I was left a bit uneasy by the story in this morning’s Star-Advertiser describing expenditures from a special fund controlled by UH President M.R.C. Greenwood.
Several points bother me.
First, the newspaper doesn’t provide readers with the raw data, the actual documents or a full list of expenditures. There’s only a sidebar listing selected expenditures. Are we to presume these are the most questionable? There has been a shift in many online news sources towards providing supporting documents to accompany stories appearing in print editions. Not so much at the Star-Advertiser.
Second, although referring several times to unidentified “critics”, the story quotes two faculty members who are critical, but didn’t get reactions from elected faculty leaders, of which there are quite a few throughout the UH system.
Third, there’s no context. Are there any standards? What are comparable protocol funds at other major universities? Is there any reason at all to think these expenditures are out of line?
Still on the question of context, it should be noted that many large mainland universities have faculty clubs or other on-campus venues where guests can be entertained. The University of Hawaii does not have any suitable facilities, so those expenses for the Pacific Club and Waialae Country Club appear to be reasonable under the circumstances.
Fourth, the story clings to a “balanced” tone. There are critics and defenders. But the expenditures noted in the story certainly sound like routine fundraising, and there doesn’t appear to be any hint that they are personal or self-serving. Does anyone think the president should not send out Christmas cards as part of her public relations efforts, or that she should not meet personally with potential donors? Shouldn’t the reporter, under these circumstances, at least signal that the “critics” may be a bit off-base?
I would be far more interested in disclosure of similar funds controlled by various deans, which get far less scrutiny and oversight. Peter Crouch, engineering dean, discloses his protocol expenses in his annual gift disclosure filed with the State Ethics Commission. Expenditures by other deans remain largely a mystery. And how about a list of all the similar administrative funds that are out there, whether funded through the UH Foundation or other sources, and the total amount of money involved? Wouldn’t that be interesting?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This isn’t the point of the thread, but you are right, Norm. The Star-Advertiser is still the Star-Bulletin, and the only reason for retaining the Advertiser brand was to keep its subscribers. Black Press could have kept it as the Star-Bulletin, but it would have alienated Advertiser subscribers/advertisers/loyalists.
What we have now is the worst of both worlds: the grasping story inflation and manufactured controversy of the old Advertiser combined with the lazy reporting, amateurish writing and lack of accountability that infected too much of the old Star-Bulletin.
Black Press is nothing but a cut-rate version of Gannett, something like what K-Mart is to Sears. Anyone who thought this bunch were some kind of noble good guys fighting the man for the underdogs was sadly mistaken.
I agree Craig. They can do whatever they want with their paper-they own it. But the way they treated the Tiser staff that was not hired, including me, was both unprofessional and just plain mean and nasty.
And this is a bit off topic but still about the paper.
so many people who know everything…..more than that who know nothing…but an opinion is an opinion and in today’s world you say it in a blog that gets a dozen comments and it is so…and so it goes…
Norm and Craig are spot-on correct: The Star-Advertiser is engulfed with Star-Bulletin workers, not Advertiser workers. The Star-Advertiser attempted to hang on to the Advertiser’s readers and advertisers, but that’s not happening in this market. Unfortunately, trustworthy numbers for the Star-Advertiser’s paid circulation are not available.
I personally encourage as many people as possible to read Civil Beat and to stop their subscription to the Star Advertiser. Civil Beat always has some intriguing story, whereas whenever I glance at the SA, I feel like I am groaning deep down. Nevertheless, the SA still has some useful information. I just wish Civil Beat would step up and start to look like a paper that more people would read, with more daily news and even advertisements. It would help to put the SA in its place if Civil Beat gained a higher profile.
The Star-Advertiser has plenty of former HA employees, including the one who pushed me out of a job. Look at the bylines.
Yes, Nancy, the SA did hire quite a few HA reporters, but look at the management: the publisher, editor in chief, all three managing editors, the news editor, the editorial page editor, the sports editor and photo editor — all Star Bulletin, which it should be because like it or not, it’s still the SB. This was not a merger. While I think “Bones of contention” is spot-on in his/her assessment, I subscribe to the SA … need the daily fix.
The news editor is the Advertiser’s former managing editor, the business editor also the former business editor for HonAdv, and the features editor is the former neighbor island editor. The web team is led by the HonAdv staff as well.
Craig, duh! Winning! The SA was the ACQUIRING paper….
Re: Correction. Don’t think the news editor (Stephanie Kendrick) ever worked at the HA, and certainly not as a managing editor; I may be wrong.
Re: Charlie Sheen. No, the SB was the acquiring paper. The SA was result of the HA’s demise, and the SB’s attempt to put a spin on what it hoped the subscribers, etal would buy as a “merger.”
Ah that’s what you meant by news editor. When I said news editor, I meant city editor.
Craig, you are right-black press bought the Advertiser and as time has shown us the newsroom staffers he brought over have had no influence on the SA. And Kendrick wasn’t working in the Tiser’s newsroom before all the changes.
The rank and file of the Star-Bulletin’s reporting staff and some editors were retained, but many, many of the non-news staff and production staff are former Advertiser employees, as are a high percentage of the newsroom staff. The story you’re complaining about above was written by a former Advertiser writer — who previously worked for the Star-Bulletin.
As for the way Advertiser staff were treated during the merger, welcome to the real world. As Advertiser people kept telling us as they tried, for a decade to kill us, don’t take it personally; it’s just business.
The fact of the matter is, both newspapers no longer exist. The Star-Advertiser is a new product built on the talents of the personnel the owners decided to retain.
Burl: Don’t know the “non-news staff and production staff” from the HA you mention since we don’t see their bylines. But it certainly appears the writers and key management are predominantly from the Star-Bulletin. And it should be because the SB, to my surprise, was the surviving paper. And, wasn’t it reported in the SA, that the jobs of all SB staffers in the union were protected? If that’s true, for you to say the SA was “built on the talents the owners decided to retain” is a bit misleading. If they had free rein to put together a staff from both papers, I would think the makeup of the newsroom would be a little different from what it is today. Sorry, I’m a longtime HA subscriber who laments its demise and is having difficulty getting used to the new paper. And although I know many others who feel the same way, I’ll likely remain a subscriber/supporter because I’d hate to see Honolulu go from a two-daily town to a no-daily one. Whew, time to move on.
As Burl mentions, the story was written by the Advertiser’s Rob Perez. There’s a misconception that the writers somehow answer to the beck and call of top management. They don’t. There’s a certain amount of autonomy granted to each reporter, and being a senior level respected writer, Rob gets plenty of autonomy to decide the direction of his own stories.
Plus the story would be edited or supervised by one of the four city editors, two of whom are former HonAdv editors.
If you dislike the story for the story, that’s fine. You can criticize Rob’s reporting or how the paper handled it. But for people to characterize this as endemic to whomever the owner is, it’s just speculation that is misplaced.
So why does the “new product” look and read like the old one?
Because the layout editor and the copy editors are the same people, I imagine — except for all the ex-A employees on the copy desk, who equal the number of old HSB employees. There’s a difference between presentation and content, however. Most mainstream English-language newspapers that rely on AP stylebooks tend to read the same.
We could go on and on about this, but I remember Dennis Francis talking about the major redesign, etc, etc that was going on before the end of the Advertiser. Months later it looks and reads like the old Bulletin.
And Dennis Francis, the publisher, is a former Advertiser/Gannett employee, too. OK, I’m done. 🙂