WELCOME to the debut of “The Truth Is!”, a blog of reporting and commentary that aims to be informative, thoughtful and provocative. At least initially, the blog will have a strong heartland flavor by virtue of the connection of a number of us to Cowles family journalism. I am former editor of the Des Moines Register’s opinion pages. Another contributor, Michael Gartner, is former editor of the paper; he later served as president of NBC News. Another former Register editor who has agreed to contribute, Geneva Overholser, is director of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg school of journalism. Followers of the blog will have access also to the work of Herbert Strentz of Des Moines, a close Register and other newspaper watcher who once headed Drake University’s journalism school. Bill Leonard, a longtime Register editorial writer, will add insights.

“The Truth Is!” will be supervised by my daughter, Marcia Wolff, a communications lawyer for 20 years with Arnold and Porter (Washington, D.C.). Invaluable technical assistance in assembling and maintaining the blog is provided by my grandsons Julian Cranberg, a college first-year, and Daniel Wolff, a high school senior.

If you detect a whiff of nepotism in this operation, so be it. All of it is strictly a labor of love. —Gil Cranberg

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Gilbert Cranberg: THE TIMES MISSES THE BOAT

I learned from the April 4 New York Times that New Jersey’s largest circulation newspaper, the Newark Star-Ledger, recently suffered severe newsroom cutbacks.

Here is what I didn’t learn from the Times: How profitable is the Star-Ledger and the chain that owns it?

Nor did the Times report how widespread were the cuts. For example, did they extend to top brass at the company? Did any of the company’s officers suffer a loss in salary or bonuses or was the pain confined to working stiffs in the newsroom?

The Times did not explain the ownership structure of the paper. A Google search discloses that the Newhouse family owns the privately-held publishing company, but the Times did not mention it. Nor did the Times seek comment from any of the Newhouses about the significant cuts at the Star-Ledger, or if it did seek comment, it didn’t say so. What was the reaction of the Newhouses to the evisceration of the newsroom at a significant holding?

All in all, the Times coverage of a major event at a leading newspaper in its own back yard is not what Times readers have come to expect of the paper. What they have come to expect is comprehensive coverage. What they got in this instance was superficial. Here’s hoping it’s no more than an aberration rather than a sign of things to come.



No comments: