LATEST UPHEAVAL OVER EXAMINER CUTS INTO CREDIBILITY

Court testimony by publisher airs an old way of life: back-scratching

A reader recently complained about the quantity (not, thank goodness, the quality) of our coverage of the soap opera that's become San Francisco newspapers.

It's a hard story to resist, though: politicians trying to buy newspapers, politicians suing newspapers, family intrigue, movie star-related editors. Hey, I worked at the San Francisco Examiner for a dozen years – do you expect me to be silent on this topic?

If you're not current on the San Francisco situation, let's see if it can be recapped in one longish paragraph:

Hearst Corp., longtime owners of the Examiner, entered into a joint operating agreement with Chronicle Publishing Co. in the mid-'60s, with the Examiner moving to the afternoon field and the Chronicle staying in the morning arena. The deal was that ads were sold at a combination rate into both papers, and both owners pooled the costs and revenues and split the net 50-50 (editorial costs not included). Throughout the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s, Chronicle circulation grew, while Examiner circulation sank. Hearst constantly pressured Chronicle Publishing to sell out; Chronicle, owned by a family, finally lost its wherewithal to stay in publishing and decided last summer to sell. Hearst presented a pre-emptive strike bid of a reported $660 million, which was accepted. Hearst said it would offer the Examiner for sale but left out any hard assets. Nobody bit, but the local politicians cried that they wanted two papers, and with San Francisco's connections throughout all levels of government, the city, state and federal governments all agreed that a no-asset sale of the Examiner wasn't realistic. Hearst then threw in an office building and a printing plant. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, a local publishing family, the well-connected Fangs, said they would buy the Examiner in a deal that included a three-year subsidy from Hearst. This won the blessing of the government lawyers, but was followed by an antitrust suit filed by a failed mayoral candidate.

Which brings us to last week, when the trial started. First to testify was Timothy White, a longtime Hearstling who became Examiner publisher in January 1999; it's been assumed White would become the publisher of a Hearst-owned Chronicle.

Under questioning from lawyer Joseph Alioto (the same Alioto who sued the Associated Press on behalf of the owners of the digital ad transmission service AdSAT), White said that he had been willing to "horse-trade" favorable opinion pieces on San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown if Brown were to bless Hearst's purchase of the Chronicle.

Within 24 hours of the admission under oath (though White later complained that he was "tired and confused" when he made the statement), Hearst put White on an "indefinite" leave of absence and said it would investigate the matter. This move may have been to nip a newsroom revolution in the bud – both Examiner and Chronicle editorial workers were circulating petitions condemning White's apparent willingness to trade on the editorial independence of the Examiner in exchange for a favorable political view of the purchase of the Chronicle.

Sacre bleu! A publisher offering to trade opinion page coverage for political favors? Nothing like this has ever happened in American newspapering. Totally unheard of.

As the Chronicle quoted longtime Examiner writer and editorial page staffer Lynn Ludlow, "Tim White was a decent guy trying to do his job, and his job was this merger. A suspension of this kind has got to be devastating to his career."

So, White must fall on his sword. If in Hearst's investigation it's revealed that White didn't make the offer – and two of the three participants in the conversation say he didn't – it's possible White will be redeemed.

Regardless of whether you think the Examiner or Chronicle are any good as newspapers, this soap opera has got to be damaging the morale of all the workers. And how soon will either paper be any good if the workers are demoralized?

Tune in tomorrow. ...

– David M. Cole

Inside ...

• Pulitzer takes 95 percent control of St. Louis Post-Dispatch
• Analysts warn of surprises, including higher newsprint costs
• Earnings reports: Gray down; McClatchy, Times Mirror, Knight Ridder up
• FAS-FAX delivers good number; daily circulation ekes out small gain
• Help wanted: Ad buyer seeks realistic deadline
• Persons

From NEWSINC., May 8, 2000, Copyright © 2000, The Cole Group. All Rights Reserved.