The Des Moines Register is failing to cover the most important story in central Iowa:
Itself.
Circulation is plummeting. Ownership is changing. Coverage is scattershot. Morale is rock-bottom. Readers, advertisers — and, especially, employees — have no idea what’s going on.
Nor, apparently, do the Register’s leaders.
“Believe me, [publisher Rick Green] and I wish we did have more details to provide to everyone,” Amalie Nash, the new editor and “vice president for audience engagement,” said in a fact-free memo to the staff recently.
[Example: “We are committed to proceeding in a thoughtful, clear-minded manner that takes into account our local mission and what we hear and learn from others. That is non-negotiable.” What does that mean?]
She sent the memo from a Gannett newspaper in North Carolina, “which is giving me a first-hand look at what is unfolding here, which is very valuable, but we don’t yet know whether what’s happening here will happen there or that it will be the same process in Des Moines.”
She added: “We will learn more when we head to corporate next week…and what we may or may not do here.”
So the publisher and the editor are awaiting instructions from “corporate.” “Corporate” is in suburban Washington, D.C.
Meanwhile, everyone in Iowa is in the dark — and groping around. Business leaders are wondering if a group could be put together to buy The Register, but no one is stepping forward. Judges and politicians and municipal officials are wondering where the reporters are; two top county officials told Cityview newspaper last week they can’t remember the last time a reporter showed up to cover their doings.
Editors are assuming they are going to lose their jobs; the evolving Gannett template seems to be one without sub-editors — the unsung men and women who shine and polish the stories, chop out the mistakes and write the headlines. Reporters are wondering if their pay will be cut — it appears folks will have to reapply for their own jobs, but the job descriptions might call for less pay.
And everyone is mailing out resumes.
If this were the Iowa Juvenile Home or Polk County or the state Department of Administrative Services, the newspaper would be all over it. But it’s the Register, so nothing is being written. When Gannett announced it was spinning off the newspapers, the Register wrote that story and included a bit of pablum from the publisher. But there was no talk of what actually would, or might, happen.
Where is Clark Kauffman when the readers need him? (Actually, Kauffman, the well-regarded investigative reporter, is getting ready to join the editorial-page staff, where he will take up duties early next month.) Where is the reporting asking questions about the unbelievable drop in circulation, the screwed-up pricing schemes, the cutback in coverage, the stream of layoffs, the goofy web site that one person likens to Hollywood Squares?
It’s one thing to devote hundreds of inches and five front-page stories to the plight of a couple trying to have a baby. It’s another thing to cover the news.
And, these days, the Register is the news.
* * *
Nash’s memo to the staff said, “I’ve seen the stories coming out locally from other sites and the speculation (some of it incredibly false and incomplete) about what will, won’t or has unfolded at The Register. Our newsroom team will be informed first of any strategic initiatives, new approaches or staffing moves — not Michael Gartner, Dave Elbert or the Business Record.”
Question: If “we don’t yet know whether what’s happening here will happen there” and if “Rick and I wish we did have more details to provide to everyone” — if that’s the case, then how do they know that the information in Cityview and the Business Record “is incredibly false and incomplete?”
Just asking.
* * *
“Transparency is essential,” Nash said in her memo.
Oh.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Gilbert Cranberg: CANDOR BY THE TIMES
When a star reporter writes a book that turns out to be less than praiseworthy how is the reporter’s paper supposed to review it? If the paper is the New York Times it tells readers all of the book’s pluses and minuses, as the Times did in its Oct. 13 review of James Risen’s “Pay Any Price: Greed, Power and Endless War.”
The Times in its review is unsparing of its reporter, saying at times that he exaggerates. More seriously, the Times accuses Risen of ethical lapses by obtaining interviews through misrepresenting himself, a practice that the Times presumably considers a firing offense. Risen apparently did not engage in misrepresentation while working for the paper.
The New York Times is a great newspaper, probably the world’s greatest. One of the burdens of working for it is how, when staffers write books, they must be prepared for no-holds-barred criticism from colleagues. The candid treatment of James Risen’s book is among the many reasons why those of us who subscribe to the Times are fortunate to have it on our doorstep daily.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Gilbert Cranberg: THE TRUTH ON NEWSPAPER ENDORSEMENTS
The Iowa Senate mid-term election is shaping up as one of the more consequential of the year’s election contests. Iowa Senator Tom Harkin’s decision to not seek another term has put an otherwise sure Democratic seat up for grabs. At this point, Republican candidate Jodi Ernst is making a spirited bid for the seat against Bruce Braley, a two-term Democratic member of the House. Republicans see the Senate contest as a way for them to make headway in their drive to take control of the Senate by replacing Harkin’s reliable liberal vote with Ernst’s much more conservative outlook. Look for Republicans to make Iowa a battleground state for conservative convictions.
Making Iowa still more of a wild card than usual is the announced decision by Randy Evans, the Register’s editorial page editor, to retire. In my experience as editorial page editor the editor’s input on endorsements carries considerable weight. With a new publisher running things at the paper, that may no longer be true. If the publisher, who leans conservative, elects to throw her weight around on endorsements, the influential Register could well endorse Ernst.
If I were still giving advice to Register readers I would tell them to pay scant attention to the paper’s endorsement this year. Register readers are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about who should represent them in the Senate. Unless the paper is prepared to open up the endorsement process to reader access at an open meeting, readers should skip what the paper has to say to them on the subject and simply ignore this year’s endorsement editorial.
A newspaper’s endorsement traditionally is given weight because supposedly it is the considered judgment of the institution. The Register states that its endorsement of major candidates represents the consensus view of its editorial board, the half-dozen or so staffers whose names are on the masthead. But if, in fact, it represents the choice of a single individual, the publisher, it is entitled to no more weight than any one person’s opinion. Journalism would be performing a public service by clearly disclosing to readers whose views are being expressed in endorsement editorials.
Making Iowa still more of a wild card than usual is the announced decision by Randy Evans, the Register’s editorial page editor, to retire. In my experience as editorial page editor the editor’s input on endorsements carries considerable weight. With a new publisher running things at the paper, that may no longer be true. If the publisher, who leans conservative, elects to throw her weight around on endorsements, the influential Register could well endorse Ernst.
If I were still giving advice to Register readers I would tell them to pay scant attention to the paper’s endorsement this year. Register readers are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about who should represent them in the Senate. Unless the paper is prepared to open up the endorsement process to reader access at an open meeting, readers should skip what the paper has to say to them on the subject and simply ignore this year’s endorsement editorial.
A newspaper’s endorsement traditionally is given weight because supposedly it is the considered judgment of the institution. The Register states that its endorsement of major candidates represents the consensus view of its editorial board, the half-dozen or so staffers whose names are on the masthead. But if, in fact, it represents the choice of a single individual, the publisher, it is entitled to no more weight than any one person’s opinion. Journalism would be performing a public service by clearly disclosing to readers whose views are being expressed in endorsement editorials.
Gilbert Cranberg: INDIFFERENT SCOTT
When Florida’s leading climate scientists left a meeting not long ago with Governor Rick Scott they could be pardoned for believing they had been insulted. The scientists had told Scott that Florida is “one of the most vulnerable places in the world” to the threat posed by climate change, with one of its cities (Miami) at the top of the list of the world’s communities most endangered by rising sea levels. Scott’s reaction: the equivalent of a big fat yawn. He asked no relevant questions and made no promises. It was as though the governor was incapable of grasping the gravity of what the scientists were telling him.
Granted, that could well have been the fault of the messengers. If the delegation had included coaches or athletic directors worried about the havoc caused by messed up athletic schedules due to unprecedented weather patterns, the governor might have accorded concerns about climate change the respect they deserved, especially if a national football ranking were at stake.
Florida is unusually dependent on the weather. When its leading scientists warn about an impending weather-related calamity, only reckless fools can turn a deaf ear to their warning. Yet, by his example, that is exactly what its governor is asking Floridians to do.
Scott should invite the scientists to another meeting with him to apologize for his seeming indifference to their warnings. He should set aside sufficient time for each of the invitees to air the concerns in depth. And he should promise to convene a follow-up to report on what his administration is doing to address the concerns.
Granted, that could well have been the fault of the messengers. If the delegation had included coaches or athletic directors worried about the havoc caused by messed up athletic schedules due to unprecedented weather patterns, the governor might have accorded concerns about climate change the respect they deserved, especially if a national football ranking were at stake.
Florida is unusually dependent on the weather. When its leading scientists warn about an impending weather-related calamity, only reckless fools can turn a deaf ear to their warning. Yet, by his example, that is exactly what its governor is asking Floridians to do.
Scott should invite the scientists to another meeting with him to apologize for his seeming indifference to their warnings. He should set aside sufficient time for each of the invitees to air the concerns in depth. And he should promise to convene a follow-up to report on what his administration is doing to address the concerns.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Michael Gartner: THE BAR EXAM
A committee of the Iowa State Bar Association has proposed that Iowa change its rules so that graduates of the law schools at Drake and the University of Iowa be admitted to the practice of law in this state without taking the bar exam.
That is not a good idea.
The Supreme Court, which sets the rules, has been taking comments from lawyers and others, and it has set a public hearing for August 27. Twenty-three persons are scheduled to appear and comment, including the deans of the two law schools, Attorney General Tom Miller, former Attorney General Roxanne Conlin, a handful of judges and others who have strong feelings on the issue.
The Bar committee’s argument is as simple as it is flawed: If admitted upon graduation, the young lawyers would be able to start practicing immediately and begin paying off their college and law-school debts. The average four-and-a-half month delay between graduation and admission to the bar costs the would-be lawyer an average of $29,000 in lost income, the committee says.
And that four-and-a-half month retention of debt and loss of income keep young lawyers from hanging out their shingles in small towns, serving “historically underrepresented communities” or entering public service, the argument goes.
Really?
That seems a stretch.
You learn a lot in law school — I am a graduate of the law school at New York University — but you learn the broad brush-strokes, not the fine details. Mainly, though, you learn how to think. You learn how to look at an issue from all sides, take it apart and put it back together, consider how it fits into historical patterns, and ponder how it fits into society today. You learn some principles from famous cases and some basic truths from the Constitution — and then you learn that those principles change and those truths aren’t always basic.
The bar exam tests your grasp of these principles and truths — as they are interpreted today — but it’s also a test of your ability to think and analyze and look at an issue from all sides. It’s a test, in other words, to see if you have learned anything in law school.
For some, the answer is no. Nationwide, 83,986 persons took bar exams last year; 26,960 of them — 32% — flunked. In Iowa, 377 persons took the exam and 46 — 12% — flunked, according to the National Conference of Bar Examiners. According to the report prepared by the Iowa bar committee urging an end to the exam for Drake and U of I grads, 996 graduates of Drake and Iowa took the Iowa bar exam for the first time in the five years from 2008 through 2012, and 68 of those — 6.8% — flunked. The annual flunk rate for first-time takers was as high as 24% for Drake grads, as high as 15% for Iowa graduates.
So the exam does weed out the slow-learners.
Further, Iowa would keep the exam for graduates of other schools —for instance Yale or Harvard or Stanford or Columbia or the University of Chicago, which are ranked as the top five law schools in the nation. So it sets up a two-class system, which could discourage non-Drake and non-Iowa graduates from wanting to come here. And, without casting any aspersions, that might lower the quality of lawyers in the state. According to U.S. News and World Report, Iowa’s law school is ranked 27th among the 194 law schools in the country; Drake’s is ranked 113th.
There was a time — from 1873 until 1884 — when Iowa recognized this so-called diploma privilege, granting automatic bar admission to graduates of the in-state schools. Most states had similar rules. But most dropped the rule in the 1800s, according to a report from the staff of the Iowa Supreme Court, and today the privilege exists only in Wisconsin. What’s more, the American Bar Association opposes the practice.
So it boils down to this: Dropping the bar exam would be a nifty recruiting tool for Iowa’s two law schools, might keep out some very talented young lawyers from very good law schools elsewhere, and would increase the risk that when you hire a lawyer you might end up with a person who might better have been a steamfitter.
It’s not a good idea.
* * *
If the state’s legal establishment is truly worried about the debt law-school students pile up, there’s a simple solution: Cut a year out of the three-year curriculum. President Obama — a lawyer — has suggested it, and some law schools are trying variations of it.
Of course, that would mean laying off some professors and seeing a drop in revenue.
So scratch that idea.
That is not a good idea.
The Supreme Court, which sets the rules, has been taking comments from lawyers and others, and it has set a public hearing for August 27. Twenty-three persons are scheduled to appear and comment, including the deans of the two law schools, Attorney General Tom Miller, former Attorney General Roxanne Conlin, a handful of judges and others who have strong feelings on the issue.
The Bar committee’s argument is as simple as it is flawed: If admitted upon graduation, the young lawyers would be able to start practicing immediately and begin paying off their college and law-school debts. The average four-and-a-half month delay between graduation and admission to the bar costs the would-be lawyer an average of $29,000 in lost income, the committee says.
And that four-and-a-half month retention of debt and loss of income keep young lawyers from hanging out their shingles in small towns, serving “historically underrepresented communities” or entering public service, the argument goes.
Really?
That seems a stretch.
You learn a lot in law school — I am a graduate of the law school at New York University — but you learn the broad brush-strokes, not the fine details. Mainly, though, you learn how to think. You learn how to look at an issue from all sides, take it apart and put it back together, consider how it fits into historical patterns, and ponder how it fits into society today. You learn some principles from famous cases and some basic truths from the Constitution — and then you learn that those principles change and those truths aren’t always basic.
The bar exam tests your grasp of these principles and truths — as they are interpreted today — but it’s also a test of your ability to think and analyze and look at an issue from all sides. It’s a test, in other words, to see if you have learned anything in law school.
For some, the answer is no. Nationwide, 83,986 persons took bar exams last year; 26,960 of them — 32% — flunked. In Iowa, 377 persons took the exam and 46 — 12% — flunked, according to the National Conference of Bar Examiners. According to the report prepared by the Iowa bar committee urging an end to the exam for Drake and U of I grads, 996 graduates of Drake and Iowa took the Iowa bar exam for the first time in the five years from 2008 through 2012, and 68 of those — 6.8% — flunked. The annual flunk rate for first-time takers was as high as 24% for Drake grads, as high as 15% for Iowa graduates.
So the exam does weed out the slow-learners.
Further, Iowa would keep the exam for graduates of other schools —for instance Yale or Harvard or Stanford or Columbia or the University of Chicago, which are ranked as the top five law schools in the nation. So it sets up a two-class system, which could discourage non-Drake and non-Iowa graduates from wanting to come here. And, without casting any aspersions, that might lower the quality of lawyers in the state. According to U.S. News and World Report, Iowa’s law school is ranked 27th among the 194 law schools in the country; Drake’s is ranked 113th.
There was a time — from 1873 until 1884 — when Iowa recognized this so-called diploma privilege, granting automatic bar admission to graduates of the in-state schools. Most states had similar rules. But most dropped the rule in the 1800s, according to a report from the staff of the Iowa Supreme Court, and today the privilege exists only in Wisconsin. What’s more, the American Bar Association opposes the practice.
So it boils down to this: Dropping the bar exam would be a nifty recruiting tool for Iowa’s two law schools, might keep out some very talented young lawyers from very good law schools elsewhere, and would increase the risk that when you hire a lawyer you might end up with a person who might better have been a steamfitter.
It’s not a good idea.
* * *
If the state’s legal establishment is truly worried about the debt law-school students pile up, there’s a simple solution: Cut a year out of the three-year curriculum. President Obama — a lawyer — has suggested it, and some law schools are trying variations of it.
Of course, that would mean laying off some professors and seeing a drop in revenue.
So scratch that idea.
Herb Strentz: CHRIST THE CANDIDATE: SOFT ON CRIME, HE’LL TAX AND SPEND
Consider yourself cursed for the next 825 days or so.
With the November election 90 or so days away and the 2016 election adding 735 more to the total, you’ll be cursed with tens of thousands of messages of hate, lies and stupidity — all appealing to the worst that is in you.
Yep, campaign ads.
My optimistic nature leads me to expect only the worst in campaign ads — and yet a voice within and the evidence so far suggest that even “the worst” understates the abominations in store for us. Nothing is sacred. And to make that point, consider what campaign ads we’d be subject to if Jesus Christ were running for office and the opposition dug up the dirt on Him. (Aristotle and Buddha would be as vulnerable to attack ads, but we are more familiar with the teachings of Christ and many in the US consider it to be a Christian nation.)
So here are some 15-second anti-Christ spots. Consider the opening few words emblazoned across your TV screen and the lines intoned by that hideous voice that finds employment every election cycle. The accompanying video, of course, is likely a still shot of a bearded and long-haired creep. Every ad carries the required attribution.
IS HE A PEDOPHILE? Judge for yourself, but don’t say we didn’t warn you about a single man who has a penchant for being surrounded by little children. You can look it up, Matthew 19, but happily, you can vote it down. Protect our children! I am Satan and I approve this ad.
SOFT ON CRIME! What is Christ’s answer to crime? He says, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone or serve the first sentence. Been beaten up? Christ says to turn the other cheek. You can look it up, John 8:7, but you’ll want to vote it down. Send criminals a message. Vote NO! on Christ. I am Satan and I…
TAX AND SPEND! Jesus Christ wants you to pay more taxes. Render unto government whatever government wants. You can look it up, Matthew 22. Say NO! to taxes. I am Satan...
REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH! You’ve worked hard for your money, the vacation home, security for your family. Christ says forget it, sell all you have and give it to the poor. You can look it up, Mark 18, but you must vote it down. I am Satan…
CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST. Don’t let Christ near nature’s thermostats. He says man controls the climate; He calmed a stormy sea. Don’t let him try to soak you. Look it up, Luke 8, and tell government to keep its hands off the weather or they’ll foul that up, too.
SOFT ON IMMIGRATION. He says, “In my Father’s house are many rooms.” Sure and who will foot the bills for the illegals and welfare kings and queens who will occupy those rooms? You can look it up, John 14.
A VOICE FOR THE LAZY! Forget about a minimum wage for a full day’s work. Jesus Christ says it is just fine to pay a person for one hour of work the same as you would pay another person for eight or 10 hours of work. Look it up, Matthew 20, and vote NO! on Christ, the lazy man’s candidate.
THE JOB DESTROYER! If elected this November, Christ would put wineries out of business and threaten private health care with his so-called miracle cures. Non-partisan think tanks estimate his election would cost America 5 million jobs and even more in Iowa! His quackery riddles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Protect your right for a “great physician” of your choice, not His.
A PIG IN A POKE: Christ managed to infuriate both the pork industry and PETA by having 2,000 head of swine jump off a cliff. Look it up in Mark 5. He’ll go after soybeans next! I am Satan and I approve this ad.
That’s the curse in store for you for the next 825 days or so.
What’s even worse is that ads like that work.
With the November election 90 or so days away and the 2016 election adding 735 more to the total, you’ll be cursed with tens of thousands of messages of hate, lies and stupidity — all appealing to the worst that is in you.
Yep, campaign ads.
My optimistic nature leads me to expect only the worst in campaign ads — and yet a voice within and the evidence so far suggest that even “the worst” understates the abominations in store for us. Nothing is sacred. And to make that point, consider what campaign ads we’d be subject to if Jesus Christ were running for office and the opposition dug up the dirt on Him. (Aristotle and Buddha would be as vulnerable to attack ads, but we are more familiar with the teachings of Christ and many in the US consider it to be a Christian nation.)
So here are some 15-second anti-Christ spots. Consider the opening few words emblazoned across your TV screen and the lines intoned by that hideous voice that finds employment every election cycle. The accompanying video, of course, is likely a still shot of a bearded and long-haired creep. Every ad carries the required attribution.
IS HE A PEDOPHILE? Judge for yourself, but don’t say we didn’t warn you about a single man who has a penchant for being surrounded by little children. You can look it up, Matthew 19, but happily, you can vote it down. Protect our children! I am Satan and I approve this ad.
SOFT ON CRIME! What is Christ’s answer to crime? He says, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone or serve the first sentence. Been beaten up? Christ says to turn the other cheek. You can look it up, John 8:7, but you’ll want to vote it down. Send criminals a message. Vote NO! on Christ. I am Satan and I…
TAX AND SPEND! Jesus Christ wants you to pay more taxes. Render unto government whatever government wants. You can look it up, Matthew 22. Say NO! to taxes. I am Satan...
REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH! You’ve worked hard for your money, the vacation home, security for your family. Christ says forget it, sell all you have and give it to the poor. You can look it up, Mark 18, but you must vote it down. I am Satan…
CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST. Don’t let Christ near nature’s thermostats. He says man controls the climate; He calmed a stormy sea. Don’t let him try to soak you. Look it up, Luke 8, and tell government to keep its hands off the weather or they’ll foul that up, too.
SOFT ON IMMIGRATION. He says, “In my Father’s house are many rooms.” Sure and who will foot the bills for the illegals and welfare kings and queens who will occupy those rooms? You can look it up, John 14.
A VOICE FOR THE LAZY! Forget about a minimum wage for a full day’s work. Jesus Christ says it is just fine to pay a person for one hour of work the same as you would pay another person for eight or 10 hours of work. Look it up, Matthew 20, and vote NO! on Christ, the lazy man’s candidate.
THE JOB DESTROYER! If elected this November, Christ would put wineries out of business and threaten private health care with his so-called miracle cures. Non-partisan think tanks estimate his election would cost America 5 million jobs and even more in Iowa! His quackery riddles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Protect your right for a “great physician” of your choice, not His.
A PIG IN A POKE: Christ managed to infuriate both the pork industry and PETA by having 2,000 head of swine jump off a cliff. Look it up in Mark 5. He’ll go after soybeans next! I am Satan and I approve this ad.
That’s the curse in store for you for the next 825 days or so.
What’s even worse is that ads like that work.
Gilbert Cranberg: ANOTHER IOWA DISASTER?
The New York Times Aug. 3 Sunday magazine featured Iowa governor Terry Branstad atop a tongue-in-cheek headline that told how “one state turned its adorable little caucus into a year-round tourist destination.”
The piece was about Branstad’s longevity in office (he’ll soon be the longest-serving governor in the nation’s history) but nowhere did the Times mention a single Branstad accomplishment during that span. He has, in fact, been a colorless time server who, after years of practice, still can’t read a speech without stumbling.
The big question after Branstad finished his first term was what next? Influential friends had gotten him the job of running a local osteopathic college, but Branstad had no scientific training and little apparent interest in health care. An acquaintance described him, accurately, as suffering from a deficiency of competence.
The Iowa caucuses are still months away. The last time they were in the spotlight they were marred by misreported results. If Iowa is not again to be a laughingstock it had better get it right this time. Can Branstad and his osteopathic buddies make the necessary adjustments?
The piece was about Branstad’s longevity in office (he’ll soon be the longest-serving governor in the nation’s history) but nowhere did the Times mention a single Branstad accomplishment during that span. He has, in fact, been a colorless time server who, after years of practice, still can’t read a speech without stumbling.
The big question after Branstad finished his first term was what next? Influential friends had gotten him the job of running a local osteopathic college, but Branstad had no scientific training and little apparent interest in health care. An acquaintance described him, accurately, as suffering from a deficiency of competence.
The Iowa caucuses are still months away. The last time they were in the spotlight they were marred by misreported results. If Iowa is not again to be a laughingstock it had better get it right this time. Can Branstad and his osteopathic buddies make the necessary adjustments?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)