Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘The Kansas City Star’

Zieman’s upcoming challenge in Sacramento…and who will succeed him in Kansas City?

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , , on May 19, 2011| 11 Comments »

Congratulations are in order to Mark Zieman, who has been promoted from KC Star publisher to vice president of operations for parent company McClatchy Co.

Today, I want to talk about his leadership and also about the competition that is about to take place to replace him.

Zieman, 50, has had a very successful, upward-bound, 25-year career at The Star. The paper apparently has continued to do well financially during Zieman’s three-year watch as publisher, despite the bottom falling out of the newspaper industry.

I haven’t liked everything Zieman has done at The Star, but, in my opinion, he has earned this opportunity to prove or disprove himself at a higher level. He inherited a successful enterprise from previous publishers, including the late James H. Hale, and he has managed to hold it together, at least financially.

He has held it together almost entirely through cost-cutting, however. There’s less of the paper, literally, than there used to be, and there are far fewer employees, including quite a few valuable editorial employees.

I said that I haven’t liked everything Zieman has done. What bothered me most was that when the layoffs began three years ago, Zieman donned rose-colored glasses with each round of layoffs and issued statement after statement about how better times were just around the corner. That went on until earlier this year, when he struck a note more of resignation and hope, instead of certainty, about light at the end of the tunnel.

When I wrote about his cheery, public position, I said that I was losing confidence in him as publisher. That was probably an overstatement, although I’m sure that most, if not all, of the employees who have been laid off would express a similar sentiment. Also, as a retired reporter and assignment editor at The Star, I was looking at it through the eyes of someone who could have experienced the same fate, had I not gotten out two years before the axe started falling. (It was just plain luck that got me out the door, I have to admit, not prescience.)

Now, Zieman is going to be under more pressure than ever. He will oversee 14 daily papers, including The Star, in several states. McClatchy paid way too much — $4.6 billion — for the Knight Ridder papers in 2006, and they may never be able to pay off the debt they took on to swing the deal.

Last year, a Morningstar analyst wrote, “Our fair value estimate on McClatchy’s shares is $0.” (For the record, it’s about $2.75  per share now.)

The analyst said he believed that the balance eventually would tip from stockholders’ interests to creditors’ interests and that stockholders would be left empty-handed.

So, that’s the spare meal that Zieman will sit down to at McClatchy headquarters in Sacramento.

CEO Gary Pruitt and other top executives undoubtedly will look to Zieman for fresh ideas on digging out of deep holes. He will face expectations, probably, to devise plans to cut costs and somehow generate new revenue, perhaps through imaginative uses of the web.

So, I wish him luck. He’s definitely going to need it, and I think we can look for that graying hair to lose what is left of its dark luster within a few years — if McClatchy lasts that long.

***

Now, back at the ranch…several Star vice presidents, certainly would like to be considered for the publisher’s job. Among them could be Mike Fannin, editor; Chris Christian, v.p for circulation; Chris Piwowarek, v.p. for human resources; and Miriam Pepper, v.p. of the editorial page.

I think McClatchy will look closely at the prospect of naming a woman as publisher, which would guarantee Piwowarek (pronounced pee-va-vorek) and Pepper a close look. However, I think all of the people mentioned above are long shots for the following reasons.

Christian and Piwowarek because their kingdoms are relatively narrow. Pepper because her background is on the editorial side. Fannin because most of his background is in sports and also because it has come to light since he was named editor in 2008 that he has two d.u.i convictions and a 1994 misdemeanor assault conviction in Texas, where he formerly worked.

Another long shot, from the newsroom, would be managing editor Steve Shirk, who has provided steady and confident leadership in every post he has held in his approximate 35-year career at the paper. Working against him, however, is the fact that, like Pepper, all his experience is on the editorial side.

Without completely ruling out an inside promotion, I tend to think that McClatchy will bring in someone from outside. I think they will promote a current publisher at a smaller paper in the chain.

That’s what they recently did in Lexington, Ky., at the Lexington Herald-Leader. There, Rufus M. Friday, president and publisher of the Tri-City Herald in eastern Washington, will replace long-time Herald-Leader publisher Tim Kelly, who is retiring at the end of this month.

I think McClatchy will want to continue planting seeds of hope with its current publishers, on the outside chance that the company will find its way out of the long tunnel.

Read Full Post »

Thanks to some rules changes, The Star’s circulation rebounds

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , on May 4, 2011| 12 Comments »

Aided by a change in the way circulation statistics are calculated, The Kansas City Star was able to get its Sunday circulation figure back up over the 300,000 benchmark for the six-month period ending March 31.

Overall, however, considering the direction of newspaper advertising, the picture for the newspaper industry remains grim.

Figures released earlier this week by the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) show that The Star’s Sunday circulation was 305,113 for the period ending March 31, compared to 290,302 for the period that ended last Sept. 30. (The figures for both periods include digital subscriptions, which make up more than 10 percent of circulation.)

When the 290,000 figure came out last fall, it shocked many Star watchers because it was the first time in the modern newspaper era that circulation had fallen below 300,000.

At least partly to mitigate the ongoing circulation declines around the nation, ABC, which is run by publishers, changed the rules to include distribution categories that, until now, have not been included in the “top line” circulation figure. Among those categories are newspapers distributed through newspapers in education (NIE) programs and copies sold in bulk to places like hotels and restaurants.

Where ABC’s top line formerly was “total average paid circulation,” it is now “total average circulation.”

Because of the changes, ABC cautioned against making direct comparisons of the March data with data from earlier reporting periods.

The Star’s two other circulation categories — daily (Monday through Friday) and Saturday — also benefited from the change. For the most recent period, daily circulation stood at 209,258, compared with 206,441 for September, and Saturday circulation was 215,961, compared with 211,966 for September.

Unfortunately for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the rules changes weren’t sufficient to give that paper a bump over last September’s Sunday figures.

Like The Star, the Post-Dispatch fell below a key benchmark — 400,000 Sunday sales — last year, when circulation dipped to 365,589. The comparable ABC figure for March 31 was 360,450.

However you look at it, it’s fair to say that circulation revenue at The Star, the Post-Dispatch and the vast majority of daily newspapers in the U.S. is continuing to fall. And when that fact is combined with the unrelenting decrease in newspaper advertising, it should make the most ardent of believers in newspapers avert their gaze.

Alan D. Mutter, who writes the Reflections of a Newsosaur blog out of San Francisco, reported recently that “although television, online, radio and even magazine ad revenues all moved into positive territory by the end of 2010, newspaper (ad) sales dropped 6.3 percent.”

One of the worst first-quarter showings was turned in by The Star’s owner, McClatchy Co., where ad revenue fell 11 percent from the first quarter of 2010.

For the industry as a whole, Mutter said that annual print and digital newspaper ad sales have now dropped nearly 50 percent from the all-time high of $49.4 billion in 2005.

As an example of the dreadful collapse, Mutter pointed to automotive advertising. “Publishers, who collectively sold more than $5 billion in automotive classifieds as recently as 2004, booked a mere $1.1 billion in the category in 2010,” Mutter said.

During the same period, auto advertising on local TV stations jumped nearly 54 percent, to $2.6 billion, and online auto advertising rose nearly 14 percent to $2.8 billion.

“Because a growing number of well-informed consumers make their decisions before contacting dealers,” Mutter said, “the point of sale has moved to the web, not the showroom. Dealers don’t need newspapers to remind consumers they are there, because empowered consumers know who the dealers are, know what models are in stock and know how much they should be paying for a car.”

So, in many case, the information “vehicle” — the newspaper — is cut out.

For consumers, the change has been fantastic. For newspapers, it’s been very tough, and the road ahead doesn’t look any better.

Read Full Post »

A relatively short, forgettable life makes for a memorable feature story

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , on April 25, 2011| 7 Comments »

A paper is fortunate, indeed, if it has one or more reporters who can assess the passing parade of stories, reach in and pluck out the occasional ones that have the potential to be something special.

Such a reporter is The Star’s Mark Morris, who has been a courts reporter the last 13 years and before that was a City Hall reporter and, earlier, an assistant metro editor.

From the outset, Morris has covered, with great perspective and clarity, the story of “Okies run amok” at the University of Kansas ticket office as several KU employees (now former employees) raped and pillaged the ticket cache under the un-watchful gaze of former KU athletic director Lew Perkins.

Last week, a different type of story piqued his interest. It was a follow-up to breaking news from March 29, when an Independence police officer shot and killed a career criminal, 41-year-old Lonnie Moore, after the criminal shot at the officer.

The story didn’t get a lot of attention when it happened: the goofball, driving a stolen car, began firing at the officer; the officer fired back and fatally wounded him.

Had the officer been wounded or killed, or if one or more bystanders had been injured or killed, it would have been a very big story. As it was, the TV and radio stations played it routinely, quickly consigning it to history.

Morris

But Morris, an award-winning investigative reporter, saw the glimmer of a good story. Just who was this Lonnie Moore? What was his background? What led up to the fatal encounter? And why would he choose to draw his personal and final line in the sand  “on a patch of Interstate 70 overlooking the Bass Pro Shop”?

So, on the front page of Saturday’s paper, Morris gave us the full, strange portrait of Lonnie Moore. It was the picture of an aimless, rootless, apparently poorly educated soul — the child of a single mother — who was convicted of his first felony when he was 18. It was the picture of a man who woke up most days with no goal in mind other than how he might create an illegal opportunity to come into possession of someone’s else’s property or money.

In the first few paragraphs, we learn that Moore was a longtime car thief, who usually surrendered quickly and quietly when the cops closed in on him.

In the fourth paragraph, the last one that appeared on the front page before the story “jumped” to an inside page, Morris set the hook: “The afternoon of March 29 was different.”

When you go to the jump, you find out that, within the last year, Moore had  upped his game from car thief to bank robber: He was the prime suspect in seven area bank robberies, the last one taking place in mid-March.

That revelation makes it clear why Moore drew that fateful line in the sand, and it also set the stage for the flashback that fleshes out “The Lonnie Moore Story.”

Like a jeweler slowly bringing out the finest stones, Morris unveils many rich nuggets about Moore that draw the reader closer to this strange fellow, whom you wouldn’t have wanted within arm’s length in real life.

Among the details:

— He was born in Chillicothe and moved to North Kansas City when his mother got a job with the Total Petroleum co.

— His mother died in 1995 at age 46. Moore had two brothers, neither of whom Morris could run down.

— At some point, Moore moved to the state of Washington and married a woman 28 years older than he.

— After being apprehended trying to break into a van in Milton, Wash., in 2003, Moore told police that he needed the van to visit his sick son in a Seattle hospital. But he didn’t know which hospital.

— Four months later, when he was stopped in a stolen car, he was carrying 15 “jiggler” keys, which had been shaved to fit in different car ignitions.

— In 2006, his wife filed for divorce and he moved to the town of Duluth, Minn., where he became “a regular police-blotter figure in the county’s weekly paper.”

— Wanted for probation violation, Moore left Minnesota last June, returned to the Kansas City area and apparently began robbing banks.

Oddly, and perhaps as a sign that he knew his walk on the wild side was nearing an end, he never showed a gun during the robberies and never disguised himself.

As Morris reported, “At least two sets of surveillance photos clearly show his face.”

So, on March 29, along I-70, Moore had nothing to hide and no realistic hope of remaining free.

It was the end of a rotten, pointless life that cost the taxpayers a considerable amount of money along the way but, fortunately, did no lasting damage to any innocent people, as far as we know.

And, thanks to Mark Morris, it was a life that made for interesting reading and reflection.

Read Full Post »

The electronic stranglehold on our lives and relationships

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , on April 21, 2011| 3 Comments »

Two recent stories about electronic communication — one in The Star and the other in The New York Times — have brought into sharp relief, for me, the hazardous communications terrain that many of us navigate.

The Times’ story emphasized the seemingly irresistible urge to text or check one’s smartphone while engaged in personal conversations. The story, titled “Keep Your Thumbs Still When I’m Talking To You,” was illustrated by a young man crouching before, and shouting at, a woman busily engaged with her phone.

The story, written by Times’ media reporter David Carr, says society has come to this: If someone is “looking over your shoulder at a room full of potentially more interesting people, she is ill-mannered. If, however, she is not looking over your shoulder, but into a smartphone in her hand, she is not only well within modern social norms, but is also a wired, well-put-together person.”

“Add one more achievement to the digital revolution,” Carr wrote. “It has made it fashionable to be rude.”

The Star story, on the other hand, by Edward M. Eveld, primarily addresses the fading of the old-fashioned phone call in favor of text messaging.

“Anymore,” Eveld wrote, “a phone call happens generally if it’s pre-arranged. That’s practically a rule in business circles but also holds sway among acquaintances.”

Three observations:

Texting and e-mailing are not character builders, the way old-fashioned phone calls and face-to-face conversations can be.

Example: I’ll never forget the days when I was a teenager and called girls up for first dates. I would start by going to a phone out of earshot of the rest of the family. Then, I would stare at the phone for a few minutes and think of what I might say and how I might lead up to The Big Question. I’d usually make one or two false reaches for the phone, pulling back my hand as it neared or touched the receiver. Then, finally, I’d pick it up and make the call. In most cases, my courage and preparation were rewarded.

More important, those experiences helped me learn how to make difficult calls.

These days, though, most teenagers don’t even have dates, much less make calls and ask each other out. They send a text, or place a call, saying something like, “Wanna hang out tonight?”

That way, you understand, it’s all very informal and virtually risk free. If the recipient texts back, “I’m busy,” you haven’t really been rejected. And you, the initiator, are covered because you really didn’t ask for a date.

As far as I know, our 21-year-old son has seldom “asked anyone out” in the traditional sense. It’s all text- or call-arranged get-togethers. The trouble with this type of arranging is that “plans” fall apart very quickly because more appealing offers come in. And no one has really made a firm commitment, so nobody should be able to claim hurt feelings.

Almost all electronic commitments, it’s my impression, are tentative.

Unlike our son, our 23-year-old daughter, an old-school sort, hates the assignation-by-text system. A couple of times she got together with a young man who called asked her if she wanted to “hang out.”  At least once, after they had met up, it turned out he wanted to take her to a fancy restaurant. She considered that “bait and switch” and didn’t appreciate it because she is the type of person who likes to have definite plans and likes to prepare for the event or occasion. If a young man wants a date, she’d prefer that he call and state his proposition.

My guess is that a lot of people who rely on the text message or e-mail as their primary means of communication shun personal confrontations or difficult phone calls. They probably avoid uncomfortable situations by texting or e-mailing their regrets or bad news that needs to be imparted. In other words, they duck out the back door.

Which leads me to this…

Many times, I have advised against attempting to resolve any significant or delicate issues by e-mail.

Significant issues — and the people embroiled in them — deserve to be dealt with either in person or, at the very least, over the phone.

As Eveld said in his KC Star story, “Not only is it often rude to try to dispatch a touchy issue by e-mail or text, it doesn’t allow for the free flow of information and discussion that is often necessary, and it strips the exchange of the nuances that attend personal conversation.”

Eveld quoted Dan Post Senning of the Emily Post Institute as saying that face-to-face conversations are best because body language, facial expressions and voice inflection play important roles in personal communications. Voice-to-voice conversations are the next best thing, Sening said, because without it, “there’s a whole layer of information that’s incredibly deep that just goes away.”

Example: Last year, I was involved in a volunteer initiative that became somewhat controversial. In e-mails with the person who had the power to give the green light or kill it, I sensed a lessening of commitment on that person’s part. I called the person to try to get a straight answer. On the phone, the person reiterated support for the initiative. A few days later, however, I got an e-mail that said something like, “Can we just forget this? It’s taking up too much time and is too tiring.”

I was stunned. Not because it wasn’t the right call — it probably was — but because it so clearly cried out for a personal call of resolution.

While I’m smart enough to know when a personal conversation is in order, I’m not without my electronic-based failings.

My personal demon is the computer.

Between blogging, e-mailing and checking various web sites, I am on the computer several hours a day. When my wife comes home from work (thank you, dearest, for giving me the opportunity to retire early) I’m usually sitting at the computer. When our daughter comes home from yoga or her volunteer job, I’m usually at the computer.

When I’m needed for something around the house, I usually say, “Just a second; I’ll be right there,” as I try to wrap up something or get to a breaking point.

I often feel guilty about it and know that I tend to isolate myself with the computer. Nevertheless, I  have a hard time tearing myself away. Just this week, my daughter and I were talking about our relationship, and she said, “A lot of the time, even when you’re there, you’re not really there. You know?”

I nodded.

These electronic tools that we have at our disposal are amazing implements, aren’t they? They are so helpful and have opened so many doors for so many people.

But it is immeasurably important that we use them responsibly and not allow them to push aside our manners and encroach on our availability to friends, family members and others. We are most alive when we are engaged with others, sitting across from them — talking, arguing, laughing, explaining — not exchanging electronic signals.

Read Full Post »

KC Star reporter travels to Augusta, Ga., but misses the golf tournament — at least the one that most people saw

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , , on April 11, 2011| 12 Comments »

I am completely befuddled by The Star’s weekend coverage of the Masters golf tournament.

Two things, in particular:

First, I don’t know why The Star wasted several thousand dollars sending sportswriter J. Brady McCullough to Augusta, Ga., to cover an event that offered no strong local connection. Tom Watson wasn’t a factor, and KU alumnus and Topeka native Gary Woodland finished 12 strokes back. This is an event that the national press can cover just fine, without help from golf reporters of the amateur variety.

Second, and perhaps most important, McCullough, who normally covers KU sports, didn’t really cover the Masters; he covered “The Tiger Woods Show.” Woods was not the story, however. Oh, he was part of it for a while, especially during the front nine on Sunday, when he briefly grabbed a share of the lead. But then, just like many other contenders, he faded like a tulip in August.

As the back nine wore on, the spotlight shifted from one contender to another before settling on the ultimate winner, South Africa’s Charl (that’s right, Charl) Schwartzel, who birdied the final four holes to take a two-stroke victory. Did you get that? He birdied the last four holes four holes at Augusta National. It had never been done before. He didn’t back into the win; he grabbed the course by the throat and strangled the life out of it.

Now that’s a story!

But where was Brady? Unfortunately for K.C. Star readers, Brady was fixated on Tiger, about whom he had written a big feature story in Sunday’s paper.

From The Star’s packaging of today’s Master’s report, it’s not immediately clear what a horrendous job McCullough did.

The headline at the top of today’s sports section says, “OUT OF AFRICA.” Good enough. A tag line above that says, “Closing kick gives Charl Schwartzel the green jacket.” On target. And the centerpiece photo is of a jubilant Schwartzel, arms upraised after canning a long putt on the final hole. Nice.

But then there’s the story itself.

Here’s how McCullough started it: “The short woman in the off-red shirt and floppy sun hat seemed important. A team of people in red Nike golf shirts were leading her around Augusta National Golf club, and one of the men in her entourage offered her his left arm for support.”

Now, if McCullough was writing about Schwartzel’s mother, that lead paragraph might actually be leading somewhere. But it’s not about Schwartzel’s moher; it’s about Tiger Woods’ mother! That’s right, the Tiger Woods who finished tied for third, four shots behind Schwartzel.

And so the story went — more of it about Tiger and his Mama than about the winner and his spectacular finish.

The logical thing for McCullough to have done would have been to research Schwartzel and introduce him to Star readers, many of whom might not have heard of him. He has played in several U.S. tournaments but just joined the PGA Tour this year. Until now, the 26-year-old golfer has been a fixture on the European tour.

I guess that was too much effort for McCullough. Or maybe he’s just devoid of the skill that’s most indispensable to a reporter: Pivoting in response to the direction that a breaking story takes.

Talk about a fluid, breaking story…that was Augusta on Sunday. But, clearly, McCullough was not prepared to follow the story wherever it went. He had already decided that the story was Tiger Woods, the outcome be damned.

And so, Kansas City Star readers were subjected to quotes like this (from a fan in the gallery): “Did you see the ring on Tiger’s mother? I’ve got to see that again.” For the record, McCullough described the ring as “a large oval stone that was covered in sparkly diamonds.”

I don’t know about you, but I think it’s time to pull McCullough’s press pass to big golf events and put him on the jewelry beat.

Correction: My friend John Landsberg of Bottom Line Communications, bottomlinecom.com, pointed out that I misspelled Brady’s last name. It’s McCollough, not McCullough. Sorry, Brady, I gave you enough grief in this piece without misspelling your name.

Read Full Post »

The Star stumbles; The Star shines; and Yael Abouhalkah dings Sly

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , on March 14, 2011| 9 Comments »

Despite the blogs, the TV ads and the candidate forums, most frequent voters still rely on The Kansas City Star to help them sort out the issues and gauge the candidates in the mayor’s race.

In recent days, The Star has, in some instances, yielded valuable insight. On the other hand, it fell face-down in the mud on a story last Friday about the legal cases that candidates Mike Burke and Sly James — both lawyers — have handled.

Let’s get the mud-splatter job out of the way first.

Political reporters Dave Helling and Steve Kraske set up their front-page story about Burke’s and James’ legal backgrounds by quoting Jim Bergfalk, a longtime political consultant who engineered the ill-fated campaign of Deb Hermann, who finished fifth in the Feb. 22 primary election.

On the front-page part of the story, before it “jumped” to an inside page, Helling and Kraske said that “because both men have thin experience in public office, some attention has turned to the pair’s legal careers for clues about their approaches to government.”

Then came the stage-setting quote from Bergfalk: “It (the legal perspective) is absolutely relevant. It’s the only real body of work that voters have” for the two contenders.

Oh, really?

Never mind that Burke has served as chairman of three economic development agencies, headed the city’s Public Improvements Advisory Committee for five years, founded the July 4 Riverfest celebration and headed the committee that got Kansas City named an All-America City in 2006. And forget that James was co-chairman of the Save our Stadiums committee and served on the boards of Operation Breakthrough, the United Way and Genesis School.

First, shame on Bergfalk, who should and does know better. I don’t know what the hell he was thinking or doing when he said that. Maybe whichever of the two reporters who interviewed him led him in that direction. Maybe he was thinking about how, on his watch,  Hermann plummeted from favorite a month before the primary to fifth on Election Day.

But the bigger shame goes to Helling and Kraske, who also know the quote is completely misleading and are guilty of using it to artificially pump up the importance of that day’s story. OK, the candidates’ legal backgrounds are relevant — no doubt about that — but is it…

“the only real body of work that voters have” ?????

Come on…In my view, those two reporters were trying to sell their story to both their editors and their readers. Once again, as is often the case at The Star, one or more editors failed to rein in the reporters. One of an editor’s main jobs is to make sure a story is balanced and in perspective. Sometimes, editors have to stand up to heavy-hitting reporters, blow the whistle and say, “No, that’s outta bounds.” Unfortunately, the editor who handled this story was a milquetoast.

Just that one quote blew the legal backgrounds of the two candidates out of perspective and, correspondingly, unfairly denigrated their respective civic-activist backgrounds.

…Guess I’ve gotta rein myself in here…Let’s move on to the next point.

On Thursday, Yael Abouhalkah, Op-Ed columnist and member of The Star’s editorial board had a column that, in part, addressed the two candidates’ leadership styles.

As a Burke contributor and supporter, I have to say, I loved that column. To my surprise, Abouhalkah said that James’ emphasis on being a mediator was “starting to wear thin.”

I say that surprised me because The Star recently endorsed James, although it was complimentary to Burke.

It sounds to me, just from that column, like Abouhalkah either didn’t cast his editorial vote for James or he’s had second thoughts.

Listen to what he went on to say…

“James recently hasn’t taken definitive stands on the Polsinelli law building/Country Club Plaza dispute, the future of Acting City Manger Troy Schulte and pension reform.

“His continued reservations won’t earn him points with voters who want leadership on issues that have been discussed for months, sometimes years (such as city pensions).”

Wow. Those are two powerful paragraphs that the Burke campaign could blow up into 60-point type and smack James in the head with.  Whether the campaign will take advantage of that godsend remains to be seen.

That brings us to side-by-side stories in Sunday’s “A” section. Reporters Lynn Horsley and Michael Mansur interviewed both candidates on the most important issue in the race — Why should voters choose you? — and ran excerpts of the interviews.

Both stories were excellent and riveting — riveting to those of us who like politics, anyway. Here’s a link to the Burke story, and here’s a link to the James story.

Congratulations to Horsley and Mansur on stories that might prompt many voters to go for one candidate or the other.

I will leave you with the final questions and answers.

Question to James: Is there anything else we haven’t touched in terms of differences (between you and Burke)?

A: The key difference between Mike Burke and Sly James is we’re totally different people. Because I’m willing to accept that he has good ideas doesn’t mean we’re the same. … I believe I’m the leader that we need to go forward…I believe that the past is part of the problem for why we are where we are. I’m not saying that’s his fault. I don’t want that to be said at all. I’m just saying the time for politics as usual needs to cease and we need to do things a little differently in this town.

Question to Burke: Anything else in contrasting yourself with Sly James?

A: The main thing is who’s ready to walk in the mayor’s office and know how City Hall works, know who at City Hall are the good administrators, are the people you can trust for advice. That’s something I’m sure he can learn over time, but I don’t think we have a year or two of on-the-job training.

Read Full Post »

Blogger (not me) gets an earful…and gives back a mouthful

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , , on March 11, 2011| 14 Comments »

I thought the Kansas City mayor’s race was the biggest story in town these days, but fellow blogger Tony Botello (Tony’s Kansas City) has pushed the powerhouse politicians to the curb.

First, Tony was the subject of a big, cover story in the March 3-9 issue of The Pitch. Then, yesterday, he was on KCUR’s Central Standard show with host Jabulani Leffall.

Congratulations to Tony, whom I call the Blogger Baron of Kansas City. Every blogger should have his or her 15 minutes of fame. Who knows? Maybe even JimmyC will get a nod from the mainstream someday. (Yes, I said mainstream: Even The Pitch has now moved into the mainstream, by default, because it publishes stories that the old mainstream media, like The Star, can’t do properly…See Tony Botello story, for example.)

However, Tony’s day in the sun wasn’t greeted with a warm embrace in all quarters. There’s this business of Tony’s “girls,” the busty babes that Tony sprinkles his blogs with.

Some people, I’m sure, enjoy the view. Others think it dampens his credibility. Some think it’s just plain sexist. Such a one is my friend, first name Stacy, who, upon hearing on KCUR that Tony might be involved in moderating a council-mayoral debate tomorrow, screeched loud and long.

Here are excerpts from two comments that Stacy posted yesterday, as well as Tony’s replies, one of which I posted yesterday. The other he sent this morning.

Stacy:

Okay – this has nothing to do with the post but I’m a little hot right now. What is this about Tony of Tony’s Kansas City hosting a debate for the candidates this weekend? WHY would this man be given this opportunity? Why would the candidates not demand a non-sexist host the debate? Seriously ticked right now…The type of photos on Tony’s blog supports objectification..You would think the candidates would try to get away from this type of person instead of giving him legitimacy by agreeing to this debate.

I responded that Mike Burke’s public calendar said that a TV news reporter would be the moderator but that I would try to find out if Tony would be playing any official role. I also wrote that while I believed a lot of women shared her feelings about the cheesecake photos on Tony’s blog, that he had established himself — through hard work and inspiration — as the top blogger in the area and could credibly argue that he would be a competent moderator of a mayoral forum.

I then e-mailed Tony to find out about his role in the upcoming forum. He replied quickly, saying…

Christina Medina is the Mayoral Moderator . . . KC Hispanic News publisher Joe Arce might help her.

I’ll be asking Council some questions just to get started . . .

But what I’m trying to do is get as many people there so there will be a crowd of people to ask their own questions.

Christina seemed very open to doing like an Oprah-type thing . . . Which is something a bit different than what we’ve seen.

But as far as the Mayoral Candidates go, I won’t be asking any questions.

My role . . . Promoting, trying to organize doing as much publicity as possible and I’ll be one of three panelists for the Council session.

Hope that helps.

However, I wonder . . . What question could I possibly ask that would screw things up?

Peace,

Tony

That prompted Stacy to respond directly (in the comments section) to Tony.

It’s not what questions you may or may not ask – you may ask wonderful, insightful questions. It’s what your web site represents that makes we wonder why any candidate would want your promotion. I know that I am not alone in my reaction to the type of photos you post on your web site. It is very difficult to continue reading what you have to say, or to hear what you may be asking, when the thoughts that are screaming in my head are, “This is the type of behavior that hurts women. This is the type of behavior that lets men (and women) think that objectification of women is okay.

…I can’t stop the thought process that occurs after I hear someone who supports the objectification of women open his/her mouth. It’s the Howard Stern effect. I just stop caring what the person has to say and I can’t hear what the responders have to say. And I do try, but it’s just lost. I am not the only woman I know who feels this way. So, the question boils down to: Will the candidates be seen in the same light as your blog if you are one of the promoters?

Not knowing if Tony had followed the entire give-and-take, I sent him the excerpts from Stacy’s comments and offered him the opportunity to respond to the substance of her charges, that is, that he is sexist and treats women as objects in his blog.

Early this morning (he doesn’t sleep much, you know), he sent me an e-mail, apologizing for not responding “in detail,” but what he did write gives me a new frame of reference for “in detail.”

First, he said that he was a dues-paying member of La Raza political club, which is a co-sponsor of tomorrow’s forum (9:30 a.m. to noon, Guadalupe Center, 1015 Avenida Cesar Chavez). The other sponsors are Dos Mundos And KC Hispanic News, newspapers for which Tony has worked in the past.

Then, he turned to the issue that so upsets Stacy.

Why are they allowing me to participate? Again, because I’ve had a business relationship with the organizers. Even through the jokes, alleged misogyny and typos, in all of my writing and work, I strongly advocate for Latinos. The forum is open to everybody, but some questions will be geared toward our community that is one of the fastest growing in Kansas City.

However, I think the root of her question is: Why hasn’t this alleged sexism or misogyny caused people to steer away from me? I don’t know for a fact, but I’ll guess that it’s just plain old expediency, pragmatism and people with a better sense of humor than the old bag who is asking these questions.

JimmyC interrupts this soliloquy to state unequivocally: Stacy is not an old bag. Now, back to Tony…

Simply in terms of photographic content: The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is lot racier than my pictorial referencing on most days . . . But the editors aren’t branded with the “misogynist” label. Also, some of the nation’s best journalists have written for Playboy, amid straight-up beaver shots. Racy content in Rolling Stone hasn’t overshadowed groundbreaking reporting. And today some of the best alternative journalism comes from magazines like Vice that feature nudity and far more divisive (and funny content) than my daily ramblings. Really, the images I use from time to time are akin to Victoria’s Secret advertising, and that’s a multi-billion-dollar company propped up by a public that seems to consume their “content” at a rate where any objections are negligible.

But beyond that . . . I will acknowledge that I’ve written some very nasty things about women . . . in the context of a jokey blog with funny photos, typos, big red type and an overall spirit of cheeky news-ish (attempts) at humor.

Of course there are facts on TKC and even some breaking news . . . But I’ve never hidden my objective: More than anything else I consider my blog an exercise in entertainment.

When Andy Kauffman wrestled women, it was part of his act, and the charges of misogyny still didn’t stop a great many people from noting the genius of his performance art. Obviously, I’m not at the level of an Andy Kauffman, but that’s my gold standard and the best analogy I can offer for my rhetorical battles with the opposite sex.

Ask the politicos about why they “dare to associate” with me, but I think in the end it’s because I do have a rather deft touch when it comes to what to take seriously and when to simply do straight (dare I claim?) “reporting” rather than my bloggy shtick.

So, because I’m not getting in the ring and throwing around women, because the photos that I love are tame and boring by most late-night, cable-television standards and because I’m only one person among many working on a collaborative effort to inform the KC voting public . . . I don’t see a problem with my involvement and basically regard these complaints as overwrought and coming from a lady too wrapped up in her own political correctness, delicate sensibilities and with far too much spare time.

The lady is welcome to protest my involvement, but the fact is that city council and mayoral candidates already made their decision knowing full well my content offerings and weighing that against the more important concerns of KC voters in the urban core and the Latino community.

This lady is entering into a debate that has already been settled. If she’d like to go on a date, maybe we could trade numbers and I could ask her permission before I decided to pursue any other form of civic involvement.

In a world where porn is a multi-billion-dollar industry and working its way into mainstream culture every day, reality television has introduced drug abuse, intervention and therapy as prime-time entertainment, and Ben Affleck is trying to save the Congo despite his horrendous acting work in Gigli and Daredevil . . . the humor blogging and writing that I do has not precluded me from doing just a bit of local organizing in the context of a town where very few people vote.

Peace,

Tony

There you have it — the prosecution and the defense?

What do you think?

Read Full Post »

Burke and James vault to the head of the mayoral class, thanks to the KC Star

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , on February 5, 2011| 8 Comments »

Step aside, Deb Hermann. At least for now.

The Star’s endorsement tonight of Mike Burke and Sly James in the Feb. 22 mayoral primary struck a blow to Hermann, who had rung up some key endorsements in recent weeks.

Even with The Star’s errant endorsement of Mark Funkhouser four years ago — and his subsequent election because of it — this is the best possible endorsement a citywide candidate can have. Better than the Citizens Association (which Burke has), better than Freedom Inc., (which Jim Rowland has), better than the firefighters (whom Funkhouser has), better than the downtown business interests (which Hermann has).

James

James was the first person to declare his candidacy; he raised a lot of money early; and he presents clearly and confidently at candidate forums. Now he’s in an enviable position — a position that Jim Rowland and Deb Hermann would love to be in.

The Star said: “Many Kansas Citians know little about James, a lawyer, partly because he has never sought political office. But as he shows in personal conversations, he would be the kind of impressive, charismatic and knowledgeable mayor Kansas Citians deserve.”

I still say he won’t win and shouldn’t win. In my opinion, to be an effective mayor, there is no substitute for service on the City Council, where, if you want to get something significant done, you have to figure out how to get the votes of six other council members.

Burke

Burke has been there. He served out an unexpired term in the late 1980s and, although he didn’t seek a full term the next time around, he learned the ropes. Then, he went out and served in leadership positions on just about every significant economic development agency in the city, including the Economic Development Authority and the Port Authority.

On top of that, he founded KC Riverfest, the annual Fourth of July festival at Berkley Riverfront Park.

The Star gave a nice nod to his experience, saying, “Burke…has an extremely accomplished resume…It’s evident he could be a well-rounded mayor working for the good of Kansas City.”

As for his supposed big drawback, being a development attorney, the city hasn’t had any development the last four years. The Great Recession and The Myopic Mayor made sure of that. This is just the time that Kansas City can use a mayor who knows a thing or two about development. This city needs to get back on track, for God’s sake!

So, bring it on. The race is coming into clearer focus.

If you want to see the mayoral candidates in action, here are the forums (that I know of) that are taking place this week:

10 a.m., Tuesday, Feb. 8, Kansas City Industrial Council, Sprint Center.

4:30 to 6 p.m., Tuesday, Feb 8, Kansas City Business Journal/Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce. RSVP at http://www2.bizjournals.com/kansascity/event/40321

11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m., Wednesday, Feb. 9, Downtowners, Town Pavilion, 1111 Main.

7 to 9 p.m., Thursday, Feb. 10, League of Women Voters, 10842 McGee.

5:30 p.m., Friday, Feb. 11, Crossroads Community Association, 122 Southwest Blvd., Second Floor.

Read Full Post »

Media coverage of the Jared Loughner and the Arizona madness: A lot to chew on

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , on January 12, 2011| 5 Comments »

The seminal photograph of Jared Loughner is one that will be seared in the minds of many Americans for years to come.

You know the one I’m talking about: The police mug shot, in which his head is shaved, he’s wearing a quirky smile, and his eyes are aglow with madness and vacuousness.

That picture is one of several things that have stood out for me in the newspaper and online coverage that I have seen about the Loughner case.

Here are some other highlights of the coverage I have seen:

:: The New York Times’ very focused, wall-to-wall coverage.

:: A David Gergen, CNN column urging Americans not to jump to conclusions about political forces that might have factored into Loughner’s mindset.

:: A Kansas City Star story about the political “roar” surrounding the case.

First, regarding The Times’ coverage, which starts with that memorable photo.

When I first saw that picture on CNN’s home page Monday, I caught my breath. The photo depicted perfectly, for me, the separation from reality that I expected in Loughner from having read about him. It was one of those instances where a photo went far beyond anything that could be put into words. Even though CNN used it just as a mug shot in the upper-left corner of its page, it was arresting.

It took the editors at The New York Times to understand the photo’s impact and to take full advantage. On Tuesday, The Times put that photo at the top of its front page. The photo was three columns wide (half the width of the paper), below a four-column headline that read, “In Arizona Court, Suspect Waives Bail.”

What The Times has done so well in its coverage is to focus relentlessly on Loughner — his background, his family and his movements before the attack outside the Tucson Safeway. Unlike other papers, The Times can throw a fantastic amount of firepower at the epicenter of its coverage — Loughner — and still not short shrift any of the other story facets, such as fleshing out portraits of the victims.

The Times started boring in on Loughner on Monday with a front-page story about the disturbing behavior — “hysterical laughter, bizarre non sequiturs and aggressive outbursts “– that got him kicked out of Pima County Community College. Another photo, a mug shot, of a loopy-eyed Loughner accompanied that story.

Although no other news agency has the wherewithal to handle a story of this magnitude like The Times, some other outlets are doing good work.

I mentioned Gergen’s CNN article. An adviser to four presidents and director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School, Gergen is a person whose political observations should be heeded.

Addressing the conservative-liberal foment that mushroomed immediately after the shootings, Gergen said: “The country would be well served now if we cooled the accusations until we learn more about…Jared Loughner. He appears to be mentally unhinged, someone who has threatened others. Why he targeted one of the most admired and popular political leaders in Arizon is unclear.”

He went on to say, however, that the “climate of hatred” has grown worse in recent years “during the George W. Bush years, when the left was intensely alienated, and now during the Obama years, when the right has become vitriolic.”

I agree with Gergen that it’s far too early to know how, or even if, the political atmosphere might have spurred Loughner, but I agree with a point that my friend and former K.C. Star colleague Dan Margolies made at lunch the other day. He said that regardless of how nutty some people are, in most cases they are influenced by “the Zeitgeist.” I had to look up “Zeitgeist” just to make sure I understood. Wikipedia defines it as the “general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual and/or political climate within a nation or even specific groups.”

In this case, that would be within Arizona, which, to me, has found its way to the bottom of the well among these United States.

I also want to credit The Star, which, to its credit, has originated at least one front-page story about the case.

The Star wisely put Dave Helling, one of its most experienced political reporters on the story, and he came up with a compelling report for Tuesday’s edition. The headline was “Silence, Then a Roar.” His lead — the first sentence — was attention grabbing: “The farther you traveled from U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ hospital room, the louder it got across America.” That sentence captured both the heartache of the story and the furor surrounding it.

Helling went on to quote the plainspoken, gutsy sheriff of Pima County, Clarence Dupnik, who suggested that “vitriolic rhetoric” might have been a factor in the violence. Helling went on to talk about efforts and suggestions to tamper the political rhetoric, but he tempered that with an insightful comment from UMKC law school professor Doug Linder. “The natural instinct is to try and figure out some way to prevent these things from happening,” Linder said. “There isn’t any simple solution that involves restricting free speech.”

The only weak part of The Star’s Tuesday package was its centerpiece photo, which showed Cleaver and other Congress members and congressional staff members observing a moment of silence in Washington.

Underneath that amorphous, four-column photo was the mug shot of the crazy-eyed Loughner. But at an inch deep and less than an inch wide, the mug shot came nowhere close to delivering the punch that it did spread high and wide across the top of The Times the same morning.

Read Full Post »

William Rockhill (starch-collared) Nelson must go

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , , on December 17, 2010| 3 Comments »

With each passing day, the Fourth Estate, as the newspaper industry has been deferentially referred to for about two centuries, is becoming less of an estate and more like common ground.

(FYI, the term seems to date to the 1700s, when there were three “estates” of Parliament — the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the House of Commons.)

Newspapers used to be the great purveyors of information. The big-city papers operated out of hulking fortresses, their minions scrambling around inside to meet deadlines and their delivery trucks spoking out for a hundred of more miles to deliver the precious product onto the lawns and to the newsstands for the waiting masses.

Some of the papers wore their hubris under their mastheads…like the Chicago Tribune, which for many years claimed the mantle of “World’s Greatest Newspaper.”  Then, there’s our own Kansas City Star, which still uses as its slogan the imperious words of founder William Rockhill Nelson: “A Paper for the People.”

(Doesn’t it just make you want to cry out, “Oh, thank you, Mr. Nelson, thank you!” ?)   

Others, like The New York Times, touted (and still do) their earnest and hard-working approach — “All the News that’s Fit to Print” — or, in the case of the Atlanta Journal, their mission — “Covers Dixie Like the Dew.” 

For outsiders — those not baptized in black ink — it was, and still is, difficult to get over the moat and into the fortresses. To peel a layer from the old saying about Las Vegas, what went on behind those walls stayed behind those walls.  

Over the years, though, and particularly in recent years as the news-gathering business has feathered and fractured with the galloping expansion of the Internet, some papers have gotten humility and have realized it’s time to descend from the stratosphere and get down to street level, where people are inhaling the exhaust fumes.

The Star, for example, has its Midwest Voices program of contributing columnists, and it also periodically invites area residents to The Star building at 18th and Grand to sit in on the editors’ afternoon news conferences to learn more about the paper’s inner operations.

Now, a Connecticut newspaper has taken things to an entirely new, egalitarian level. Peter Applebome reported in The Times on Thursday that The Register Citizen in Torrington, CT, has a sign out front inviting residents to the Newsroom Cafe for coffee and muffins.

The paper also circulates fliers around town, inviting members of the public to attend the daily 4 p.m. news conferences, where editors discuss and evaluate the stories that are in various stages of development. A sign on a newsroom wall, near the conference area, says, “Newsroom story meetings — 4 p.m. daily. Right here. Public welcome.”

Applebome says the open-arms approach reflects the paper’s commitment to the new, online-dominated journalism. John Paton, chief executive of the paper’s parent company, “has become a hero to new-media gurus,” Applebome said, “by taking a newspaper company emerging from bankruptcy and turning it into a company militantly focused on the Internet.”

The paper’s slogan says it all: “Digital first. Print last.”

Obviously, The Star and other big-city, mainstream papers are not going to be able to turn their ships around as fast as small operations like The Register Citizen. But they’d better start spinning the wheel faster, while there’s still time to salvage the evolving and weakening link between newspaper and reader.

With a few notable exceptions, like the Sulzberger family that controls a majority interest in The Times, industry leaders are no longer aristocrats. They are business people scrambling to figure out how to save an industry and what they can do to get lost readers back.

In my opinion, it’s important for newspaper editors and publishers to do whatever they can to shed the fortress, high-on-the hill image and to give the public more access to their buildings and their inner workings…within reason, of course.

The Star has taken the first baby steps, but I think it’s time for a more courageous move, one that tampers with the paper’s very origins.

Here’s my idea.

For those of you who subscribe, when you look at the bottom of the Op-Ed page, what do you see? Next to the masthead, listing the names of the top editors and executives, looms the frowning visage of William Rockhill Nelson, next to his words, “A Paper for the People.”

I say, get rid of the photo. Off with his head! That high-collared shirt, bulbous nose and icy frown send the wrong message in this day and age. The collar, the nose, the frown — they don’t make people want to buy the paper; they push people away!

I know this is a bold step. But The Star has taken bold steps before. Why, until about the early 1980s, the words “The Kansas City Star” were followed by a period on the flag (the top) of the paper. Some of you may remember. A period. Nobody understood it, but it was sacrosanct. 

Then, a publisher named Jim Hale, who had come along after a media conglomerate bought the paper in the late 1970s, decided one day to do away with the period. And so, poof, it disappeared. No one (or very few people, anyway) said a word.

The highfalutin photo of Nelson could disappear just as quickly and quietly. So could the slogan.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »