed citizenry is far more critical to self government than prepackaged high salt high fat processed snack foods.

Don’t lie to me, Argentine; you know I never left you.

“That’s pretty far out there for such a literalist, since I haven’t seen anyone call Par a babyrapist.“

I’ll confess to exaggeration. No one actually spoke of penetration.

And, you hold the Strib to some high standard of integrity? It’s like we speak completely different languages, ya’ know

I said journalism. The Strib isn’t the be-all/end-all of journalism.

Bt it is far and above Fox.

And, fwiw, I do place a high value on integrity and ethics in business. I’ve worked at a place where those at the top were severely lacking in both. That experience continues to have a profund impact on me.

“Bt it is far and above Fox.“

Don’t watch Fox, since I really don’t watch TV, but just from what I’ve read about it, I’d say that Fox probably just resonates in your inner liberal, in a nails-on-blackboard sort of way, just like some of the other nets raise the nail-squeal for conservatives. “Far and above”, maybe, in that Fox shows you all the “wrong” news.

Generally, it’s been my experience that anyone outside the middle who can’t recognize that both sides do all the bad things fairly equally lacks either self-awareness, or the curiosity to doublecheck what your newsbuddies are telling you.

“Far and above”, maybe, in that Fox shows you all the “wrong” news.”

Well, duh. Considering that something like 80% of Fox news viewers believe that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks, it’s pretty clear that Fox is showing the wrong news.

Considering that something like 80% of Fox news viewers believe that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks

I don’t think even you believe that. The reason Fox news has such a large audience is because people who haven’t drank the liberal kool-aid and who got tired of networks like SeeBS news and Dan Blather blatently lie about the president of the united states (”the documents were fake but accurate” etc.), decided that they’d prefer to watch the news delivered by a network that didn’t parrot the democrat party line.

With the three major network evening news ratings down as much as they are, it appears that conservatives are getting their TV news from Fox, and the liberals are turning to comedy central. I think Fox has more credibility than your guys, who, after all, win emmies for their comedy, not their journalism.

Oh, come on, Maz. People watch FOX because it presents news that fits their bias. Unlike the mainstream media, which, despite it’s reputation for a liberal bias, actually makes an occasional attempt to be fair and balanced, FOX presents its news with a nakedly partisan spin, and their distortions are both deliberate and well-documented.

You do not balance out the media by making certain one liberal truth is always matched by one conservative lie.

So, instead they watch Fox, which repatedly identifies Barrack Obama as “Osama”, repeatedly claims that we found WMD in Iraq, cliasmthat Saddam had links to al Qaeda, and attacks Sen. Reid for “criticism of military leaders” (ignoring Sen. McCains identical criticisms).

Unfortunately for Fox, reality has a liberal bias.

Liberals can engage in this corporate media conspiracy talk all they want, but until you explain away Dan Rather and Rathergate, you have no credibility.

Who here has said anything about a corporate media conspiracy?

I’ll rephrase. “Conservative bias in the media”

Rathergate? Really?

You know, the guy resigned over that, and admitted his error, saying “if I knew then what I know now  I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.”. And, by the way, everyone involved with Rathergate said that the content of the Killian documents were substantially true, and absolutely consistent with what would have been in the actual files. Additionally, while the documents have not been authenticated, neither has their inauthenticity been successfully established.

So there it is. Perhaps the story should not have run without firmly establishing the authenticity of the documents, but the documents themselves are a bugaboo. They were just one piece of an enormous amount of information criticizing Bush’s time in the Texas Army National Guard, and the contents of the document were themselves consistent with what Colonel Killian would have written about Bush, according to Colonel Killian’s assistant, Marian Carr Knox.

So there was a failure in authentication, yes, but this hardly makes the case that you think it does — that the entire media somehow tilts to the left, and therefore no charges against FOX for their biased reporting need be discussed.

Max you are writer of some credentials and I’m sure aware thats a completely insufficient rationalization for what went on in Rathergate. IE, substantially true, but the evidence was forged. So what? I don’t need convincing of Bush’s service record, and its not the point anyway, it never was. Its not acceptable journalism, and it speaks to the propagandist, biased tendancies of those reporters.

BTW, I don’t think the entire media tilts to the left. I don’t think it tilts to the right either. I just dont think theres a lot of unibiased reporters out there. And they are certainly all fair game if they’re spreading mythology.

There is a lot of biased reporting out there. But, trust me, as someone who has actually been part of the left wing press in the United States, my experience is that the mainstream media actually does try to minimize bias in reporting as much as possible, and actually attempts fair and balanced reporting. Yes the fail, and fail frequently, but they also try to admit their errors and take responsibility. The refusal to do this, despite their “fair and balanced” motto, is what marks FOX as partisan, and why it’s not fair to compare it to Rathergate.

And ya know this is great, we can argue about bias in the media all day long, but are you telling me you’re really in favor of a “fairness doctrine”? Ya know, I’m not even sure that would apply to Fox News, they’re on cable. How do you exactly envision that working in a way thats not completely repressive?

And I speak of FOX news as a national entity. Local affiliates, such as our own, have done some very good reporting, when they are not being asked to do feature stories on America’s Next Top Idol.

I’m neither in favor of not opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. I have not researched it enough to have an opinion.

and the contents of the document were themselves consistent with what Colonel Killian would have written about Bush, according to Colonel Killian’s assistant, Marian Carr Knox.

Heh. Gee, I wonder what sort of weight a court of law would have given to Ms. Knox’ testimony.

The refusal to do this, despite their “fair and balanced” motto, is what marks FOX as partisan, and why it’s not fair to compare it to Rathergate.

Rathergate, unsubstantiated as it was, was a libelous hit piece. I think thats certainly enough evdidence to indicate CBS news is a partisan institution.

108, what’s your point? That GWB went to Vietnam? That he had an unremarkable time of service in the National Guard?

Maz, you say “The reason Fox news has such a large audience is because people who haven’t drank the liberal kool-aid and who got tired of networks like SeeBS news and Dan Blather blatently lie about the president of the united states.” Umm, large audience compared to what? CBS News? Are you serious??

The media told the GWB service story a few times before Rathergate. From those, using my powers of deduction, as just a normal dude, I concluded there may have been some shenanigans and priviledge involved in where GWB got stationed.

My point is that the Killian story was not substiated enough to air, and the fact that it was aired, and when it was, speaks to the biased and propagandist tendancies of those who aired it. Which tends to diminish the idea that FOX news is the only outfit out there producing advocacy pieces under the guise of news.

I think it’s amusing that we have ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post and locally the Mpls Strib … all broadcasting/printing the same stories with the same slant, and Fox News, who refuses to follow that template, but instead tells the other, similarly valid side of the story, yet it’s Fox News who gets labeled as the one news source that’s “biased.”

It’s just hilarious to the most casual observer. And in the interest of full disclosure, I only watch channel 9 local news, and that’s just to catch the weather and sports.

… all broadcasting/printing the same stories with the same anti-Bush administration/anti-GOP slant, I meant to say.

But, trust me, as someone who has actually been part of the left wing press in the United States, my experience is that the mainstream media actually does try to minimize bias in reporting as much as possible, and actually attempts fair and balanced reporting.

Well here’s your problem: these reporters don’t even know they’re being biased because they’ve been so indocrinated into leftist thinking that they actually believe what they’re saying is unbiased. I’m willing to believe that it’s not even their fault because they’re operating on intellectual auto-pilot.

Here’s a simple test you can use to see what I mean by liberal bias on a typical news stories broadcast any day of any week:

- Someone gets hurt (physically, financially, or hell, emotonally)
- The reporter will inevitably mention in a shocked or disbelieving tone that “and Randy, there’s no government regulation that prevents this sort of (behavior/product/situation) from happening.”
- 50-60% of news stories are about government. There’s a hell of a lot happening in the world that’s not government-related.

The point is, they immediately look to government to solve the problem or as the logical source of a news story, so indoctrinated are they that the government is the center of the universe.

Conservatives roll their eyes and turn the channel because we don’t think that way. Liberals wonder what we mean by “liberal bias.”

“…instead tells the other, similarly valid side of the story…”

Oh, please, not every “side” of a story is qually valid.

That’s true. I was being kind.

oh btw, I just happened to have stumbled upon this:

By a 39% to 20% margin, American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals.

And your point? 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

Republicans in a persecution complex shocker!

“my experience is that the mainstream media actually does try to minimize bias in reporting as much as possible . . .“

Prohibiting reporters from allowing their political views to be know, or from contributing to a political cause, does not minimize bias. It merely minimizes the appearance of bias. The media has spent huge effort simply trying to convince readers that the media is not biased, while allowing entire networks and chains to act like Dan Rather acted in the ten years before Rathergate.

(P.S. Dan’s “fake but accurate” flaming spiral of death was merely the incident that caught him out for good. Prior to that, Rather blatantly, and with full network support, pursued his pet hates. Remember who those hates were?)

Good article on the subject.

Well here’s your problem: these reporters don’t even know they’re being biased because they’ve been so indocrinated into leftist thinking that they actually believe what they’re saying is unbiased. I’m willing to believe that it’s not even their fault because they’re operating on intellectual auto-pilot.

How do you even argue with someone like this? I mean, if Maz truly believes this stuff, he’s clearly got some mental issues.

The Rat has known quite a few reporters. They’re not exactly a group prone to political activism.

- 50-60% of news stories are about government.

That’s a pretty precise range. Did you get that figure from somwhere?

When Paris Hilton went into a courtroom, does that mean it’s “about government?”

Don’t just take my word for it.

The Lollipop Guild has more say in the matter than this Guild.

April 15th there were close to 7,000 MN citizens on the steps of our Capital protesting high taxes & spending the surplus. Both papers buried the story and wrote their stories with the implication that half those people were there for the Sierra Club/Move on.org’s “Climate Change” ralley that was happening at the same time. The GW ralley had close to 2,000 people, many of whom were professional protesters at their event. But you put 100 people on the capital steps that want to impeach the president & it makes front page, above the fold news! WCCO’s website got caught using footage of the Anti-tax crowd in its coverage of the global warming protest to make it look like all those people were at the GW ralley. The GW ralley did not have use of the captial steps! They had to pull the story off the website..I wonder if Don Shelby had anything to do with that? All that is OK, but Fox News has the problem…yeah right!

Yes, like how many negative Michelle Bachmans or Norm Coleman stories are there & possitive Keith Ellison or Amy Klobuchar stories are there. Today the Star is putting a positive spin on Mr. Ellison’s speach to a group of atheists & how “accepted” they feel by him. (It’s OK that he comapres Bush to Hitler…sounds like hate speach to me!) But they’ll right about what a “nut” Ms Bachman is because she’s a Christian any chance they get. These “unbiased” journalists believe thier spin is real news. It’s pretty said.

Another sign of how messed up things have gotten at the Strib: Today, the whole full-color back page of the Sunday comics section was taken up by an extremely lame Strib promotion. It’s for coffee mugs, in a range of colors, bearing the StarTribune.com logo. Whoopee!

The mugs are $6 each. Who would want to buy one? (Who’d even want one for free?)

Remarkable that they can’t sell any of that prominent space to a paying advertiser. Last week, that same location carried a full-page promo for the Strib’s online apartments-for-rent listings, offering users the chance to enter a drawing to get a $125 prize once they’ve found and leased a new apartment via that route. Also very lame.

The Strib would accomplish more by using that prominent place in the paper for running some nice sort of public-service, Ad-Council-type, thing there. No difference in revenues generated, but at least some goodwill created.

As a very alienated longtime subscriber, I wouldn’t be interested in one of their coffee mugs unless they’d expand the range of messages on them to things like:
“Dump Par!”, or “Get ridda’ (Par) Ridder!”
“Another Strib subscriber enduring the Avista ownership nightmare”
“The Strib – still sucking less than the Pioneer Press”

This is an example of how the Strib is not just suffering from the overall downturn in the newspaper business; it’s also suffering from cases of extreme internal incompetence and stupidity.