You see, Sherm may be leaving because of his health issues, but that doesn't explain Mitchell's reassignment or the sacking of the GM, Allan Fleming. That's a wholesale housecleaning and it was prompted by something. So, if they weren't sacrificed on that altar, what other choices are there?
* Revenues aren't satisfactory.
* Circulation isn't satisfactory.
* The news product isn't satisfactory.
* The Internet presence isn't satisfactory.
* The image of the company isn't satisfactory.
Pick one, boys!
I find it very doubtful the Righthaven lawsuits issue played into this. Mitchell had nothing to do with that, but he did certainly participate in the Reid-bashing and could be seen as having caused many of the above-listed possibilities. Steve Stern of Stern & Co., which is the subject of one of the Righthaven lawsuits, has a different take, but I think he's engaging in some wishful thinking.
There's just a lot that's weird about all of this, most notably the fairly shoddy way Frederick, Mitchell and Fleming are treated in the R-J story that announces the changes. It opens:
The Las Vegas Review-Journal today named a new publisher to replace longtime publisher Sherman Frederick.
Huh. We didn't even know he needed replacing! The guy's been publisher for, well, we don't really know from the story. He's also a major public figure. If this was a mutually happy parting, the lead would have cast Frederick as the main character. You know, like:
Stephens Media CEO and Review-Journal publisher Sherman Frederick retired today, leaving behind a tenure [insert most important legacy, if any, here.]
The fact that Mitchell's reassignment was held to the last paragraph is just amazing and really, really insulting to him. His own newspaper now thinks of his tenure as an afterthought. And, again, there's no standard-issue biographical information on his tenure, not a thumbnail of his career or a quote about his accomplishments or even his age.
And Fleming? Not even worth a digital inch. After all this time. Awkward!
Oh, by the way, it's been pointed out to me that the comments section for the R-J story has been closed and comments already left -- some mourned Sherm and Mitch's removals -- were removed. So they don't even want the public to be able to express their support for the men who led this enterprise for all those years. That's just cold.
5 comments:
Hit enter too fast:
*Revenues aren't satisfactory.
* Circulation isn't satisfactory.
* The news product isn't satisfactory.
* The Internet presence isn't satisfactory.
* The image of the company isn't satisfactory.
I have no question or debate about these and believe they're also true with regard to the action. However, they too boil down to dollars.
"And Fleming? Not even worth a digital inch. After all this time. Awkward!"
I used to be married to him. Believe me, it's not even a digital inch.
"We didn't even know he needed replacing! The guy's been publisher for, well, we don't really know from the story."
Gee, maybe that's why they're replacing them--or at least part--they can't even hire/train people who know how to craft a decent news story properly.
We wont even get into the non-existent fact checking department...
To be fair, Eric, "fact-checking" departments are largely the province of monthly magazines. I've never worked for a newspaper that had one. Editors and copy editors can check some things, but the idea of re-confirming every piece of info is really not something that happens in the newspapers.
Never thought I'd say this but Sherm is getting something of a bum rap since he's so disconnected from day-to-day operations. Responsibility for the stale news product and good-old-boy cronyism that characterize the R-J is a buck that stops at Mitchell's desk -- yet he's the only one being kept on in any sort of meaningful capacity (to whatever extent you consider the R-J editorial page "meaningful").
David McKee
Post a Comment