« Back to Daily Briefing  |  Archives: October 2008

Another layoffs update

Posted by Thuy  |  22 Oct 11:49 AM

One more note before I clean off my Mac. We received a long update email about those manager layoffs, from editor Gary Graham. His announcements include the following points:

» Three managers have been laid off and one other manager will become a non-manager. Former assistant managing editor Carla Savalli's position will not be filled.

» The high school journalism initiative The Vox will continue to the end of this academic year because student participants are earning academic credit or AmeriCorps scholarships or are using the experience for their senior projects. Funding will come from leaving the managing editor position vacant until next summer.

» S-R Radio will continue (according to contract with Mapleton Communications). Funding and staffing decisions for Radio will shift to the marketing department under Shaun O'L. Higgins. That's all we know right now.

» A decision is still in the works about whether S-R will keep Associated Press content.

There are 4 comments on this post.

By Orson Scott Card October 5, 2008

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you wou

Posted by Karen Osborne  |  22 Oct 8:38 PM

I find it unsettling that you would post this commentary on the heels of an update as to the extent of the layoffs and cuts at The Spokesman-Review. To say that it is Insensitive Beyond Belief! would be a gross understatement.

Being the astute news hawk that you are, I’m sure that you noticed that The Spokesman-Review endorsed McCain, not Obama, for president. As a fellow American, I'd like you to quit hiding behind someone else’s politically-charged rhetoric (try turning off the angry talk radio, too) and have the guts to write something in your own words. But that would require some actual research and time and thought on your part, instead of just regurgitating someone else’s prose.

Lastly, if you can’t come up with the words to express your innermost political views, you could at least have the decency to quit kicking the people who work for your community newspaper as they are packing up their desks to leave.

Posted by Lisa L.  |  28 Oct 1:31 PM

This is a paper that enthusiastically endorses a candidate that wishes to give tax breaks to the very wealthy and then lays off a substantial number of staff, potentially consigning those workers to poverty in our new economy.

Congrats Graham, for your opportunity of a lifetime.

Posted by Al  |  1 Nov 4:04 PM

I find it amazing that the theory of "those you are effect should have the ability to tell their own story, from a media who tries to explooit it all.

Posted by ed  |  3 Nov 4:45 PM

« Back to Daily Briefing  |  Comments on this post are now closed.

 

Advertisement

Sponsored links

Shop for MP3 Players
Buy Apple Laptops
 
 
 
Live streaming video
Attend a news meeting
Transparent Newsroom