When not talking says volumes
You didn’t have to be a literary theorist to grasp the subtext of the News & Observer’s report yesterday on the economic woes of its television news competitor. The headline put it right out there for all to see: “Capitol Broadcasting won’t discuss its cuts.”
That’s right: The fact that company executives wouldn’t talk to an N&O reporter was deemed headline worthy. It also was important enough to put high in the article:
Capitol executives met with staff members at Mission Valley Cinemas next to its Raleigh headquarters on Tuesday to discuss the company’s business.
But James F. Goodmon, the owner and CEO, declined to talk about the presentation.
“I will never comment about internal issues,” he said during a brief interview in the theater parking lot.
A reasonable person might wonder why a no-comment from the owner of WRAL, the Triangle’s dominant TV news operation (and thus the N&O’s biggest competitor), is considered news. Well, that reasonable person would have to understand the depths of the enmity between the two organizations in this regard.
For instance, let’s dial the calendar back to June 2008, when WRAL.com published a story about the N&O’s economic woes. In that article you can find this passage:
Asked about layoffs, Felicia Gressette, vice president of marketing for the N&O who spoke on behalf of publisher Orage Quarles III, said, “We’re just not going to comment.”
When asked about other cost-cutting moves, Gressette noted: “Any changes will be announced in the N&O, not WRAL.com.”
In short, this is simple tit for tat. The N&O wouldn’t talk to WRAL about cutbacks last June, so WRAL isn’t going to talk to the N&O about cutbacks now. The only difference is that the N&O managed to put an unmistakable sheen of haughtiness and condescension over its no-comment.
Does that makes the N&O the winner or loser in this endless feud? Your call.
March 19th, 2009 at 7:45 am
This tit for tat is pure silliness among a couple of children, the N&O and WRAL. Quickly ignored, but long remembered for two organizations who should not be airing their dirty laundry. Sad that both of them could not show better judgement here.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:09 am
The rats who stuck on the ship of the sinking mainstream media turn on each other. Gotta’ love it.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:59 am
“haughtiness and condescension over its no-comment”
Considering the source of the quote, the odds were much better than even that those words could be used to describe whatever was offered. Had Mr. Quarles spoke for himself, I think you would have had a more diplomatic statement. Mr Goodmon and Mr. Quarles actually have a pretty cordial relationship. Mr. Goodmon has even attended private holiday gatherings at Mr. Quarles home.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Felicia is haughtiness and condescension personified. How she ever managed to become a mouthpiece for the company is baffling.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Tit-for-tat? I really think this is an indication of how little clout the N&O has left. Drescher gave WRAL an interview about his employment cuts. WRAL responds with a snub because they can. With each successive round of cuts, the N&O slides farther into irrelevance. WRAL and the rest of the TV media is not near large enough to replace the N&O’s coverage. Yet that is what they will have to do. McClatchy management and the N&O specifically do not appreciate that it is the intelligence provided by the journalists, not just the information.
March 19th, 2009 at 11:37 am
The N&O’s relevance, alarmingly, has become a valid question. I’ve heard that one of the staffers lost Monday is Peder Zane — in which case, the paper is losing one of its most provocative, and sometimes conservative, voices. (This is not to slight all the other employees’ work in all the other departments where there were cuts. Each one will have a diminishing effect, and this time I think the impact will be much more noticeable than with previous layoffs.)
In part it’s the Web sites that have me thinking about this. While I would always pick up the N&O before watching TV news — it’s akin to going to library and reading an encyclopedia vs. People magazine — online I’ve found myself going to WRAL much more frequently. Sadly, this is mainly because WRAL’s site is much easier to use… and perhaps because the information there has been gone over by someone older and wiser than WRAL’s cute, error-prone reporters.
But who knows? We’re discussing the N&O’s relevance here, which means… it’s still has some relevance.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
The tit-for-tat dynamic is there but I wouldn’t put the two companies on an equal basis.
WRAL is an entertainment company with a news division and the N&O is an honest to goodness journalistic outfit. My guess is that WRAL will never mention their cuts - or if they do it will be a through one 20 second spot. I do not expect any long stories from them on how TV news coverage is declining.
I think the N&O has probably been too forthright in reporting its problems - I can’t imagine another business that would regularly tell its customers “Hey, you’re getting more for less.” But that is the truth and the paper ought to get some credit for leveling with us in a way that WRAL probably never will.
March 19th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
J. Peder Zane is out on the streets? Couldn’t happen to a more nuanced historical context-minded guy.
(I signed his silly butt off as soon as I read the first two grafs of his anti-CSA memorial tirade.)