In response, Olsen resigned, along with two reporters—Adam Shanks and Billy Shannon. None of them wanted to resign. All are from Hudson or nearby towns, and many gave up more prestigious jobs to work at their community newspaper and serve its more than 4,000 subscribers. Olsen started at the paper as a reporter in 2009 before leaving to work at a law firm and then the Watertown Daily Times, a paper in nearby* Watertown, NY with a circulation of over 20,000. She returned to the Register-Star late last year and, had she not resigned, this week would be her first anniversary as city editor. Shannon started as a sportswriter at the paper before taking time off to attend the Columbia Journalism School; he returned earlier this year as the crime and courts reporter. Shanks was working his first job after college.
Those who resigned are passionate about their decision, but do not begrudge those who stayed. “The reporters who stayed are excellent reporters,” said Shanks. “I’m a young guy, I’ll be okay, [but] not everyone’s in the same situation I am. Not everyone could do what I did.” What really matters to him is that “everyone signed the letter.”
The news of Casey’s firing and the resignations of Olsen, Shanks, and Shannon began to spread beyond Hudson after local blogger Sam Pratt reported the story and Romenesko picked it up. Coleman and Hyland finally responded to the incident with a statement published on the Register-Star’s website on Friday afternoon. (Other than referring to that statement, Coleman did not comment to CJR and Hyland could not be reached.) The statement is remarkably defensive. In it, Coleman and Hyland imply that Casey was trying to censor the news, writing that “when it comes to the news business, there are two types of people: those who will do anything to get something in and those who will do anything to keep it out.”
Casey said that he left out the incident not because he wanted to censor it but because he (and the rest of the newsroom) believed it was not a newsworthy incident, given that no one at the meeting reacted to it or contacted him afterwards to complain. Coleman and Hyland have an answer to that point, and it involves a series of fairly absurd hypotheticals: “if [public outcry] is what determines if something is newsworthy, then stories about Jim Crow laws may never have been reported…another reason given as to why this wasn’t news was because the initial exchange only took a few seconds. So does murder.”
More than anything, Coleman and Hyland’s statement betrays a deep disdain for their (former) reporters. Casey, not Coleman or Hyland, was the one at the meeting; unless his article is nothing more than a full transcript of it, he is going to use his news judgment to determine what parts of the meeting are most newsworthy and relevant to his audience.
So what’s next for Casey, Olsen, Shanks, and Shannon? None of them have full-time jobs lined up, though Shannon is working on a fiction piece for Kindle Singles. “We might start a local blog,” Olsen offered. It would be a natural step to take, given that the four of them have all the sources and community knowledge that comes with Hudson’s paper of record. And they all have the news judgment and journalistic integrity to be great reporters and editors.
*A reader notes that Watertown and Hudson are some 200 miles apart.
- 1
- 2
Of course the incident should have been in the story. Of course the reporter shuold have left his byline on the story. The people who resigned have taken the wrong stand on an absurd premise.
#1 Posted by jim, CJR on Mon 19 Nov 2012 at 03:18 PM
The major problem is that Casey originally disobeyed a directive from his executive editor: Next time it happens, it’s going in the story.
While we may all agree that the incident wasn't newsworthy, I'm not sure Casey was in any position to dicate newsroom policy or demanding that his byline be removed from the edited version of the article.
When you're an "at-will" employee - which I assume was the policy at the paper - your rights are pretty much limited.
#2 Posted by Mike Lange, CJR on Tue 20 Nov 2012 at 08:17 AM
I hope @Jim is trying to be facetious.
Editors rewrite and revise, but inserting out-of-context material over the objection of the reporter is not appropriate. Removing your byline is an appropriate response and should be honored, not be the basis for firing the reporter.
The written statement of the executive editor and publisher shows their lack of regard for facts and integrity, raising serious questions about why the owners of the paper have entrusted them with these roles.
One solution here was for the executive editor and publisher to put the information in an unsigned sidebar or shirttail.
A better solution would be to assign a story with context about the officials' decision to not stand during the pledge, unlike the misleading by omission insert that reporter Casey objected to.
The executive editor and publisher get paid to exercise sound judgment. In this case they showed atrocious judgment.
The Johnson family of Watertown, NY, who have a reputation as superb small town publishers upstate, have declined comment so far on the matter and on their two executives, who needlessly put at risk the reputation of the Register-Star, which in turn threatens the foundation of the family's fortune, which in turn is based on trust and integrity. The Johnson family should be pressed to deal publicly and forthrightly with this ugly insult to journalistic integrity.
#3 Posted by David Cay Johnston, CJR on Tue 20 Nov 2012 at 01:00 PM
So did the reporter ever approach the council member and ask why he declined to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance? CJR reports that another council member asked, but the meeting proceeded without incident. Without an explanation as well? I detect some artful evasion in this account.
Editor possibly just doing her job -- a) making sure a competitor doesn't beat them to what could be a bombshell story, especially if the meeting was televised and seated councilman is already talk of the town; b) ensuring her paper is accurately portraying elected officials whose statements and gestures in public meetings could poorly represent city and constituents; and possibly c) making sure newsroom is not favoring or taking sides (reporter with council member, nor city editor with reporter). As a former small-town editor, I've dealt with all those scenarios.
Of course, editor and publisher seem to have handled this situation at least as poorly as the reporter. Instead of seizing opportunity to teach news judgment and reader advocacy (and value of following employer instructions) to a pig-headed 24-year-old rookie, they now have a very ugly, very public incident. I've always said the problem with newspapers is that they're run by the people who run newspapers.
#4 Posted by Ex-hack in exile, CJR on Tue 20 Nov 2012 at 02:02 PM
But was the alderman in question a good Protestant Christian? I assume from his treasonous refusal to stand for the Pledge that he was a Dirty Hippy Liberal and thus had no flag lapel pin, but if he was also not the right sort of Christian, but belonged to one of those Heathen Cults, then obviously he should not be allowed to be an Alderman. The editors were exactly right, and the owners, of course, will support their good sense. That sort of information is essential to the voters when they consider whether the city is in good hands or not. Also, the length of each Alderman's hair, and whether or not he belongs to the dreaded order of Freemasons must be noted. I'm glad to see that New York still stands for traditional values such as this.
#5 Posted by JohnR, CJR on Tue 20 Nov 2012 at 02:07 PM
JohnR has it right. The only people who care about whether someone stands for the pledge are those offended by someone not standing for the pledge. There is no law requiring it; there is no crime in not doing it; it bears no reflection either way on the performance (or otherwise) of any job whatsoever. Reporting it as though it were news betrays a very specific bias-- that standing for the pledge is correct, and doing otherwise is wrong. That may be a common belief, but it is by no means reality.
#6 Posted by kabosht, CJR on Tue 20 Nov 2012 at 04:38 PM
There obviously is a story here, but the approach to how it should be addressed was poorly handled. The reporter should have recognised the potential but dug in his heels when the editor deployed the "I'm the boss" bludgeon. Immaturity and pigheadedness, respectively. I detect the whiff of other agendas.
#7 Posted by Frank Niering, CJR on Wed 21 Nov 2012 at 06:11 AM