I’m glad I was a reporter in the days when you could pick up the phone and call CEOs, police chiefs, elected officials and other people you needed to get information from and often make direct contact on the first try.
For example, I remember once wanting to reach Paul Henson, then-CEO of United Telecommunications, before it became Sprint. I dialed the main switchboard and asked for Henson. The operator rang his office, he picked up and said in a near-growl, “Henson.”
Paul Henson
I was so startled at the way he answered it took me a couple of seconds to recover and state what I wanted. I don’t remember what the story was about, but I’ll never forget the sound of that voice.
Another time, I somehow got the private office number of Irvine O. Hockaday Jr., then Hallmark CEO. I held onto the number until one day I really needed a comment from him. I dialed it, he picked up, and that time it was the CEO, not the reporter, who was startled.
These days, that kind of thing wouldn’t happen. If you wanted a comment from an Irvine Hockaday or a Paul Henson, you would have to go through the Sprint or Hallmark p.r. machine and tell them exactly what you wanted and what you were working on. Nine times out of 10 you’d get some dull, scripted comment back from the p.r. office in an email. About the only chance you’d ever have of getting through to a Hockaday or Henson would be if another civic big shot died and you called seeking a comment about their dear, departed multi-millionaire.
But for any story that appeared to reflect badly on the company — or attempted to hold the CEO to account — forget it; no way you’d get through.
It’s gotten so bad that, as far as I can tell, any question a reporter has for the Kansas City Police Department must be submitted to the media relations office by email. I mean any question — like “What’s the status of such and such case?” or “I need a mug shot of the guy arrested for the carjacking on Gillham.”
The chief, Rick Smith, speaks primarily through his blog. I don’t know that I’ve ever read a quote from him that came from an interview or a phone call with a reporter.
But I’m not singling out KCPD. The hiding behind p.r. departments and insipid, emailed statements is pervasive. Why, it’s so bad that the bob and weave game (a deft boxer’s best friend) has now filtered down to college newspapers.
Jack Holland, a friend and follower of the blog, sent me a link to a recent story in The Atlantic about student journalists finding themselves stymied and made to jump through numerous hoops.
The story ran under the headline, “Bureaucrats Put the Squeeze on College Newspapers.”
Consider this paragraph from the story…
The decline of college newspapers has taken place against the backdrop of a decades-old power shift in the American university. As the Johns Hopkins University professor Benjamin Ginsberg chronicles in his 2011 book, The Fall of the Faculty, administrative bureaucracies at American universities have grown much faster than the professoriate, a trend that Ginsberg decries. “University administrators are no different than any other corporate executives or heads of government agencies,” Ginsberg said in an interview. “They’re engaged in constant spin designed to hide any shortcomings that they or their institution might have.”
Frank LoMonte, director of a free-speech institute at the University of Florida, told The Atlantic: “The concentration of resources into university p.r. offices has made the job exponentially harder for campus journalists. The p.r. people see their job as rationing access to news makers on campus, so it is harder and harder to get interviews with newsmakers.”
…I often hear people complaining that, more and more, newspapers often are doing much more editorializing in their news columns than they used to. “I just want to read the facts and make up my own mind,” people sometimes tell me.
Well, one reason the national newspapers, in particular, have gone to more analysis and editorializing in the news columns is the p.r. bulwark has become so big and so powerful that it’s very difficult to get legitimate, honest “testimony” from both sides of a given issue.
So much information is shaded, manipulated and offered up like chopped salad that the only way reporters can let readers know what’s really going on is just state it outright. In nearly every case, it’s the reporters — not the sources — who are the true, honest, information brokers.
Right on target, Jim. Have you noticed in The Star lately the pitiful phrase “according to a news release”? Makes one ashamed of the remains of that paper. Quoting a “police department spokesman” or writing “police have not released the names” are equally odious and cowardly.
In the distant past, reporters were taught to get the facts, politely or not. I remember interviewing a woman who had just murdered her husband in the Cathedral Apartments, downtown.
When the police finally arrived, and asked her to tell what had happened, she said “I just told that detective over there.” One officer said, “That’s not a detective, ma’m, that’s a damn reporter.”
That’s a great story, Don.
When I covered the county courthouse, I had the run of the place. Walked in, chatted up everyone — paying particular attention to the secretaries. It was that way, too, in the county executive’s office and, later, the City Council offices on the 24th floor (then) of City Hall. Now there are buzzers, glass walls and doors after doors to keep everyone at bay, not just the reporters.
Of course, these are different times, and safety dictates such precautions and protections, but, damn, it sure takes a lot of the fun, excitement and detail out of “direct” reporting.
I agree. I used to tell our news staff….the PR or PIO officer is not your colleague. He or she is your adversary.
You’ve commented once before, Mike, but I didn’t realize until today who you are — former news director at WDAF. Great to have you as a reader and commenter!
Did you see Lee Fang’s interview with David Koch? Lee caught Koch on the street. Interesting to watch Koch’s companion (Tim Phillips, president of “Americans for Prosperity”) try to fend off (and intimidate) Lee. Interesting to observe how Lee handles that. Wish more of our mainstream journalists showed as much impervious determination as Lee does here.
>
That’s an extremely interesting conversation/interview, Laura. The most interesting part is that while Phillips keeps badgering Fang and trying to end the conversation, Koch continues answering Fang’s questions — at least the few he can get out over Phillips’ protestations. I think if I’d have been in Fang’s shoes, I would have turned to Phillips and said something like, “Mr. Koch seems to be doing pretty well for himself here, Mr. Phillips, please let him answer a couple more of my questions.”
Two articles that deserve kudos in just the past few days that show the kind of journalism you reference is not dead. The first is Bryan Lowry and Jonathon Shorman’s piece on the rumors surrounding Steve Watkins. The second was the third piece on the contempt of court citation issued against Barry Grissom’s office during the period he was US Attorney, again with Bryan Lowry at the lead. The first two without Lowry were fatally flawed in that they never even mentioned Grissom. Exciting, informative reading.
Too bad Lowry didn’t say what district Watkins represents (2nd) and what area of Kansas it covers (east central, including Topeka).
Watkins is hardly a household name, especially with Missouri readers (a majority).