Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Consumer Columnist Firing a Free Speech Issue?

George Gombossy, who was fired by the Hartford Courant in a brazen surrender to a major advertiser, has sued the Courant for wrongful termination. He's basing his suit on a Connecticut statute that, Gombossy notes, "protects workers from retribution for exercising their First Amendment rights in the workplace."

I wish Gombossy well, and I hope he can find some kind of legal basis for prevailing, but I have my doubts. The statute, discussed here, applies to situations in which an employee mouths off at work. A previous court ruling, mentioned in the article I just linked, makes it clear it's not for situations like this.

Is this a "there oughta be a law" situation? Not necessarily. The law can't protect newspaper employees, and their readers, from craven, cowardly editors. Like it or not, the First Amendment in situations like this is a right of the publisher, not the reporter.

Again, I emphasize: this firing stank, and I hope Gombossy can figure out a way to collect. I just don't see it happening as a free-speech issue.

© 2009 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved.

Digg my article

Labels: ,

Saturday, August 22, 2009

The Big Newspaper Row in Connecticut Gets Uglier

The battle royale between the Hartford Courant and its fired consumer columnist, George Gombossy, is ratcheting up in ugliness. Today Gombossy published on his blog a list of key advertisers "I was to be nice with."

The list can be found here. It is a long list.

He calls it "the list of prime advertisers The Courant gave me so that I would know to ring the alarm bell at [Courant senior veep Jeff] Levine’s office in case I even considered writing one negative word about them. Other Courant reporters and columnists have received similar orders recently."

I was directed by The Courant’s top management to write nothing negative about them in my columns or blogs, nor approve of any reader negative comment, without first giving top management a chance to censor and potentially kill the offending item. The list – which includes state agencies – applies to all Courant reporters and columnists.
It seems to me that the Courant has some 'splaining to do, and falling back on the "we can't comment because of potential litigation" just won't wash.

This is, or should be, a major scandal. Gombossy (who I've never met, by the way) was not some recently hired snot nose kid but a 42-year veteran and a former business editor of the paper. It is not only an example of really bush league journalistic non-ethics, but also managerial stupidity. When the geniuses at the paper fired Gombossy did they really think he wouldn't squawk?

© 2009 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved.

Digg my article

Labels: ,

Thursday, August 20, 2009

The Hartford Courant's Strange Bedfellows

Lately the Hartford Courant has gotten attention for firing its consumer columnist, George Gombossy, after he proposed a column on a major advertiser, the Sleepy's bedding chain. You might wonder if this once-great newspaper could stoop any lower.

Apparently it has.

A reader brings to my attention a rather interesting arrangement that was announced last month, but has gotten little attention, that puts the Courant and its sister TV station in bed with a pink sheet company called Organic Alliance to provide "multimedia content" and "programming."

It's all spelled out here, in a press release issued last month by a company called Organic Alliance Inc., which trades on the pink sheets. That's the root cellar of the financial markets, where the tiniest and riskiest companies are to be found:

Organic Alliance, Inc. (Pink Sheets: ORGC) has announced the company is working with Hartford Courant, WTIC Fox 61 and WTXX to produce multi-media content (television, newspaper and web) focusing on the beneficial aspects of natural and organic and lifestyle choices. Programming will focus on the use of natural and organic products, include cooking demonstrations, health and fitness tips, visits to natural and organic product producers and places where the natural lifestyle is flourishing.
Hey, I'm all for organic food. But this arrangement raises several questions. What exactly are the Courant's obligations under this arrangement? What exactly are they talking about here when they say "content"? Advertisements? I would think not. That's not content. Advertorials? Or, heaven forbid, news content? What about the "programming"?

I emailed the Courant yesterday morning to ask about this, and received no response. I'm still hoping the folks there will respond and clear the air.

I also hope the Courant did proper due diligence on this company before signing on the dotted line. I really don't know anything about this company and have no idea what it's up to. However, one familiar name that cropped up in registation statements filed with the SEC in 2008 (such as this one) is Michael Wachs of CEOCast.

Wachs was described by Bill Alpert of Barron's a few years ago as a "big time financial felon."

Hey, this would be a great George Gombossy column, don't you think? Too bad, and too convenient for the Courant, that he's not there.

© 2009 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved.

Digg my article

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

More on the Degradation of the Hartford Courant

It's depressing to read today's New York Times account of the Hartford Courant's firing of consumer columnist George Gombossy. The Times account adds new, blood-curdling details of the degradation of what had once been a fiercely independent, award-winning newspaper--the oldest in the nation, as it often likes to point out.

A few months ago, Mr. Gombossy said, he was called into a meeting with Courant executives. He had written columns about a Connecticut contracting company that was also a Courant advertiser. ["director of content" Jeff] Levine said that he had received a letter from the contractor about the columns, and asked Mr. Gombossy to meet with the company and to “be nice to them” because an advertising deal was at risk, Mr. Gombossy said.

“At that point, I told them I’m refusing and I said, ‘You’ve got to fire me if you insist on me doing that,’ ” Mr. Gombossy said. According to him, Mr. Levine then backpedaled on the demand to meet with the advertiser, but said that he could not write about a major advertiser unless it was cleared by Mr. Levine.
Gombossy also said he was told he couldn't post blog comments from readers critical of advertisers.

This is, of course, disputed by the Courant's editor. I believe Gombossy.

"Gombossygate" reflects the inherent tensions that newspapers are going to experience as the industry dies. As I pointed out in Salon a couple of years ago, the interests of newspapers and shareholders are inherently irreoncilable. The Tribune Company, which owns the Courant, was delisted in February so that's no longer a factor. What's happening here is elemental--an indication of the kind of sacrifices publishers are making to stay alive. In the case of the Courant, it is a conscious decision to sacrifice its integrity.

UPDATE: A Courant spokesman emailed me the following response:

Company Statement:

The overriding consideration on stories reported by the Hartford Courant is making sure the facts are thoroughly checked out and correct. Our advertisers have no influence on what we report, including stories that may include them. This is a long time Courant policy.

Our readers and advertisers do and should expect us to report stories we know are accurate and fully reported. George Gombossy’s story needs and is receiving additional checking and verification. This is a common practice required by our editors with all Courant news stories, including columns by Mr. Gombossy, and while employed with the Courant, he was well aware of this and accepted and followed this policy over the years.

While Mr. Gombossy's position was eliminated, he was made aware of the newly-defined consumer reporter position that will be combined with our newspaper, television station and Web site. He did not express interest.
Thanks for the statement. Good luck with that "additional checking and verification" process. It's been how long since Gombossy submitted the column on Sleepy's? Sixteen days?

Gombossy has an "official statement" of his own.

Previously, he had said as follows: Maybe someone also wants to ask her [the Courant's editor] for the email that informed me of why my column was not running and what question did I fail to answer. Her problem is going to be that no such an email exists and no such conversation took place between me and any of my editors."

I'm glad the Times followed up, but clearly this story is not over.

© 2009 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved.

Digg my article

Labels: , ,

Monday, August 17, 2009

The Hartford Courant Loses Its Last Shred of Dignity

When I worked at the Hartford Courant fresh out of college in the 1970s, the Courant had a rock-solid reputation for integrity. One of its rising stars was George Gombossy, then head of the Willimantic bureau and later a muckraking consumer columnist.

The Courant has fallen on hard times financially, having been swept into bankruptcy by its publisher the Tribune Company, but at least you'd hope the paper was holdings its head high. Alas no.

The paper is embroiled in a messy controversy over Gombossy, who was fired after the paper yanked a column he wrote about the Sleepy's bed chain. He was going to report a state "investigation into consumer complaints that Sleepy’s sold mattresses or box springs that were used instead of new, and in one case infested with bedbugs."

Sleepy's, you see, is a big advertiser. The Watchdognation.com blog reported:

“We’re on the precipice of real danger in society here,” Gombossy told me Sunday night. “This is not about me. I’m fine. I’m going to be 62 in less than a month. I can retire. That’s why I’m in a position to raise this issue.

“We’re in a very dangerous situation where most media companies including the Hartford Courant are run by marketing people now instead of journalists, and they do not understand why we have the ethics that we do."

Sleepy's is the biggest mattress chain in America, so the story that Gombossy broke has national implications.

Years ago, when reporter Don Bolles was killed, reporters swarmed over Arizona as part of what was then known as the Arizona Project, and which later became Investigative Reporters & Editors. When an atrocity like this happens, reporters should respond similarly. This time the target is not just Sleepy's, but the Courant.

The Courant is a monopoly newspaper in much of the state. Is this an isolated instance or an example of a broader malaise at the newspaper? The people, particularly in Connecticut, have a right to know.

Here's one question I'd like to see answered: did the Courant take action against Gombossy on its own, or did it knuckle under to a complaint from Sleepy's?

Gombossy is trying to fill the gap with a weblog, ctwatchdog.com. But that's no substitute for a gutsy media, to the extent such a thing still exists.

In a memo posted on Romenesko this afternoon, the Courant claims that Gombossy's "position was eliminated" and, as for the column, that it "is being held by the newspaper to get answers to certain questions."

Uhh, excuse me. This was a column about an investigation by the attorney general. The source was the attorney general, on the record. The column was scheduled to run on Aug. 2, more than two weeks ago.

What has the Courant been "checking" during that time? Whether Sleepy's wants its ads run on page three of page five, maybe?

© 2009 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved.

Digg my article

Labels: , ,