Exclusively Lame

This morning's Republic breathlessly labeled its lead story "Republic Exclusive."  Sometimes stories are "exclusive" because they are "scoops"...no one else has them.  You know, like Watergate.  Sometimes however, stories are "exclusive" because they are "lame"...no one else wants them.  Like this one. 

The top two leaders at Goodwill Industries of Central Arizona resigned Tuesday amid an investigation of conflict-of-interest allegations stemming from their romantic relationship.

Now, I've certainly heard of Goodwill Industries on account of that's where I get my suits, but it's a pretty obscure organization.  The story would be interesting if it involved one of Arizona's most prominent companies or if the two top executives were missing with the money.  But that's not the case.  So Dennis Wagner can't play the fame or fraud angle.

How about the hypocrisy angle?  Indeed, it would be interesting if the guy involved was a big Arizona executive or religious leader with a wife and couple kids and he ran off to Vegas with some 22 year old from the book keeping department.  But that's not the case.

Desperate for a hook to make the story actually sound like news, Wagner grasps at this straw.

The controversy at Goodwill Industries is similar to turmoil at the national American Red Cross, where President Mark Everson was ousted last week because of a "personal relationship" with a female subordinate.

In that case, according to Associated Press reports, the charity announced that Everson was forced to resign because his conduct "diminished his ability to lead the organization in the future."

Ahh, so he's trying for the "ethical lapse/hypocrisy angle."

Sure, this controversy is "similar" to the national story about the guy with a wife and two kids who got fired because he had an affair with a subordinate....except for the fact that the couple from Goodwill are SINGLE, announced their engagement, are both high level executives and resigned on their own.  Other than that they are "similar."

In fact, here's how the Chair of Goodwill's Board described the departure. 

They voluntarily resigned," Gordon said of Mason and Hanson. "We're just really pleased with their professionalism and the contributions they've made to Goodwill over the years."

Gordon explained the board's concern.

They decided to re-evaluate, even though Mason and Hanson had committed no wrongdoing or ethical breach.

So the "Republic Exclusive" boils down to two highly-qualified single and successful executives who have done an excellent job running a charitable organization announcing their engagement and then resigning because some members of the board think it would be a conflict if they continued to work together.  And some editor decided that story should be A 1 above the fold and labeled "Republic Exclusive" in the state's largest newspaper.  How embarrassing. 

Golly, instead of trashing these two with a breathless hit piece, maybe Dennis Wagner should have done what any decent human being would have done...sent them a nice congratulations note and asked where they are registered.   

Comments

[ron]

When you can't make a living being a 'real' newspaper; you lower your standards and become a tabloid.

I am not sure even this story would have made the New Times - well, then again, maybe in August when everybody who is anybody has turned into a Zonie.

[Mesa Econoguy]

They were going for a United Way-type nonprofit scandal (many years back), and failed miserably.

Pathetic.

[John]

I assume the Republic finds most heterosexual relationships scandalous?

[SonoranSam]

I'll reluctantly agree that the Republic over-played the story by playing as a page-one lede.

Did they over-play it? That's a matter of judgment and taste. I read it, and was underwhelmed by its importance. On the other hand, it was made AZCentral's list of most-read stories, which indicates something.

Interesting point. The Atlantic Monthly ran a story a month or so ago in which they studied the front-page choices of several major newspapers and compared them with the "hits" on their websites. Readers uniformly disagreed with the front-page decisions.

Anyone who has been part of of the daily story meeting at a newspaper will tell you that decisions about what goes on the front page are often heated, and sometimes even rancorous. I was told to shut the hell up a couple of times when I was part of such meetings.

But the bottom line is it's a crap shoot, and no one knows the right answer - until the marketplace (the readership) decides.

[DGN]

Sam, c'mon....

You're saying that since a lot of people read the story, that validates it's newsworthiness? If that was true, the National Enquirer would set the standard for journalism.

I read the story too, only to find there was no "there" there. It was meaningless piffle. Just because it had a lot of website hits doesn't mean many of those readers didn't have the same reaction.

This smacks of a newspaper scrambling to remain relevant by puffing up a potential conflict of interest at a well-known, respected local charity and making it look like a scandal. Since both the parties involved resigned BEFORE any conflict could exist, there is basically no story. But that didn't stop the Republic from trying to relive the glory days when they really could break scandal news on A1.

Of course, if I worked for a newspaper these days, I'd probably grasp at straws too. Too bad that two apparently honorable people got their reputations tarnished for no good reason.

[SonoranSam]

DGN:

That's exactly what I'm saying. In journalism school they tie themselves into pretzel-like knots trying to define news.

But the most accurate definition comes from William Randolph Hearst: "News is what I say it is!"

And that's the reality. News is defined by a small group of people you'll never meet who sit in meetings and pontificate about what people care about.

I know that feeds into the "liberal left-wing bias" obsession of the Right, but the truth is the truth.

In the final analysis, news is what people want to know - and that's why TV news lives off live chases, fires and car crashes, newspapers live off multi-legged cows and drugged-out starlets who shave their head.

Me, like most of the people who post here, I want to know what the Legislature City Council and board of stupidvisors is doing. But we're a minority.

[James A. Bretney]

It's about time. A-Ok E-Pundit!

[DGN]

Well, Sam...

You don't know me from Adam's housecat but I can tell you that I was a reporter for about 8 years in Phoenix. I've been out of the biz for a long time now, but I do know how it works.

I'm not bragging or being critical of you, just establishing some bona fides.

You're mostly right that some news is decided in newspaper "budget" meetings where they decide what they want to print and what doesn't make the cut.

Broadcasters do the same thing, especially in TV. Radio is more seat of the pants. But much of what broadcast news covers is set by rapid events of the day (fires, car wrecks, general mayhem, etc.) I can't disagree with you there.

But where you and I would part company is on a story like the Goodwill piece.

Nobody outside of the Republic and a few staff at Goodwill knew or cared about this situation. And apparently, the leadership of Goodwill is satisfied with the outcome and is not pursuing any legal action one would expect if laws or rules had been violated.

So your argument that news is what people want to know - if taken as valid - argues AGAINST this story being news. Most people could not have "wanted to know" this because they were unaware of it. In fact, most people are unaware of the news before it happens, thus making it news. Your definition is a non-sequiter.

The ONLY people who thought it was newsworthy were the editors at the Republic. They are not gods and they can be in error on news judgement. In this case, in my opinion, they clearly overestimated the news value of this story.

Proof (or at least strong anecdotal evidence) of this is the fact that outside of this particular blog, the story has goteen precisely ZERO traction. There has been no follow-up in the paper, no groundswell of public outcry in the form of protests at Goodwill stores, no significant dicsussion on talk radio or even around my water cooler.

I'm not claiming liberal bias here. Having worked in several local newsrooms, albeit some time ago, I know there are actually some fair-minded, independent reporters in radio, TV and the papers. I also know there are some folks who are not as fair-minded. Such is life.

But the issue with the Goodwill story is not liberal vs. conservative, because frankly, I have no idea if the Goodwill execuitves are flaming Trotsky-ites or Reagan Republicans. It's irrelevant. They were smeared and darn near libeled by a newspaper that is gasping to be as relevant as it was in 1965, or 1975, or heck, even 2005.