I guess Salzman publishing his rejected column on his site really got under Rocky Mountain News editor John Temple's dander.
The pertinent section of their correspondence:
Actually, no.
Your basic premise of a major omission is false. From the first day both papers have made it clear that the justice dept has a role in the drama that is playing out....
Jason, in my view you have struggled to understand your role from the get go. But in this case you're way off base. I will not run this column. It does not meet our journalistic standards.
John
Temple asserts other things he things Salzman should address in the column but I'm going to deal with just this one. Here's that basic premise Temple seems to have a problem with.
"...in the case of the Rocky Mountain News, which is up for sale and facing possible closure, we've seen no (emphasis added) reporting about what the government could do to help the daily."
And Temple's assertion about where this was reported.
In the Rocky the day after the announcement, a separate story covered that very issue, outlining the role of the Justice Department and the Newspaper Preservation Act. The headline was "1970 newspaper preservation law has shown mixed results, 16 of 27 joint biz agreements have failed over the years."
...
The Post published its own story on the same topic on the same day, with the headline: "Breaking up can be hard to do for papers."
It sounds like he's just trying to cover his tracks as Temple first says:
Just to be clear: I don't think this is a reasonable topic. And even if it were, ...
But, if you look at the articles Temple references there's not even a weak relationship to the idea of what the government, and thus, the Department of Justice could do. The closest thing the Rocky article says is:
In Washington, a Justice Department spokeswoman said she could not comment on the future of the Denver agreement.
And if 16 of 27 Joint Operating Agreements have collapsed, what about the other 11? In the 16 that have collapsed, has the DOJ intervened at all to help? The article is really mostly a historical accounting of the agreement. And, beyond what has or has not happened, this articles doesn't at all address what could be done to preserve a paper. Certainly Salzman's assertion that putting a paper up for sale for one month during the holidays falls under not doing very much to keep the paper alive.
And in the second article at the DPost the closest thing approaching what the government could do is:
In past years that might have raised the ire of the Justice Department, but Lacy said the government will probably stay on the sidelines given the tough economic climate. "The reality is that the Rocky is losing money. You can't force somebody to keep a paper open and lose money," Lacy said.
That still doesn't say anything about what could be done. So, Salzman is correct, there has been no reporting on what the government could do. This makes me think Temple just doesn't want criticism from a media critic in his paper and will just make up reasons to disguise that.
The article does mention a few other things:
Also, the contract requires another three years after three years of losses, unless the two sides agree to a divorce sooner.
The JOA also could dissolve if either partner seriously breaches its contractual obligations. That could happen if Scripps stops publishing the News.
Well, as recently as July, Scripps was still making a profit. That article cited a drastic plunge in quarterly profits, but those were cited as due to costs of spinning off some cable stations, not any difficulties with the Rocky. Earlier that year Scripps profits were up 23%. And Scripps earned $13.8 Million in 2004. While we all know the writing is on the wall, it really looks more like Scripps doesn't want to do anything to make this business division profitable and Temple would rather keep that quiet.
RSS Feed
