I must admit that I am not a highly compensated member of a corporate board nor an expert in executive compensation, but I have to assume that Lee Enterprises CEO Mary Junck is due for another half million dollar bonus after these stellar results in the second fiscal quarter:

Operating revenue for the quarter totaled $172.3 million, a decrease of 3.6% compared with a year ago. Combined print and digital advertising revenue decreased 5.3% to $117.5 million, with retail advertising down 3.5%, classified down 7.1% and national down 9.7%. Combined print and digital classified employment revenue decreased 0.3%, while automotive decreased 3.9%, real estate decreased 12.2% and other classified decreased 11.5%. Digital advertising revenue on a stand-alone basis increased 9.9% to $15.7 million. Print revenue on a stand-alone basis decreased 7.3%. Circulation revenue increased 0.1%.

Overall, as the Washington Post reports, Lee lost 54 cents per share in the quarter for a total of 26.6 million dollars:

The company said it lost $26.6 million, or 54 cents per share, for the fiscal second quarter that ended March 25. That compares with a loss of $1.5 million, or 3 cents per share, for the same period a year ago.

Lest anyone forget, Lee’s CEO Mary Junck took a bonus of $500,000 during a quarter when the company she leads lost $26 million dollars.

Optimistic press releases about evolving “in the digital age” notwithstanding, the corporate raid on Lee’s profitable small newspapers continues, as readers and advertisers are fleeing a product that lacks the resources to produce consistent quality. Lee’s failed strategy and corporate piracy are stripping these local papers of their most valued commodity: local belief that the newspaper will offer complete and comprehensive coverage.

One has to love the dispassionate tone of corporate press releases, especially when it relates to actual human beings losing their jobs. From the press release:

Compensation decreased 5.2%, with the average number of full-time equivalent employees down 7.5%.

That’s 7 per cent fewer people collecting, editing, producing, and distributing the news that is vital to many communities only served by one newspaper.

I derive no pleasure from watching the decline of newspapers—it’s certainly a tough environment when a company with no revenue is worth more than the New York Times—but the mismanagement and theft from local newspapers by the Lee chain is especially galling. People who work for their papers and the communities those papers serve deserve better.

This morning I woke up to the news of Robin Pflugrad and Jim O’Day’s dismissal from UM’s athletic program. While I was not surprised that these two men were asked to leave presumably because of their involvement in the recent sexual assault scandal involving members of the football team, I am shocked to see the manner in which the Missoulian presented the reception of the news within the Griz community.

Bill Speltz’s article, published under the headlines “Griz football program in limbo following firing of O’Day, Pflugrad” and “Griz left shocked, wondering why” on the Missoulian and Independent Record websites, respectively, seems to console the wrong parties. The article uses the words “unsettling,” “bombshell,” and “heartfelt” within the first 250 words that describe the difficulties of switching coaches in the middle of spring training. The article states that the football program needs to “rebound from its current predicament,” depicting the UM football community as being in a state of total shock after losing competent and well-respected leaders. In contrast, the Missoulian‘s initial article on the alleged UM sexual assaults that appeared on December 16, 2011 is written in a dry professional tone, free from the emotional rhetoric present in today’s article.

While I’ll be the first to admit that I can’t speak to the quality of Pflugrad and O’Day’s coaching and leadership abilities, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were both proficient in their jobs as they relate to athletics. I don’t doubt for a second that they will be missed by players and fans alike. But Speltz’s article highlights the emotional stress that the football community is currently undergoing, while sidelining the real victims: the survivors of sexual assault. Their stress and ostracism will no doubt increase with the outpouring of support for the coach and athletic director who mismanaged the handling of the sexual assault allegations. Speltz’s article will probably be the way most people find out about Pflugrad and O’Day’s dismissal, and thus has tremendous power in forming public opinion on the scandal. By framing it in such ways that stresses the problems for fans and athletes, Speltz excludes the ongoing problems for those people who are still dealing with the trauma of sexual assault.

Pflugrad and O’Day’s role in the recent sexual assault allegations at UM resonate with an article published in the National Catholic Register a few days ago about the rampant protection of football players by Notre Dame officials from allegations of sexual assault. First-year student Lizzy Seeberg committed suicide in August of 2010 after school authorities shielded a football player from police inquiry and failed to proceed with an internal investigation of her sexual assault. Notre Dame and the University of Montana aren’t the only schools that protect their star athletes from legal ramifications, but are emblematic of a larger problem. I bring up Lizzy Seeberg’s story because Melinda Henneberger’s thorough investigation reveals the ugly underbelly of a university when confronted with a crime seemingly perpetrated by a beloved athlete. I can only wait in dread of the details that emerge as the UM investigations unfold.

I hope that today’s events are the first step in changing how UM- and by extension, all colleges and universities- treat allegations of sexual assault, especially involving student athletes. When institutions of higher learning protect their athletes from legal scrutiny, they send a message to their students and communities that the alumni-rallying money machine of athletics is more important than the physical safety of their students. The Missoulian‘s coverage, among other things, only helps support this message.

The Helena Independent Record is finally reporting today that the paper is laying off two workers and relocating two more. Publisher Randy Rickman, who unfortunately will not be among those relocated, blamed the decision on a “continued soft economy,” which would be a more compelling argument had his paper not argued the exact opposite about the economy in the past few days.

It’s certainly an interesting claim, given that the Independent Record ran a story today indicating that the U.S. economy grew 3 per cent last year and another saying that jobless claims fell to their lowest level in four years. Don’t think the good news is limited to the national scene? Well, twelve days ago, the IR ran an editorial discussing the good news about the healthy economy in Lewis and Clark County.

That line about a “soft economy” is also contradicted by the Independent Record’s corporate owners at Lee Enterprises, who told stockholders that the future is bright for revenue in the company:

Lee chairman and CEO Mary Junck told a group of nearly 60 that the successful refinancing of its long-term debt in January will give the company “a nearly four-year runway for improving our balance sheet.”
But she said the outlook remains positive given the company’s “unmatched strength” in its daily newspaper markets and the “breathtaking” growth Lee’s digital products have seen in mobile and tablet usage.

And Ms. Junck’s future certainly is brighter than that of those laid off yesterday. The soft economy doesn’t seem to be a problem when it comes to handing out three-quarters of a million dollars to two Lee Executives, including Ms. Junck. While $750,000 might only buy 750,000 thousand shares of the company’s “Junck” stock, it would have kept dozens of workers in their jobs during a slow economic time.

I’ve been as vocal a critic of local news coverage as anyone, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that what’s going on at newspapers across the country and here in Montana is nothing more than the work of corporate raiders who are stripping these newspapers of vital resources in the pursuit of profit. Worse yet, they’re stripping the papers, many of which have decades of established reputation, of their credibility as news gathering agencies in their communities. Once these corporate raiders leave, it’s hard to imagine that much will remain.

And that’s  damn shame—for the people who love reading the news and those who have given their lives to recording it.

KXLH is reporting that the Independent Record has laid off yet another round of workers:

The Helena Independent Record has laid off a handful of employees.

Staff members have confirmed that some positions have been entirely eliminated while others are being offered relocation packages.

But don’t worry, fans of American corporations and corporate malfeasance. The woman whose incredibly bad decisions have gutted the IR’s parent company Lee Enterprises, won’t be suffering, as the St. Louis Post Dispatch reported today:

Getting Lee Enterprises through bankruptcy earned a $500,000 bonus for Lee Enterprises CEO Mary Junck, according to a new company filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The compensation committee of Lee’s board of directors awarded the bonus to Junck, along with a $250,000 bonus to chief financial officer Carl Schmidt.

That’s an impressive display of American capitalism right there. Junck drove the formerly healthy company into bankruptcy through her mismanagement before getting a cool half million dollars for “getting” the company through her failure.

I can’t even imagine what another round of cuts will look like at the Independent Record, which is becoming a shell of a newspaper, despite making a profit on its own. It’s pretty tough to put out a quality product when you don’t have enough staff to do the job and now it appears they IR will have even fewer hands on deck.

Today in Mike Dennison’s story about how the two major candidates for the US Senate have voted, we got an instructive lesson in how headlines can shape perceptions of a story. The Independent Record certainly offered a unique take on a story that largely argued that Dennis Rehberg votes with Republicans and Jon Tester votes with Democrats. Shocking stuff.

• From the Missoulian, U.S. Senate race: How often do Rehberg, Tester vote with the president?
• From the Billings Gazette, Tester voting record on Obama policies takes center stage in race with Rehberg
• From the Independent Record, Tester follows party lines

I guess supporting the ideological viewpoint of the publisher is more important than writing a headline that is either accurate or even logical.

I have to admit that I had little hope for the discussion section on today’s story in the Independent Record about the proposed anti-discrimination ordinance—and as is usually the case, the troglodytes raced right off to demonstrate just how hate-filled their cowardly, anonymous hearts can be.

Tiger Woops offered a slur and what seems to be a vague reference to Matthew Shepard in his comment:

Michael S demonstrated his keen sense of tolerance and a disturbing predilection for bestiality:

Steeline suggested that

These comments are precisely illustrative of why Helena needs an ordinance like the one Commissioner Haque-Hausrath and the Montana Human Rights Network are proposing. Despite real progress

And it usually comes from cowards who hide their hate behind masks or online pseudonyms.

A couple of quick notes about the Independent Record, on this issue, too. Given that their comments are moderated, should any of these comments have been allowed on the site? The IR policy states:

Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum.

I’d say hate speech falls somewhat short of a high level of civility.

With ballots beginning to roll out this week and a peculiar endorsement coming from the Independent Record this past Sunday, it’s time to discuss the election for Helena City Commission. While I respect both of the new candidates willing to invest the energy necessary for running a city-wide campaign, an honest assessment of the candidates makes it clear that Helena should retain Matt Elsaesser and elect Katherine Haque-Hausrath.

(Given Elsaessaer’s status as an incumbent, I’m going to focus on the choice between Katherine Haque-Hausrath and Lora Behlmer in this post.)

Experience

Haque-Hausrath brings more experience to the table. Her experience as an attorney (one admired by her co-workers for her intelligence and hard work) will be invaluable to the commission as they tackle complex questions about Helena’s future.

Policy Proposals

She’s also got substantive policy proposals for the community. Her issues page on her web site demonstrates that she understands the needs of our evolving community when it comes to growth, the environment, and health.

I’m especially impressed that Haque-Hausrath is willing to push for an overdue anti-discrimination ordinance to ensure that all Helenans are treated equally under the law.

In contrast, Ms. Behlmer simply hasn’t offered any specifics in her campaign—not on her web site and not in the media. I take her at her word that she wants to listen to the people of Helena, but I don’t have any idea what agenda she would promote as a commissioner—and neither did the IR, which didn’t ask her to address a single policy issue in their endorsement.

Civic Engagement

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Haque-Hausrath has earned our support because she has demonstrated a willingness to engage in the community. She’s campaigned tirelessly in the past few months, going door-to-door to meet with voters, place signs, and yes, raise money. That a first-time candidate has raised over $6,000 from almost 130 donors demonstrates her commitment and energy.

That’s real engagement—and from someone with a six-month old son.

In contrast, the IR offered this curious justification for its endorsement of Ms. Behlmer, along with their excitement about online polls:

It’s here that we drew another distinction between Haque-Hausrath and Behlmer; the latter struck us as more aggressive and ambitious in seeking input from all corners of the city, and not just those willing to attend the meetings.

All the evidence from this campaign proves the opposite. Ms. Behlmer has only raised just over $530 from fewer than ten donors, has done little door-to-door campaigning, and hasn’t articulated a plan to increase public involvement.

Ms. Behlmer may believe in increased civic engagement, but Haque-Hausrath has actually done it during this campaign.

Bottom Line

None of what I’ve written above is intended to slight Lora Behlmer. I commend her willingness to enter public life and run for office. I absolutely respect that, but Haque-Hausrath is the better choice for Helena.

Unfortunately, what seems quite clear in all of this is that, once again, the Independent Record is using its platform to push a conservative social agenda rather than the interests of the community. Consider this line about Haque-Hausrath from the news story about the three candidates:

She says she’s seen support from environmentalists in Helena as well as the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

I think that’s tremendous. Helena needs another leader to stand up for the rights of all members of our community, regardless of their sexual identity and beliefs about the environment.

A responsible piece of journalism, though, would have noted that Haque-Hausrath has received a wide range of support from all parts of our community, from the mayor, current and former commissioners, both Democratic candidates for Attorney General, and the owners of a small, local ice cream shop. While the Independent Record may oppose her because she is committed to social justice and a healthy environment, it’s simply irresponsible to depict Haque-Hausrath as anything but a candidate who has drawn support from the whole community.

The transparent agenda behind the IR’s endorsement for Ms. Behlmer (online polls and affirmative action for small business owners notwithstanding) makes it clear once again that the dominant media player in our community is putting politics ahead of the interests of Helena once again.

When you receive your ballot this week and return it by November 8, the choice is clear: vote for the new candidate with policies to improve our community and the energy to engage with all of the community’s citizens.

Vote for Katherine Haque-Hausrath.

You have to wonder just how little respect for its readers the publisher and owners of the Independent Record have. Just months after laying off its local editor and explaining it as a cost-cutting move, the capitol’s paper of record has hired a new editor to oversee the newspaper locally.

Regional editor (a position that makes absolutely no sense) Gerry O’Brien explained the move:

“I’m extremely pleased that Butch accepted the offer to this important post,” said Regional Editor Gerry O’Brien.
“Butch will bring focus to the IR news coverage, driving local content that our readers are demanding.”

None of that seemed to matter in June, when IR publisher Randy Rickman unceremoniously laid off the former editor John Doran, saying that the decision would not impact local news coverage:

Rickman noted that combining management positions between the two companies was a way to “cut costs while still producing the same strong results for our customers.”

It’s hard not to think about 1984 (and not just because I am currently reading it with my students). We’re being asked to believe both that Helena is better served by having an editor with less experience than the previous one–and that the very assertion Rickman made about local editorial control four months ago never happened. It’s all down the memory hole, as if what happened simply never did.

Lee Enterprises and IR publisher Randy Rickman certainly don’t possess the power of Orwell’s Big Brother, but they do share BB’s absolute disregard for those who consume the news. It doesn’t matter what we’re told, because none of it matters in the end. From Orwell’s 1984:

It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing
with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie.

It’s not hard to read behind the lines and see what really happened here. A publisher with a dual agenda–one corporate and one personal–decided to exercise more control over the newspaper and what better way to demonstrate his power?

This entire sad situation has cost the IR significantly. It has lost a competent editor who was pushing his news staff to write challenging stories and giving them the freedom to do so. More importantly, the paper has lost its credibility. When a media source entrusted with providing the truth to its readers can’t even tell the truth about its own staffing decisions and local control, how exactly are we supposed to trust their word when it comes to anything else.

Twelve hours after first reading today’s Independent Record, I’m still amazed that the editors in Butte felt it appropriate to give an opinion column over to Representative Dennis Rehberg on Labor Day. After searching for an apt analogy to describe just how inappropriate that decision was, I kept coming back to Rehberg. Presumably the IR will next print his insights on Firefighter Appreciation Day or during National Drunk and Drugged Driving Awareness Week.

Only those could be less appropriate.

Contrary to what subdivision ranchers in Congress might think, Labor Day is not the culmination of a month-long taxpayer funded vacation, but a celebration of the importance of the union movement and workers in this country. As the Department of Labor notes, the day is “dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.”

And that’s what makes printing Rehberg’s pablum today so absurd and so offensive. Throughout his career in government, Rehberg has been hostile to the unions and workers today is meant to celebrate.

His 2010 record best summarizes his hostility towards the labor movement. He opposed the AFL-CIO (0%), the American Federation of Government Employees (0%),  American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (0%), the  International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (25%), the  International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (0%), and the Communications Workers of America (0%)—all while pushing for huge benefits to corporations, including those who have moved their workforces overseas.

Specifically, in the just the past few sessions of Congress, he’s voted:

• against blocking harassment of those who want to form unions.
• against bargaining rights for workers.
• against mine safety regulations that save lives.
• against extension of unemployment benefits.
• against ending workplace discrimination against woman.
• against paycheck fairness.
• against good jobs that prevented unemployment during the recession.

And that’s just a part of his anti-labor record. His lockstep support for the reactionary anti-labor Republican caucus hurts Montana workers and families.

Even if you’ve swallowed the Fox News-led propaganda war against unions and oppose them (along with, I suppose, decent working conditions, vacation time, sick leave, a decent wage, the 40 hour week and all the other reforms labor provided), Rehberg’s hostility towards workers extends past his hostility towards unions.

He’s never on their side, no matter what his rhetoric claims.

Believe in a decent minimum wage? Rehberg fought it and repeatedly voted against increasing it, until it was tied to reductions in estate taxes for millionaires like himself. Hell, he doesn’t even know what the minimum wage is.

Believe your kids should have a chance at a better life with a college degree? Rehberg thinks they’re welfare recipients.

Rehberg is so out of touch, that despite owning millions of dollars worth of inherited property, he told workers—many of them unemployed—that he’s struggling just like them.

When it comes to the working middle class, Rehberg is almost always wrong and almost always against them. His voting record for the middle class is a shameful collection of Fs, perhaps only beaten by his college transcript.

Rehberg is right about one thing. American does belong “to the men and women with dirt under their fingernails,” but he’s been doing his best to sell it to the highest bidder, undermining the workers who made this country what it is at every opportunity.

In the end, it’s probably unsurprising that the corporate media would give a day dedicated to labor over to someone who has has supported the company’s anti-union stance and anti-labor policies.

Unions have fought much craftier opponents than Dennis Rehberg and Lee Enterprises, though. We’ll win this fight, win this race, and win back a better future for the real producers of the American Dream.

There are certainly signs that the Independent Record isn’t doing as well financially as its parent company, Lee Enterprises, would like: they’ve downsized staff, fired laid off  their editor(*), and implemented a paywall blocking online content. Today’s paper seems to brazenly demonstrate a new way to increase revenue, offering a news story and opinion piece that are little more than long advertisements for single companies.

First up, we have an outsourced piece from the Montana Standard extolling the virtues of Sylvan Learning Centers. I can’t even imagine what someone felt was newsworthy about the story. Sylvan is an established business in both Helena and Butte, with nothing new to justify a full story.

Even worse, though, was an IR editorial about Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana. No, it doesn’t discuss the possible dangers of a near-monopoly if BCBS completes its proposed merger with New West. It doesn’t discuss the impact of skyrocketing insurance rates for Montanans. It doesn’t even discuss compensation for the BCBS executives, which grow every year while wages for average Montanans are stagnant.

Instead, it talks about what a great job the company is doing and how hard it is to be the largest insurer in the state.

I’m not naïve enough to think this is the first time that pecuniary interests have motivated coverage in the newspaper; it’s just that it’s rarely been this obvious.

Both stories are a far cry from the paper that was willing to take on St. Peter’s Hospital. I admire the tenacity of the Independent Record when it comes to selling their newspaper. It’s another thing entirely to sell its news.