Oh, my.
More not-so-good news about the new Star-Advertising, this time from Joan Conrow on Kauai, who has previously written for both the Star-Bulletin and Advertiser.
Joan describes in detail how the management of Oahu Publications, which owns the Star-Advertiser and MidWeek, reacted to a post in her “Kauai Eclectic” blog containing her initial assessment of the S-A.
She does speak her mind.
Please excuse this lengthy excerpt, then read Joan’s complete entry:
My tenure with MidWeek newspapers was also short-lived. Just as the premiere Kauai issue was being distributed, I was being told they wished to “sever our professional relationship,” which was the only relationship we had.
It wasn’t me, since I’d already been lauded for my “professionalism and enthusiasm,” or my work, which was termed “outstanding,” but this blog, or more accurately, a critical observation I made about the debut of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, which is owned by the same man who owns MidWeek.
“You shouldn’t have called the paper manure,” the messenger told me.
I didn’t. I called it “the hybrid of the two mediocre Honolulu dailies,” which it arguably is. The manure reference was to the lead editorial, or more specifically, a few lines in it:
“We will strive mightily to be on the side of angels. We will work constantly to do, and shout, the noble thing.”
And as I pointed out to the messenger, their reaction to my comment was proving me true.
But the decision had already made, by “higher ups,” the messenger said
“How high?” I asked.
“All the way to the top,” I was told.
It seems they feared my comment “could affect the paper’s profitability.”
“It really took me by surprise,” I told a friend later.
“Why, because the retribution was so quick?”
“No, that they find me so threatening.”
Besides, I told the messenger, I used to criticize The Advertiser all the time when I wrote for Kauai People, which Tiser published, and they never said a peep.
“Well, this is a whole new order,” I was told.
I read the above to Meda as we’re sitting here over coffee. She listened, stunned.
“That’s more than just a little bit creepy!”
I’ve heard references to that “new order” phrase a couple of times already.
It appeared in an anonymous comment on this blog earlier in the week:
As a matter of fact the biggest problem the old SB had was a lack of accountability and consequence.
“New World Order” is a phrase that has been bandied about in the newsroom for the last few weeks. It is here.
I obviously don’t know the background, but the “new order” sounds a lot like Gannett’s management style, the one that journalists (including those at the Star-Bulletin) loved to hate. Have they forgotten? Or have they just “grown into the role?”
Anyone want to take a stab at updating that Hitler satire to reflect this “new order”?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m with Bill. I’m also not a bit surprised about the SA’s reaction.
On one hand, Joan pretty much wrote her own obituary online.
On the other hand, companies that cannot handle or tolerate criticism OBVIOUSLY have problems and these companies merely are making the problems worse. Denial can write its own sad obituary. So can hypersensitivity!!!
More to the point: Newspapers are great at writing about PR but they are horrible at managing it. The Star-Advertiser will provide many more examples of this, sadly.
Looks like I picked a great week to be out of town on family business. I’ve missed all the hoo-ha!
I’m sitting here at Baggage Claim getting caught up. I’m still not clear on the circumstances, but it looks like Conrow was sacked for the same reason we don’t put political stickers on our cars — the pursuit of objectivity.
I’ve fired a few shots over the years at those Gannett guys, but they’re gone now.
Just a minute ago a lady waiting for her ride said “oh look, the Star-Advertiser” and she and her husband bent down at looked at the front page in the rack box. “Needs work,” her husband said.
Well duh. Have any two newspapers ever been merged this quickly before?
There was no merge. It’s the Star-Bulletin with more workers. There was ample time to actually merge well, and OPI did not avail itself of that time. They set the timeline from the beginning, but zero merge work was done. This was just a buyout and dissolution for market control.
Worse than what was happening to the Star Bulletin in 2000, and more people lost their jobs.
Kaneohe Sailor what does hu-hu mean? You mean huhu? You are angry, indignant, offended on principle? What principle are you huhu on?
““Needs work,” her husband said.
Well duh. ”
yep. Everyone’s a friggin critic. Especially those unrelated to the industry.
“You’ll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again”, so please excuse my anonymous comments.
As a Hawaii newspaper industry outsider, I greatly enjoy reading Ian’s blog and comments. What an eye-opener to what appears to be a seriously messed up company to work for and not a very good profession to be in at this moment in Hawaii.
No doubt Conrow made a big mistake by referring to her employer’s product as manure. However, her employer is a newspaper after all, and unlike other industries, such as banking or insurance, aren’t newspapers supposed to be more free-speech friendly or at least journalist friendly and tolerant of differing points of view?
A couple of observations.
First, compare the public relations between Hawaii News Now and the Star-Advertiser mergers. In both cases, familiar media names and faces were let go and people lost jobs. But my impression is the newly merged Hawaii News Now did a better job of reaching out to the community before, during, and after the merger. Perhaps most importantly, Hawaii News Now delivered an impressive product from day one. (Of course, Hawaii News Now has two major competitors, KHON & KITV). With the new Star-Advertiser we are constantly being asked to give them more time to work out the “kinks”. With no major competition where is the incentive for the SA to improve?
Finally (remember, I still want to each lunch in this town), why is it that in a state like Hawaii that is overwhelmingly pro-labor and pro-Democrat, big business seems to get away with this non-sense over and over again?
From what I have been reading, many past and current SA employees have been treated like dirt. Why aren’t more people looking more closely at David Black’s local investors?
According to previous news reports, Black’s local investors include Jeffrey and Lynn Watanabe, Duane Kurisu, Larry and Claire Johnson, Island Holdings Inc., Dan Case and C.S. Wo & Sons Ltd., all very familiar names, very local, and in most cases (no pun intended) all very Democrat.
Is it fair to apply any amount of public or private pressure to these local investors? Can they continue in good faith to donate to Democratic causes and look the other way while severance packages are being held up and hourly wage employees are laid-off with barely a goodbye and thank you for all their hard work? It would be nice to hear from these local investors if they truly believe their newspaper is being a good community stakeholder. Or is it just a pure business investment void of any social conscious?
Finally, where is organized labor and the Democratic Party?
Only the far left types like Ian and Meda see this as unjust….the moderates agree she should have been fired and deserved it…and even a lot of libs I talked to agreed (not all though but most). No need to ask the folks on the right, that’s a no brainer. And don’t ya just love YEAH…..hahahahaha…..loser.
Far left? No on anyone’s normal scale, I don’t think. But I won’t quibble with that opinion.
What bothers me is the definition of what happened to Joan.
She worked for MidWeek, as I understand it.
She did not work for the Star-Advertiser.
Two different companies.
If you doubt that, then check out the limits of the union contracts. MidWeek, being a distinct company, was outside of the reach of those contracts.
So Joan’s comments, whether they were wise or not, were not directed at her employer.
But the reaction from the company, and apparently from many readers here, just assumes they’re one and the same.
And if she commented on the Akron Beacon-Journal, also owned by David Black? Same limits on expression?
I’m not naive about the dangers of talking about the conditions of one’s employment, or about one’s employer.
I’ve been through it myself.
Definitely dragons out there.
But you can learn restraint.
As a writer, though, I’m in awe at Joan’s candor. I don’t know if that can be learned.
And then there’s a whole different discussion we could be having: Were her comments on point, whether advisable or not?
Almost by definition, newspapers are a work in progress.
Abcde is right on the mark on Black’s local investors. If OPI is not just a shell company for Black the local investors should be ashamed of their company-if they are not too busy spending their blood profits
Yeah, there was nary a peep from them in all of this. I guess they knew how bad it was all going to be and wanted to stay clear?
The writing on the editorial Joan referenced was appalling. Obviously, it wasn’t written by the usual editorial writers, who wouldn’t think jamming as many superlatives and bad metaphors as possible into every sentence is the height of journalistic artistry.
I miss the old Star-Bulletin and the Honolulu Advertiser. At least they had standards.
I lived in NYC for 5-1/2 years and read the NY Times every day. I considered it one of the better newspapers in the country.
Now I live in Honolulu and was a long time subscriber of the SB, which I thought was superior to the Advertiser, primarily because the former had more stories whereas the latter had more ads.
On Monday, I sent the SA my check for $144, a year’s subscription. I am truly enjoying this paper. It appeals to a wide range of readers — from college grads to blue collar workers. I love the design of the paper, because the color graphics break up the monotony of the printed page. I could go on and on.
My favorite section? SPORTS! With reporters (from the old Advertiser) like Ferd Lewis and Stephen Tsai, the stories are exciting and interesting.
What’s your favorite section?
Are you getting paid to shill for the SA? Seriously.
Nope. Seriously.
As Ian noted, MidWeek is a separate company from the Star-Advertiser, and I was working as a freelancer, with no contract, for MidWeek.
That’s why I’ve been troubled by the journalistic implications of comments like Gigi’s “why bite the hand that feeds you?” and Mike Middlesworth’s, “We all expect public loyalty from people who take our money.”
Does that mean that if your newspaper is owned by a multinational conglomerate, you can never say anything critical about any of the companies within its holdings, much less report on them? What sort of damper might that put on investigative reporting — any kind of reporting? Can you truly be objective if you fear your job might be at stake?
And then there’s the interesting twist that MidWeek, which I didn’t criticize and wouldn’t have criticized, is actually feeding the Star-Advertiser, seeing as how it’s the sole money-maker in Black’s local operations.
is there really any surprise after losing moolah over the years, that black and co., is seeking to tighten things up and ratchet up the profits? both papers had good and bad, and it will take a while for the new rag to find its stride, where people can come down solidly against it or for it. . .
as for silencing the critics, i’m not for it, but that’s the way it goes these days. . . if i remember correctly, ian was given the boot for his blog, and burl hasn’t posted anything on his for a long time, since there was discussions about who was staying and leaving at both papers. . .
Right you are!
I guess what I’ve learned from 64 years of living is:
There is a difference between being “right” and being “stupid.”
How much do you value having a job?
Not too long ago, I purged my blog of all negative references to my husband’s boss and work. Especially in this economy, I don’t want to give his boss an excuse to fire him. It’s no fun not being able to pay the mortgage and foreclosing on the house just because of a bunch of words…
Gigi, while I respect your position, what I’ve learned is that I’m unhappy when I let fear and money dictate how I live.
And sure enough, when that door closed, three more opened.
I just received my first issue of Midweek Kauai and absolutely HATE it — Kauai People was so much more relevant and interesting!
I began looking for more info on WHY they changed the format, content and focus from Kauai People to Kauai Midweek and inadvertently ran onto this dialog. As a former journalist (now retired) whose paper was eventually bought out by Gannett, I must say this situation with Joan Conrow is just another example of the many brutal blows journalism has been taking for the sake of scared-silly corporate sensorship and the perpetual quest for ever more profits in corporate pockets. I realize it’s a hard road for newspapers now with so many media outlets, but that’s no excuse for ignoring the responsibility and privilege that comes with being in the newspaper business.
Basically, what we get most of the time here is what I call “news from nowhere” — it could be from anywhere and doesn’t mean anything to anyone who IS here. There is hardly any real investigative journalism and no hard-hitting, thought provoking news available in HI. It’s mostly sound bites, thinly veiled propaganda, pompous punditry and regurgitated drivel from the wires. Yet, we have real issues right here in paradise that are continually ignored by “mainstream” news.
Every year countless journalists around the world risk, and sometimes lose, their lives to bring information and truth to the people. If you can’t stomach a little criticism by your own employees, then you have no business being in the news business. Stick to advertising and be honest about your priorities!
Oh, and from now on my issues of Kauai Midweek are going straight into the recycling bin…which makes them only slightly less valuable than manure.