Joyce HoffmannComing on board as public editor with the news that Landmark Communications, and with it The Virginian-Pilot, is likely to be sold is a daunting endeavor. An end to the century-old tradition of leadership by a family with a historic commitment to public service journalism is a troubling prospect for Hampton Roads. While it might take time to find a buyer in what is widely perceived as a sluggish market for media properties, newspaper sales in recent years suggest that the Batten family's devotion to the news business will be hard to replicate.
The way in which news of the possible sale landed on The Pilot's front page 10 days ago and the unanswered questions surrounding the dismantling of Landmark Communications have provided abundant - though perhaps combustible - material for this, my introductory column as The Pilot's first independent public editor. In effect, I'm the watchdog on the watchdog, which puts me in a most unenviable spot this week.
Any assessment of how well The Pilot served its readers in telling the story of the proposed sale leads to the doorstep of Landmark's chairman and chief executive officer, Frank Batten Jr. The decision, as he noted, was his alone. His words and actions colored the initial coverage. To be sure, he faced an irreconcilable conflict between the preservation of his corporation's private interests - in which he has clear fiduciary obligations - and service to his newspaper's public responsibilities - which is part of his birthright. The best that can be said is that he protected the corporate interests.
As a result, rather than break the story, Pilot reporters were left to chase it. The early reports were unilluminating. The community remains largely in the dark about Landmark's intentions.
That the story was broken by The New York Times before it broke in The Pilot demonstrates the quandary a newspaper faces when reporting on itself. No single event could have better illustrated the paradox of a news operation's commitment to reporting the news and a corporate inner sanctum's penchant for secrecy, especially when a colossal financial deal is in the offing. For some readers, insider stories are an annoyance, perceived at one extreme as excessive naval gazing and at the other as sugar-coated helpings of corporate propaganda. In this instance, however, most readers likely feel they have a stake in the hometown newspaper's future.
Batten had planned to inform employees and the wider world of his decision on Jan. 3. That rollout was undone late Jan. 2 by a New York Times report that the Weather Channel was up for auction and might fetch $5 billion.
At The Pilot, a sharp-eyed deskman divined from a cryptic line in that day's listing of wire stories that something was afoot inside the building. Calls went out to the business news team at 9:30 p.m. They were back at their desks and working the phones in less than 30 minutes to produce the story about their own paper.
As publisher Bruce Bradley acknowledged in a message to The Pilot's 1,200 employees, it was "shabby way" to learn the news.
In a Jan. 3 interview with Pilot staffers Phil Walzer and Bill Choyke, Batten made comments that revealed the newsroom/boardroom conflict. From the beginning, the business team had been counseled by Editor Denis Finley to "cover this just as aggressively as we would any similar change at Norfolk Southern or any other big business. It would be hypocrisy to do otherwise." Walzer said he asked all the obvious questions and kept asking them even as Batten repeatedly deflected those efforts.
As portrayed in the story that followed, Batten left little doubt about whose interests were uppermost. "I'm just trying to do a good job for our shareholders," he said. In a possible sale, those shareholders' interests are doubtless best served by revealing less rather than more information. But his fiduciary responsibilities aside, in the absence of any parallel statement of concern for his employees, for The Pilot's readers or for the community that helped his family build its empire, it all seemed a bit cold-hearted.
Of course, because Landmark is a privately held corporation, Batten has absolutely no obligation to disclose any information about the company, its stockholders, membership of its board or the value of its stock. He has historically refused to discuss those questions, and Landmark Vice Chairman Richard Barry did so again in a recent interview. As board chairman, Batten might legitimately argue that the corporation's interests are best served by withholding such information.
While he took full responsibility for the decision to dismantle Landmark, Batten's circumscribed answers did little to clarify the two overarching questions on readers' minds: Why and why now?
In addition, in the absence of explicit criteria, his vague assurance that he would steer clear of "inappropriate buyers" provided no comfort. Is an inappropriate buyer one whose bid is inappropriately low? Or is an inappropriate buyer someone who is likely to eviscerate this newspaper's historic mission? What efforts are contemplated to ensure that the newspaper's traditions of excellence will be continued under new ownership?
The stories that immediately followed the Batten interview filled lots of space but offered little enlightenment. One article explored employee reactions to news of the sale, another served up assurances that the Batten family's philanthropy would continue after the sale. A Jan. 5 story about the possibility of a merger with the Daily Press in Newport News seemed to be a red herring, little more than a discussion of an unlikely possibility.
After that, the story seemed to lose its pulse, at least until Thursday, when reporter Tom Shean identified members of Landmark's board and revealed names of the corporation's major shareholders. Walzer's article Friday about a possible bid for the newspapers by Pat Robertson, founder of The Christian Broadcasting Network, was similarly edifying.
The Batten family's century-long ownership of The Pilot makes it a star in the multibillion-dollar Landmark galaxy. On some of journalism's most deeply held principles, The Pilot has led other newspapers by its example. It was, in fact, one of the first U.S. newspapers to provide readers a person and a place to air their concerns. The kind of self-examination that comes with appointing a public editor, a step taken here in 1974, has long been unwelcome in many American newsrooms.
The New York Times finally took that step in 2003, after a staffer scandalized his profession with plagiarized and fictionalized stories. Despite that scandal and many others, fewer than 40 American newspapers have a newsroom watchdog.
The Pilot's commitment to accountability to readers, accuracy, fairness and taste is the only coin that buys credibility here or at any newspaper. My hope is to serve those ideals in the coming months.
Joyce Hoffmann is The Pilot's public editor. Reach her at (757) 446-2475 or public.editor@pilotonline.com.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
They do give you something back...
It's called your paycheck...
Keep Robertson out at all costs
If you let Robertson and his ilk take over the Pilot I know it'll be the kiss of death for journalism in Hampton Roads. Your circulation will drop to almost 0 and we don't need anymore of his religious propoganda rammed down the throats of unsuspecting folks that just want the news untainted.
The truth about charity
Sorry to dent your liberal ego, Who, but those blue collar trailer park bumpkins are more charitable, by a factor of three to one, than urban liberals. But your notion that anyone with wealth must "give back" demonstrates a misunderstanding of the nature of charity itself.
Certainly, it is s good thing that those who can afford to do so are often charitable. But unless their gains are ill gotten, that is not "giving back," it is simply giving. By characterizing it as "giving back" you denigrate the act of giving. By assigning them a duty to be charitable, you absolve yourself from the need to be grateful. Is it really so hard to say "thank you?"
We are fortunate that many successful people give to those who are in need, or pass up on some additional profit for the sake of the public good, but when they do so, that is an additional act of giving, above and beyond the services they provided in the marketplace that made them wealthy.
Trailer park philosophy
Thank God many of the most wealthy - including Bill Gates and Warren Buffett - don't share the opinion that the more fortunate have no obligation to "give back." Imagine what the world would be like if one of these rural blue collar bumpkins actually had money. They'd apparently make Ebenezer Scrooge look like Santa Claus. So much for living in the Bible Belt, I guess. It's a shame you aren't living in the 15th century. I think you would be more comfortable there.
Start your own newspaper
If the way the Pilot is operated, bought or sold is of such significant concern then buy it. Alternatively, start your own paper. It takes hard work to create a profitable business entity and more to keep it running. When people say, "give back", would you give back part of your salary to your customers? Should your place of work give back to the consumers even if it hurts your pocketbook? If it is that critical to someone then work, invest, save, borrow, and you assume the risk of running a business. Until you are willing to do that, there is no 'giving back'.
Giving something back?
What a despicable phrase. Giving something back implies that something has been taken.
The Battens have provided a service, for two generations, from which we all have benefited and for which we have voluntarily paid. They have taken nothing from us, our cities and our communities are all better for their efforts and they have well earned their wealth. They don't owe us anything.
Criminals should "give something back." Recipients of taxpayer benefits should "give something back." Businesses which have received taxpayer subsidies should "give something back." Politicians who have benefited from their tenure in office should "give something back."
But honest businessmen who have been successful providing things we need and want may choose to give, but they have nothing of ours to give back.
I don't feel much love
I don't feel much love for newspapers. The bloggers, while often are wrong, have definitely done more in the way of educating me on things that are now mainstream news - the collapsing housing market, in 2004 and 2005. While they were pointing out government charts and good research showing unsustainable future of our economy, papers like the Pilot were copy and pasting quotes from sales people (the National Association of Realtors) and running them daily as facts. The blogs pointed to papers such as the Pilot, to point out the gross neglect in trying to do any real research. I generally assume most articles in the paper are really sales pitches for advertisers. Perhaps it's just the way capitalism works. The advertisers gained too much influence in the paper, and now the people turn away from the paper to the new, bleeding edge reporters that don't have to answer. I can cite specific cases where human health risks were silenced by corporate influence over print media.
Shareholders???
Shareholder value has been used to excuse all kinds of greedy, illegal and immoral practices. The masters of Enron were shouting "shareholder value" as they were carted off to jail.
And CEOs don't go to jail for failing to maximize profit or build shareholder value. They are asked to leave and handed a multi-million dollar parachute for their trouble.
But why are we talking about shareholder value? It isn't the issue here. Landmark is private. It is not a publicly traded company that has to answer directly to individual investors, pension funds and institutional investors.
Its shareholders are members of the extended Batten Family and a few insiders. The family is maximizing shareholder value for the family. OK. No big problem. I do the same. But when you are this rich, how about giving something back?
Roberson as Pilot owner?
No way jose - I'll never visit pilotonline again and will drive to the Peninsula to get the paper if I have to. Robertson is a joke.
You wanted a "Perp Walk"?
When CEO's like Mr. Batten do not place their shareholders interests first, you see them on the evening news being led away in handcuffs by men in SEC jackets. He is legally required to serve the shareholders.
If he placed some notion of "journalistic service of the community" ahead of the shareholders, he would be a criminal, just like those we saw on the news in the Enron and other corporate scandals.
If you want a newspaper that places some journalistic ideal ahead of the shareholders bottom line, then form a co-op and raise money to buy the Pilot from the shareholders and run it like you want.
Not worried. But I am disappointed in the Battens
I think the Batten Family has done a great disservice to the community by offering up the newspaper to out-of-town, corporate ownership. The Weather Channel is worth $5 Billion. Is there no point where these families are rich enough and can give back through something other than a tax-break producing foundation? At any rate, I don't think the Battens will sell to Pat Robertson. It would be a huge black eye for the family and I assume they still spend some time here. Regardless of what extremists say, the paper does a pretty good job of keeping us informed. A newspaper run by Pat Robertson would make Hampton Roads a laughing stock and the Battens would be responsible.
Beg and plead all you want.
Joyce didn't pull any punches in her article. Showing how much Frank Batten cares about the employees and the reading public and what will happen to the newspaper, it comes down to Frank Batten's new motto: "It's the SHAREHOLDERS, stupid!"
To The Batten Family & Shareholders..
..I beg, plead and urge you NOT to sell to CBN. If this happens, which from reading between the lines will happen, you will have given pat robinson a mechanisam to quiet all opposition to his views. A journalistic "nightmare" akin to living in Iran or another thirld world country with "state run" news programs. I have known people who work at CBN! If you do not "fit" in with "them", you get fired for not being "Christian" enough. If you do not pray at your desk, you get fired! If this sale happens, I am not a religious man, but I will be praying for you and your families souls, both journalistic and spiritual-to go straight to hell, becasue in your lust and greed, you have left the people of Hampton Roads adrift if you allow this sale of a democratic newspaper to fall into the hands of a religious charlatan!
No Illusions
We should have no illusions about American corporations having a great concern for the public intrerest, whether they be public or private like Landmark. To their great credit, Batten Sr., and more recently Dick Barry, have allowed the Pilot to operate successfully within Landmark because of its association with other, far larger and more profitable parts of the Landmark group. On its own, the Pilot would have failed --- from a business standpoint --- long ago. Now, those owners with a personal attachment to the Pilot because of their long involvement with the paper's operations and growth --- Batten Sr. and Barry --- are retiring. Unfortunately, the story we're seeing here of the second generation of a founding family being more interested in the Balance Sheet than operations within a company --- like Batten Jr. --- is the norm within most family corporations. Without the operating involvement in "growing the corporation," it is very difficult to care much about its success. A print newspaper is a difficult business model these days --- good luck to all the employees "who care" in the time ahead.
Greed is good
Let's face it, young people aren't subscribing to papers anymore, and paper classifieds are probably taking a hit as well. People are getting their news online, selling stuff on ebay and craigslist. Finding jobs with various job boards. There is a need for local coverage of news and events but you don't need a print presence to do it, maybe the local tv stations will pick up the slack. In order for the Pilot to survive, it would require a major reorganization of operations and print operations ie career employees losing their jobs. Rather than doing it themselves, why not just sell it off to someone else and let them to do the dirty work.
I imagine if you were able to hire out 5-7 of the pilot's best reporters and with a little startup capital, I'm sure someone could figure out an revenue generating model to make an online newspaper work.
Batten said it best. They are looking out for the best interests of their shareholders which turns out to be for the most part themselves.
It's estimated that billions will be made off the sale of weather.com and their newpaper properties. And who knows maybe with some of the newfound cash, Batten will ipo Dominion for another big pa