IS STARK COUNTY IN DANGER OF LOSING ITS ONLY "COUNTYWIDE" NEWSPAPER?

A little over five years ago (April 11, 2007) The Canton Repository was purchased by GateHouse Media, Inc.

Preparatory to the sale by pre-GateHouse owner Copley News, Repository publisher David Greenfield was instructed to let managing editor Michael Hanke go (despite his very able performance over a 35 year employment run) in order to reduce the newspaper's "expense base," per the recommendation of the investment banker involved in the sale. (source:  He Has Covered Both Sides, New York Times, Michael Winerip, March 20, 2009)

Consequently, Hanke (who went on to become [2007] and continues to serve as Stark County's chief administrator) never had to work for GateHouse Media, Inc. (GateHouse).

GateHouse stock was at about $23.00 a share at The Repository purchase date.  As yours truly writes this blog, it stands at $0.06. 

It is likely now that Hanke is grateful Greenfield let him go effective December 31, 2006, given the financial hard times that GateHouse has been experiencing since shortly after its Rep purchase.

At the time, it had to be extremely trying to Hanke because he had had many good years at The Rep and he left with fond memories of his time there.

Unsurprisingly, (in light of its common stock plummet) on April 2, 2012, an article appearing on "theday.com." contains this excerpt from GateHouse's annual report (facing an outstanding debt due date of of more than $1 billion in 2014), to wit:

There can be no assurance that our business will generate cash flow from operations or that future borrowings will be available to us in amounts sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness.    If we are unable to repay our indebtedness at maturity we may be forced to liquidate or reorganize our operations and business under the federal bankruptcy laws. (emphasis added)

Even if GateHouse is forced into bankruptcy, one has to believe that The Repository (begun in 1815) will find a way to continue to serve Stark County in some way, shape or form.

However, nothing in life is a sure thing.

There are problems (labor/management tension) at The Repository these days in addition to the overall financial struggle that its parent company is going through that gives pause for thought.

So the SCPR believes that Stark Countians should be concerned about the continued viability of the nearly 200 year old "institution."

There has been a tug-of-war going on between the  Northeast Ohio Newspaper Guild-CWA Local 1 (the union for non-management employees) and the management at GateHouse for some time.

The union represents about 180 non-management Repository employees and the Canton aspect of the union effort is headed up by reporters Tim Botos and Edd Pritchard.

A Facebook page "Save The Repository" (LINK) shows a history of dispute over the management's desire to have the right to outsource Canton-based (The Repository), Massillon-based (The Massillon Independent) and New Philadelphia (The Times-Reporter) going back at least into 2011.

Recently, things have heated up.

The Report is told that while huge numbers of local jobs are not thought to be at stake presently, the fear is that the drive for outsourcing will prove to be a "slippery slope" that will eventually threaten many more of the jobs currently in place.  Perhaps, in time, even reaching into the reporter pool.

This past Monday Newspaper Guild members conducted an informational picketing demonstration in front of The Repository's building located at 500 Market Avenue, South.

The Report hears that another demonstration is scheduled for Friday, May 4th (Canton's First Friday) in front of the Newspaper Guild headquarters located at 203 Market Avenue, South in Canton.

Moreover, a community rally is said to be in the works for May 24th from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.  No word on location of the rally.

While the outsourcing seems to be the main issue, the SCPR is told that Repository non-management employees have not received any raises for some four years.

The lack of raises has to be particularly galling given the following excerpt from Media Nation:

One source suggested to yours truly that ever since GateHouse has taken over, it has been doing so on the cheap.  The source doubted that departed executive editor Jeff Gauger (August, 2007 through March 2, 2012) was making anywhere near the money that his predecessor David Kaminski (now with the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce) made.

The question:  Did GateHouse's frugality and/or its dire financial condition have anything to do with Gauger's departure?

It will be interesting to see whether or not GateHouse replaces Gauger.  Managing Editor Don Detore was appointed this past February as interim executive director.

While yours truly has never been enamored of The Repository, there is no doubt that Stark County needs a countywide daily newspaper.  So whatever happens to GateHouse, Stark Countians should be rooting for an enduring Canton Repository.

Just a much better one than we have known in the recent past!

HOW MUCH LONGER WILL "THE REPOSITORY" HAVE A PRINT EDITION? DOES ITS INADEQUATE "FRUSTACI INVESTIGATIVE COVERAGE" TELL A STORY ABOUT THE REP'S INTERNAL WEAKNESS?

A reader of the Stark County Political Report points out a striking thing about the investigation of Vince Frustaci and his theft of millions from the Stark County treasury.

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly as a Stark County citizen has no confidence whatsoever in the Stark County prosecutor's office.  The only remedy for Stark Countians on that front is to replace Prosecutor John Ferrero in the November, 2012 elections.

Stark Countians have to cross their fingers and hope that Stark County Republican chairman Jeff Matthews will get off his duff and provide county voters with a choice in the 2012 elections.  Matthews gave Ferrero a pass in 2008 as he did Stark County treasurer Gary Zeigler.

With The Repository, Stark Countians have no choice - at least, in the sense of the print media.  The Rep is Stark County's only countywide print medium.  The Repository in tandem with The Independent (Massillon) have a monopoly of print edition news and opinion and Stark Countians suffer .

Only The Alliance Review, in its print edition,  give Stark Countians any chance at all at a different look at, a different approach to, reporting on and investigating critical matters of government and in the private sector that affect all of us.

While the focus of this blog is the future of The Rep's print edition, the same investigative deficiencies are present in its online edition.

The SCPR is told by a person in a position to know that the purchase in recent years of The Repository by GateHouse Media was a serious blow to The Rep's ability to be a newspaper in the sense we have known newspapers over the years.  It is said that GateHouse Media is an organization of bankers who know very little about how to effectively put out newspapers worth reading.

These banker-esque types apparently worry more about how many paper clips and reporter's notepads are being used than having a commitment to build and maintain newspapers with superlative investigative capacity, inclination and production.

The SCPR has learned that it seems that The Rep's primary product these days is its online edition; not the print edition.  High management at The Rep is telling that message to local staff.

Across the nation last year, the nations' newspapers as a generality lost 8% of their readership.  There is no indication that the bleeding will be stopping short of the death of many, many print editions over the breadth of America.  And The Repository seems to be on that track.

New generations of Americans are firmly locked into electronics and reading anything in print will become a rare phenomenon indeed in short order.

The SCPR believes in a few short years there will be no print edition of The Canton Repository and The Massillon Independent because of the shift in the reading/viewing habits of Stark Countians.

Moving into the cyberspace, The Repository et al will and, in fact, do have competition.

The question is this:  Will the likes of The Rep be able to recover the investigative side of journalism in the much lower cost online journalism?

With the dramatic lowering of cost, that factor will no longer be an excuse for online newspapers not getting back to investigative journalism in a big, big way.

Right now The Rep, (both specifically and as generally representing mainline local medias), is saddled with an ownership that appears to be uninterested in investigation and with being in bed with the local political and governmental establishment.

Consequently, The Repository is not trusted by much of the reading public (print or online) to get to the heart of a matter, thoroughly vet it, and report with "no holds barred" to the Stark County public.

Unless and until The Repository sheds these barriers, it will not make any difference whatsoever that it is fully online with its concomitant huge savings in the cost of the product produced.

Coming full circle, the SCPR reader and his castigation of The Repository for not thoroughly vetting the Frustaci/Cutshall letters, he is making a compelling point in terms of "unanswered" questions.

The SCPR does not buy the point of view that The Repository does not have the resources to do investigative journalism.   Rather, it is apparent to The Report that a internal policy decision (likely encouraged if not mandated by GateHouse) has been made to abandon meaningful investigation as a part of The Rep's journalistic model and accordingly begs the question:

Why would Stark Countians trust The Repository to be a beacon of light ferreting out Stark County government corruption, be it a print and online press medium or online only?

STARK COUNTY TREASURER GARY ZEIGLER SUES "THE REPOSITORY" (VIA ITS PARENT COMPANY): THE SCPR'S TAKE ON THE "HEART OF THE COMPLAINT?' ("HEART" AS IN THE OPINION OF THE SCPR)

 UPDATED:  12:10 PM 04/03/2010


/

From:

...

"JLR" ...

...

To:

tramols@att.net

JLR has left a new comment on your post "STARK COUNTY TREASURER GARY ZEIGLER SUES "THE REPO...":


I'm surprised that Mr. Olson chose to focus only on the portion of the complaint that relates to readers' comments. According to the Canton Rep, Mr. Zeigler is also complaining about the content of the articles written on the subject. These have been more than fair to him in my opinion. He objects to anyone alleging he was derelict in his duties in allowing possibly large sums of money to be embezzled under his watch. He feels his responsibility was limited to reporting after the fact, not having safeguards in place to prevent the theft. The Rep even printed a submission explaining why technically that might be true. If the citizens don't buy it, that's not the editor's fault.


There seems to be a pattern of using the legal process to intimidate critics that is more disturbing and dangerous than anything the Repository has done. The Devies' case, the filing of a disciplinary complaint by John Ferrero against Mr. Olson and now this. If the findings of the investigation are to be reported soon, this may be a way to deter anyone from suggesting Mr. Zeigler resign. I think the emphasis should be on the politicians' attempt to control information.

UPDATED  7:20 AM 04/03/2010

From:

...

"mary"...

...

To:

tramols@att.net

mary has left a new comment on your post "STARK COUNTY TREASURER GARY ZEIGLER SUES "THE REPO...":

Many of us, especially ones who are often, the victim of harassment, vindictiveness, racism, slander and even more, while not politicians, or office holders, have asked, just about begged Jeff to get a grip on his comment section, to no avail.

I never could understand why, he would want what was at one time, a 'comfortable' place to go and express your opinion on a political stance, a candidate, the State of the Nation, or whatever, to become what it is today. A place for people to go and dump on someone they dislike.

Have more people started commenting under his leadership? Oh yea. They could now, come on, make personal attacks on the comment and the commenter.

Mike Hanke had no problem keeping people in check. He along with Jim Hillibish, ran a pretty tight ship, which I complained about back then. I couldn't really see the need for some of their rules, until he left, and I saw, and was sort of a victim of the maliciousness that became, and remains until this day, the norm once on comments. Mr. Gauger allowed commentors to get out of control. Once it had gone so far, it was hard to lasso it back in. A little lecture here and there about us acting like pre-schoolers, just wasn't enough. People who were kicked off by Hanke, for very legitimate reasons, were knowingly allowed back on, and were even more malicious and vindictive than they were when they were booted off. They knew they could get away with murder now, and they did all but commit it. The only thing they're going to kill though is his newspaper.

Jeff's a likable guy, and I think that's part of the problem. He wants to be liked, or at least think he is. People weren't crazy about Mike, but at least the paper wasn't getting sued because of the comment section under his management. 

ORIGINAL POST


Revised at 3:18 P.M. 04/02/2010

The SCPR commentary is as a journalist and not as an attorney.

On reading the complaint filed by Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler versus The Repository (in the name of parent company GateHouse Media, Inc.), the SCPR's take on the lawsuit is that the core of the complaint is that The Rep fails to screen the commenters' comments so as to excise totally unsupported assertions.

It appears to The Report from the numerous editorials he has written since he came to The Repository from Rockford, IL assigned by GateHouse, that Executive Editor Jeff Gauger has been in charge of supervising whether or not a given comment on a Repository story gets published.

Just this week Gauger wrote a column in which he talks about a 2010 Stark County candidate's use of the comments section as a campaign communication medium without identifying himself.  The Stark County Political Report believes that Gauger should identify the candidate.  But Gauger says he sees no purpose in doing so.

Really?  No purpose?

Think that the "anonymous" candidate's opponent or even the voting public (and early voting does begin on Tuesday next) might not want to know so that a response in campaign literature can be fashioned and so that voters can make a determination as to whether or not the conduct of the offending candidate can be factored in by voters?

Back to the Zeigler complaint (excerpts of which appear in this blog).

Looking at the first paragraph of Zeigler's complaint - it seems to the SCPR -  (the SCPR has not talked with Zeigler or his legal counsel), that the core of the complaint is focused on The Repository's failure to control comments that appear to "go over the line" of responsible free speech into - in the opinion of The Report - unproductive, perhaps even counterproductive speech in terms of what is a healthy public dialogue on issue,s and citizen opinion of the public performance and conduct of officeholders.

In what the SCPR takes in a confirmatory sort of way, a source (a county officeholder, but not Zeigler) says that a number of area elected officials (including, obviously, Zeigler), who are often the subject of commenters' comments, are very unhappy about the quality of The Repository's monitoring of and screening out what the officeholders think are "over the line" comments.

Undoubtedly, The Repository has heard officeholders' complaints direct, but The Rep appears to The Report to have chosen - after hearing such - not to tighten things up. 

So now it will be for the courts to decide.

We should all hope - on this aspect of the case - for a decision that upholds First Amendment and Ohio's concomitant constitutional right to the fullest extent possible in the context of requiring publishers to exercise good faith control over which third party comments do or do not get published.