Big Changes at the Times-Dispatch

The Richmond Times-Dispatch is making big changes at its newsroom, and a lot of people are unhappy about it. Unfortunately for the T-D, Style Magazine, the Richmond weekly that has taken delight for years in tormenting the city’s dominant media player, has taken the lead in covering the story. Not surprisingly, the slant has been mainly negative.

A new era started at the Times-Dispatch when Tom Silvestri, a former business editor who was promoted through the ranks at Media General, took over as publisher. Silvestri immediately put his imprint on the newspaper by overhauling the editorial/opinion page to give more prominence to state and local issues (see “RT-D Battles to Stay Relevant“). About a year ago, he also hired ex-Marine Glenn Proctor to replace retiring Executive Editor Bill Millsaps (see “Who Will Gather the News? A New Force in Richmond“).

Things percolated quietly for a while without any dramatic changes. Then Greg Weatherford wrote a cover story in the July 12-18 issue of Style about the “uncomfortable silence at the Richmond Times-Dispatch” (see “Truth and Consequences“). Weatherford picked up on the fact that Proctor was blunt, even harsh, in his critique of the T-D’s news product, that management had instituted a gag order on reporters, and that Silvestri had refused to be interviewed for the article, but he offered little context to suggest why management was doing what it was doing.

Since then, the resignation of Managing Editorial Louise Seals (see “Was T-D Exec Forced Out?”) and the abrupt termination of long-time free-lance columnist Randy Fitzgerald was more grist for the rumor mill. But the outside critics are missing the bigger story: Silvestri and Proctor obviously are trying to raise editorial standards at the newspaper. And that entails some house cleaning.

Although the T-D has a number of excellent writers and reporters, the newspaper has a reputation, even in its home town, of mediocrity. Style Magazine can take pleasure at poking its big, bad rival, as one would expect a spunky, competitive tabloid to do, but I’m sympathetic to Silvestri — and that’s not just because he was my boss when I was publisher of Virginia Business. He’s trying to change the culture of the T-D newsroom. That’s hard enough in any organization, even harder in an organization of journalists who all regard themselves as independent thinkers, and downright daunting in an environment in which stagnant ad revenues translate into constant cost-cutting pressure.

If I were in Silvestri’s place, I wouldn’t have talked to Style Magazine either. It was a no-win proposition. After years of negative stories from Style, he had no reason to expect that the magazine would treat the newspaper any differently than in the past. As for the gag order on the news staff, admittedly, it does seem a bit hypocritical: Journalists are big proponents of transparency for others. But looking at the situation from Silvestri’s perspective, I can’t blame him. It would be highly detrimental to allow malcontents to carry on their battle with management in the pages of Style. No other CEO would tolerate it, and there’s no reason for Silvestri to do so either.

I have a lot of old friends in the T-D newsroom, and I don’t want to see them treated shabbily. But as a regular reader of the Times-Dispatch, I want to see higher editorial standards. I want to see Silvestri and Proctor succeed. I hope they can pull off their changes without trashing newsroom morale.

Update: Jason Roop, Editor of Style, gives a spirited defense of the weekly’s coverage of the Times-Dispatch in the comments section of this post.

Update II: Editor & Publisher weighs in on the resignation of Managing Editor Louise Seals and the dropping of Randy Fitzgerald’s column.


ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)




Comments


Comments

17 responses to “Big Changes at the Times-Dispatch”

  1. Becky Dale Avatar
    Becky Dale

    Fitzgerald was treated shabbily–there was no reason for the T-D to have axed his final column. The only thing apparently objectionable is the part where he says he was being dropped. But he is being dropped. Since that’s what’s happening, it’s only fair to tell readers that’s why his column isn’t appearing any more.

    T-D’s credibility is at stake here, and that’s vitally important. Readers deserve the truth, whatever the truth happens to be. T-D did not give it by censoring Fitzgerald’s column. If indeed the T-D has imposed a gag rule on reporters, the T-D is impeding truth. Let reporters and employees speak; if there are errors in what they say, point them out, don’t muzzle the speakers. The correction for error is more speech.

  2. Speaking of credibility, the Times Disgrace is STILL less than forthcoming in its corporate role with the Viringia Performing Arts Center fiasco. Seals was part of this ‘culture’ also. Lack of disclaimers, lack of policy, lack of bias continues to sink the TD. Mackenzie is going to write opera editorials right up to his retirement.

    And where were you, Jim?
    You came off sounding like a VaPAF apologist. So much for Virginia conservativism.

  3. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Scott, I don’t know where you got the idea that I was a VaPAF apologist. I thought the idea of a performing arts center had certain merits, but I also had reservations. I refer you to my one column on the topic: Alms for the Arts.”

  4. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Becky, I have to disagree with you on the idea of “muzzling” reporters. Changing a corporate culture as intense as that of a newsroom is a very difficult job. There are appropriate places to discuss those changes, and if Silvestri and Proctor are doing their job properly, they are listening to what their editors and reporters have to say. Likewise, if reporters have something to say, they should say it directly to their bosses, not have it filtered by a third party.

    Nothing good can come out of a dialogue that plays out in the pages of a rival publication, especially one with a history of casting its T-D stories in a negative light. Trust me, such stories generate only animosity and misunderstanding.

  5. How old is that column? This thing is still going on. Yeah, Wilder has his committee, but the VaPAF is still skulking around. Where’s the outrage? We know we cannot count on the TD to cover it properly. Where’s the Rebellion, Bacon?

    Btw, sorry if my previous post was confusing. I mean to say bias, not lack of bias, and disclosure, not disclaimer.

  6. Will Vehrs Avatar
    Will Vehrs

    Jim, I’m more at home with Becky’s viewpoint than yours. Silvestri didn’t have to do the full monty with Style, but he could have issued a statement with more information than the brush-off he gave.

    If a guy has a vision, he ought to share it. If the “visioning” is still in progress, say so.

    What would be wrong with, “My door is always open at the RT-D for reporters and employees who have questions or concerns about rumors of possible changes. I will not share any information about our internal organization before I have discussed it fully and completely with employees.” Of course, that would presuppose that the door is open and employees trust management to level with them.

  7. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Hi, Will, Glad to see that you’re visiting the Rebellion — even better to see a comment!

    The approach you outline is the one that the T-D should take. Let me make it clear: I’m not defending the handling of every situation by the T-D top brass. I’m just saying that management has a very tough job ahead of it in changing the culture of the newsroom, and that letting the task play itself out in the pages of Style is not a good idea.

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    So Jim,

    Have you given any thought to updating your original piece to take into context all of the data that has been unearthed after July 2004?

    I.E.

    1.) The bankrupting of the Carpenter Center Endowment

    2.) The squandering of $20 Million with the “hole in the ground” to show for it.

    3.) The fact that the cost projection of the Talheimer’s block now is comparative with the total original cost.

    4.) The curious hire of Michelle Walters by the AMS consulting group.

    5.) The irony of having “Raised” $70 million, yet having only $1.5 million in a bank account payable in US funds.

    Shall I keep going?

    Now, the current proposal by the mayor has the city committing MORE funds than was originally planned and receving 1/4 of the original center.

    And the silence was deafening….

  9. Will Vehrs Avatar
    Will Vehrs

    Jim, I check BR daily, I just don’t always have time to comment!

    Looks like you’ve got a good performing arts center battle going, so I’ll say that we’re closer than I thought. These reorganizations are tough on all concerned and it’s hard to take an approach that pleases everybody.

  10. Jason Roop Avatar
    Jason Roop

    Jim,

    As the editor of Style Weekly, I am bewildered by your comments about Style Weekly’s “years of negative stories” and “slanted” coverage of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. I wonder if you are willing to back up your statement? I doubt you can.

    Perhaps you are referring to our cover story on Pulitzer finalist Mark Holmberg (written by Lisa Antonelli Bacon)? Our recent placement of Mr. Morton, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Silvestri and Mr. Proctor on our 2006 Power List? Our coverage of the disputes between the T-D union and management? Our book reviews of Times-Dispatch writers? Our breaking the news about the T-D’s alternative weekly project?

    Sure, there may be pokes at the daily. But they’re typically in small, humorous contexts. We are the alternative weekly, after all. When it comes to news stories about the Times-Dispatch, however, we print truthful, accurate information that is fair to the daily. If we err in that story — as the T-D has sometimes erred in coverage of Style Weekly (not to mention plagiarize, as in its Velatis Candy story) — we will print a timely correction.

    As Greg Weatherford — a widely respected journalist — noted in his cover story, “Truth and Consequences,” the Times-Dispatch is an important institution. The entire community has a stake in what and how it covers the area. It is the largest newsgathering organization here. Put simply, it is newsworthy. That’s why we choose to cover significant changes there — not because it is a competitor.

    It’s certainly the right of Mr. Silvestri or Mr. Proctor (or a promotion manager) to decline an interview with us. Still, I’ll always remember the attitude shown to me by J. Stewart Bryan III in my interviews with him (including one for a cover story I wrote for Inside Business). That was, How could he possibly refuse to speak with me when his own organization is in the very same business? He always took the time to talk.

    But just because Greg wasn’t granted interviews, he shouldn’t have stopped trying to get the story. And he didn’t. Nor should he eliminate those executives’ voices from the story. As you should have read, Greg went out of his way to include their points of view (as well as the behind-the-scenes efforts to ask them for interviews), as well as some hopeful words by T-D staffers about the need for change. As for business context, he expounded in 4,700 words on why management might be making changes, along with the “daunting” environment of daily newspapers and corporate interests — much more than the few words you grant the subject here.

    It would be foolish to consider those Times-Dispatch reporters who spoke with Style Weekly to be “malcontents.” Some of them are worried about the paper they love, or long for positive leadership amidst the change. Some of them are among the Times-Dispatch’s best. You express worries about morale, yet I wonder what your newsroom friends think of the way Louise Seals was treated after her decades of service. Sure, there may have been a need for change. But what about her two-day absence from the newsroom, with no explanation? Or her awkward return Monday, with Mr. Proctor closely watching, as she walked from desk to desk to say goodbye? I guess there will be no time for a toast, or for a retirement cake in the break room. Oh well. She was only there 38 years.

    Perhaps I can share with you some of the similar Editor & Publisher stories on the changes at the Times-Dispatch. Or the numerous, grateful e-mails from Times-Dispatch employees who have thanked Style Weekly for its coverage.

    Jason Roop

  11. saywhat?? Avatar
    saywhat??

    Let’s say I am a rare gem: A young, bright reporter with integrity who wants to work for a newspaper and would thrive in the improved newsroom the T-D is trying to create. Would I go work there? Not in a million years. They sound like jerks who can’t be bothered with common courtesy.

    Style’s pieces have been wonderful. Thank you, Jason Roop and Greg Weatherford.

  12. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Jason, I agree totally that the Richmond Times-Dispatch is a critically important institution in the Richmond region, and I applaud Style Magazine for its coverage of the newspaper. Someone has to do it. One can hardly expect the newspaper to provide objective coverage of itself.

    On the other hand, despite occasional positive coverage — a profile of an individual journalist, Mark Holmberg, and acknowledgement of the fact that key newspaper executives rank among the city’s movers and shakers — I have found that Style tends to select storylines about the T-D that portray management in a negative light. That’s not a sin — no one expects Style to lavish praise upon its competitor. Just acknowledge the obvious.

    Greg Weatherford’s article was entertaining and, in places, informative. But any story that devoted its lead, and so many column inches to a lengthy exposition of Tom Silvestri’s “no comment,” can hardly be called fair. While Weatherford acknowledged difficulties facing the newspaper industry today — deep in the story — the main thrust was to put management on the defensive.

    I am not defending management’s actions, of which I have no first-hand knowledge. But I do think context is important. And the context missing from Weatherford’s story is the need, in an era of declining newspaper circulation, to transform a newsroom culture of entitlement. In the 1960s, 70s and 80s, newspapers were so profitable that newsrooms were insulated from economic pressures, and journalists developed a set of expectations that may no longer be appropriate. Newspapers need to publish what readers want to read, not what reporters want to write. Management needs to reallocate resources from one area of coverage to another, and to squeeze more productivity out its news staffs, just as it squeezes more productivity of its production, sales and administrative staffs.

    As a former reporter at two different newspapers (neither one the T-D), I know full well how resistant reporters are to change, how they resent the intrusion of business considerations into the newsroom, and how much time they spend bellyaching. That doesn’t make Silvestri/Proctor right and the reporters wrong. But it’s a perspective that was lacking, or addressed only tangentially, in Weatherford’s story.

  13. Jason Roop Avatar
    Jason Roop

    Jim,

    Thank you for that. I still take offense to your portrayal of our paper as running “years of negative stories” about the Times-Dispatch without offering any backup. Now you’ve changed that to “select[ing] storylines” that portray management in a negative light. Still confused here.

    Maybe you mean conflict between management and reporters? Exploring issues of media ethics? Missteps? That’s called news. And of course, as I’ve mentioned earlier, we’ve also devoted space to what you might call “positive” coverage, including the laudable efforts of a Times-Dispatch writer and photojournalist in their coverage of Iraq (not to mention my other examples).

    Did Greg Weatherford put Mr. Silvestri on the defensive? Well, I guess you could interpret it that way, if you think calling a publisher and editor to ask for an interview about changes in their newspaper — one that they’ve vowed to make more open and accountable to the public — is going on the offense. I know our publisher doesn’t take calls from outside media in such a manner. Mr. Silvestri and Mr. Proctor could have easily shared their vision — however they wanted to illustrate it — of where they are taking the Times-Dispatch. They would have found an interested audience.

    As for where the T-D is going, I guess we’ll have to wait and see!

    Jason

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Thank goodness for STYLE WEEKLY and shame on BACON’S for insinuating that journalists should be held to a different standard than the one they hold for others every single day. I realize that BR is not journalism in the classic sense, but (to quote the article) “What are you so afraid of?”

    As for the product that is being replaced, in no way can anyone say that readers and the general public are being better served today, under these new guidelines at the RTD. Investigative reporting and critical thinking seem to be going out the window there. And fast.

    One of those ignored stories is Richmond’s arts center. People would have no idea of the disturbing things currently happening with that project if they didn’t read national online magazines such as Arts Journal. The BACON’s bloggers have joined Richmond’s daily paper and totally dogged the arts center story. And continue to dog it. You run all of this anti-tax stuff “yada-yada-yada” and yet you have featured no commentary at all on one of the state’s biggest ongoing scandals involving resources, money and special interest lobbying. You failed to write about it even when your favorite punching bag Timothy Kaine made sure the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation got their special state tax money (based on… performance?). You were silent even then. And we heard nothing from Bacon’s when it was discovered that George Allen (remember: he’s supposed to be for fiscal responsibility) tried to earmark $300,000 in Federal money for the project but neglected to want to disclose that fact to voters.

    There have been quite a few damning revelations about the project since Bacon’s profiled the arts center more than two years ago. The list of items mentioned by a previous reader is only a small part of it. So where’s the coverage?

    In the end, if you are in the information business, you can’t expect people not to notice your sacred cows and to ask about them. Unlike those corporate entities in other professions, you are obligated to answer if only to avoid looking like a real hypocrite and to retain any credibility at all.

  15. I’m new here, so forgive me if this question has been address before, but the phrase about how reporters “resent the intrusion of business considerations into the newsroom” leapt out at me. Holy Moly, when did ‘business considerations’ EVER have a proper place in the newsroom ????
    Having worked for Media General in another market in the business end of things, I am quite aware of the intense demands for a major daily to stay both competitive and profitable. That being said, the one place where the business nose of the paper does not belong is in the newsroom.
    Yes, reporters grouse -if there were an Olympics for Grousing, reporters would sweep gold, silver and bronze. But if we, the readers, cannot place our confidence in the integrity, talent, and dedication of the reporters, then the daily newspaper is in far deeper trouble than having to deal with unsettled employees.
    Print journalism is where I turn first to get the facts and background on the news. TV news is pathetic – where’s Walter Cronkite when you need him?
    RTD is mediocre, but there are some very fine writers there. I look to the leadership to set the tone; is the paper going to provide quality journalism or serve as a mouthpiece for a very large for-profit corporation? They can’t have it both ways.

  16. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Newbie1, When I say “business considerations” I am not referring to the age-old intrusion of advertising into the newsroom. I support the “Chinese Wall” that buffers reporters from altering stories that might offend advertisers or buddies of the publisher. I don’t sense that’s an issue in the T-D.

    By “business considerations” I am referring to the erosion of readership, young people especially. If you can’t maintain readership, you won’t have a product in 10 to 20 years. Maintaining readership may entail changing the definition of what constitutes news. I am an old-timer journalist who values hard news and investigative reporting and disdains fluff. So do most journalists. But what if “fluff” is what readers want? What if readers want to read about American Idol, and Elliot Yamin, and Elliot Yamin’s mother, and what Elliot Yamin’s mother had for lunch two days ago, and whether she put mustard or mayonnaise on her sandwich? What if their eyes glaze over at a potentially award-winning but boring investigation into a local government financing scandal? Should the T-D give readers what they want, or what reporters want to write?

    Newspaper managers want readers. Reporters want journalism awards. When readership and revenues are stagnant, there’s a conflict. That is the ultimate business consideration.

  17. Jim, thanks for clarifying. We really are talking about the same elements. I still expect a newspaper to deliver the news. If I want to learn about Elliott Y., I’ll tune into Entertainment Tonight, or look for stuff about him in the local pages covering the arts, entertainment, etc. Seeing him on the front page makes me sigh – an article spotlighting his win, yes, that I would consider newsworthy – local boy makes good. The rest of it may be readable, but it’s not news.
    As for giving the target demographic reading audience what they are perceived as wanting, versus what the reporters want to write, brings to mind the quandry of modern parents – just because your child, who depends on you to provide nutrition, craves junk food – sees it everywhere, reaches for it first, doesn’t mean the parent should stuff the kid full of empty calories because it is less stressful for the parent and placates the child. I submit that abdicating responsibility and settling for the lowest common denominator is not good policy for a newspaper or a parent.
    I work with the target age group every day, and I am constantly surprised at how open they are to learning about the world around them and about their communities.They care; they ARE interested. Back in the days when “who, what, when, where and why” was a gospel verse for reporters, reading the news shaped how I thought, and made me ponder and ask questions about things I didn’t know very much about. I don’t think people have changed that much.
    One of the things that I have noticed, and has bothered me in reading the RTD, is that too often a reporter and/or editor assumes that his reader knows the background on a story being covered, so omits pertinent information in the article.
    If you want to attract and maintain new readership, give ’em enough of the basic facts to allow them to put the story in context. Too many times the articles tend to float out there unanchored, and I have found myself shaking my head at the end, feeling like I missed an important piece of the puzzle.
    Why did the bear stories get read? Some of it had to do with the fact that there was resonance for so many people, because seeing them had been part of their personal experience living in this area. For newcomers to Richmond, I wonder how many of them would have liked to know some basic facts, such as where Maymount is located, even in general terms, e.g. along the north bank of the James River in the western part of the city. The same generation that wants things fast, is not going to pause and take the time to look up this stuff in another source – they’ll just skip the article. Seems like a vicious circle to me.
    That’s my 2 cents, for what it’s worth.

Leave a Reply


ADVERTISEMENT