JOURNALISM MAY SURVIVE CRISIS

Distinguished panel more optimistic than expected

By Martin Zabell

CHICAGO – The glass half-full/half-empty cliche doesn’t really fit the debate going on in most journalistic circles about the industry’s future.

Most journalists, it seems, are looking at the proverbial glass as 90 percent empty.

On June 18, though, a panel of very distinguished Chicago journalists was surprisingly optimistic despite a crisis that includes the bankruptcies of both major city newspapers and perpetual layoffs at numerous Chicago-area newspapers. The current crisis, they said, could spur a future that’s a lot brighter than the industry’s 2009 predicament.

“This is an opportunity like when we moved from the horse and buggy to the automobile,” said Monroe Anderson, a longtime renowned television reporter in Chicago and a columnist for EbonyJet. “The rules are not set so you can contribute to (the new rules).”

Anderson was speaking at what the sponsor, the Northern Illinois Newspaper Association, called “a discussion on the fast-changing state of the profession and the strategies for survival.” The others were moderator Dirk Johnson, a Northern Illinois University teacher and a former bureau chief for The New York Times and Newsweek; Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown; Chicago Tribune investigative reporter Ray Long; Eileen Brown, the innovations editor at the Daily Herald; Chicago Sun-Times’ editorial page editor Tom McNamee; and Andrew Huff, the editor of GapersBlock.

The event at the Union League Club of Chicago was attended by about 60 journalists. It was sponsored by the Chicago Headline Club, the law firm of Kelley Drye & Warren, and APCO Worldwide, a public affairs and strategic communications firm.

The panelists acknowledged journalism was in a transition phase with newspapers reducing salaries and staffs and numerous newcomers on the Internet challenging the mainstream media, but putting out products that are often hampered by paltry budgets and writers whose experience and skill is often questioned.

In the long run, though, the panelists were optimistic that journalism would survive – and might even thrive.

“There will always be a need for news,” said Eileen Brown. “Journalists will always be needed. I’m not worried about journalists. I’m worried about how we’re going to get paid.”

Eileen Brown elaborated on her half-full/half-empty perspective by saying that she often jokingly says “hell no” when first asked if young people should become journalists, but upon reflection recommends that they pursue their dreams, but focus on developing skills that will help them outside the newspaper world.

“Journalists have the skill set to be successful in many careers,” she said. “The problem is if you box yourself in, if (writing for newspapers) is all you can do.”

“If you’re good at gathering information and can write, you can still break through (in journalism),” added Mark Brown.

There seemed to be a consensus that the financial support of journalists was a bigger problem in the long run than the ability of young people to be capable writers.

“Young people are really sharp,” said McNamee. “I’m not worried about the caliber of young people going into the business. I am worried about the depth of journalism.”

McNamee cited the long investigation into the behavior of a Chicago police commander who tortured suspects into making confessions as an example of a series of stories that declining newspapers and fledgling Web sites might not pursue. He said new ventures like TribLocal.com need to be even more local and should hire skilled writers rather than just being a “bulletin board” used by ordinary citizens and organizations seeking positive publicity.

For most of the approximately 1-hour discussion, the mainstream journalists were very complimentary toward the kind of online publications that have started in the last several years although they often stressed that it could be many years before the quality of journalism rebounded from its recent decline.

Near the end of the discussion, though, there was some fireworks. Huff said six-year-old GapersBlock and other online ventures are doing significant investigative journalism and the primary reason why newspapers are trusted more is “longevity.”

Long objected. “We’re breaking stories every day,” he said. “(Our strong reputation) is not because we’ve been around a long time; it’s because we’re breaking news every day.”

Huff and McNamee also disagreed about the quality of some blogs.

BILLIONS FOR EXECS, ZERO FOR NEEDY

Why have labor unions not sought to help the "self-employed?"

By Martin Zabell

"I don’t think it’s fair because I pay taxes."
Dale Prost
Ex-manufacturing worker
General Motors

Prost, 58, is referring to the fact that he cannot collect unemployment benefits although he worked as a manufacturer for 10 years. Prost, you see, is considered self-employed. According to an April 9, 2009, article in USA Today, Prost is one of 7.4 million people who are unemployed, but are receiving ZERO benefits.

I am, I think, another of the 7.4 million. I say, I think, because I have no idea how I could be counted. After 13 months of being unemployed, I finally decided – for the first time in my life – to ask for financial assistance. I was told that there are no records of my existence. I walked home.

It’s now been 15 months since I was terminated as a newspaper reporter. My articles were printed four or five times per week for about 15 years. I’m luckier than most. Most of the editors I worked for generally let me work when I wanted to on the subjects that I wanted to and usually paid me decently.

Consequently, I built up a savings nest that many would envy. I was even able to take a leave of absence from reporting to explore a second career, taking 19 courses in pursuit of a master’s degree in Education. I also preferred to be self-employed for most of my career as I willingly sacrificed a secure salary, health insurance, and paid vacations in exchange for a lifestyle I enjoyed – choosing which 40 hours per week I wanted to work.

But my sacrifices weren’t enough for Corporate America. Several years ago, the healthy capitalist system I supported as an entrepreneur became the victim of corporate greed. The journalism industry was transformed into a monopoly with huge conglomerates buying competitors, homogenizing all the newspapers, slashing the wages of people who used to negotiate with several clients but no longer could, and stealing, yes stealing, writers’ works (this was essentially the conclusion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Tasini vs. New York Times; Tasini was the president of the National Writers Union.)

My most recent client, the Northwest Indiana Times, asked me to sign a contract verifying I was self-employed – and then spent three years breaking that pact by ordering me to write stories under threat of termination, ordering me to do free work under threat of termination, slashing wages without notification long after my stories were complete and then paying me at the lower rate although I accepted the assignments at the higher rate.

I complained numerous times to the corporate office, which assured me on several occasions that I would be protected from retaliation. Instead, I was terminated. Corporate malfeasance pure and simple. The same company, Lee Newspapers, recently used its power to prevent the formation of a union at one of its Illinois newspapers, the Bloomington Pantagraph.

EXECS HAVE CONTEMPT FOR WORKERS

There are millions of victims of corporate greed.

In the USA Today article, Andrew Scherer of Legal Services NYC, a nonprofit group that provides free legal assistance to the poor, said there has been "explosive growth" in contested unemployment insurance cases recently. According to the article, "because a company’s future tax liability for the unemployment program is based on how many former employees have collected, it is in a firm’s best interest to limit the number of those drawing benefits."

The truth is that Big Business has been exploiting workers for years. Without unions, many of the high-tech industries have been classifying people who work 30 to 40 hours per week in their offices as independent contractors. As union strength has atrophied, other industries have also shown contempt for workers.

In the USA Today article, everyone interviewed worked in blue-collar professions. Clarence Athy lays concrete. David Bowman is in the plumbing business. Prost most recently worked at a General Motors powertrain plant. All are "barely holding on," in Prost’s words.

Now, the economy has collapsed. And who gets the assistance of the federal government? The very banks and financial institutions that were responsible for the collapse. They get billions while Athy, Bowman, Prost, and I get nothing. They were supposed to use their billions to rework their loans to people having trouble paying their mortgages.

Instead, the executives from these companies paid themselves billions, are seeking to repay loans subsidized by us taxpayers by jacking up the fees and interest rates they charge the people bailing them out, and are doing nothing as far as I can tell while mortgage and credit card delinquencies hit record highs.

I’m currently reading an article on the Fox Valley Labor News Web site that details how laid-off workers can get their benefits. Here is what I want to know – why isn’t there someone in the federal government providing the same help for the 7.4 million unemployed people who can’t collect benefits?

People are stunned when I tell them that I am receiving nothing. I am stunned that labor unions, society, and government has so little knowledge and/or concern for the welfare of 7.4 million people.

Martin Zabell is a longtime newspaper reporter who is currently trying to help free-lancers via his work for the National Writers Union’s Chicago office.