Rorschach test (continued)
	Rawson’s landing   USUALLY, when I try to get a comment from Joel P. Rawson, the executive editor of the Providence Journal, his cheerful assistant promptly returns the call, dutifully reporting, " Mr. Rawson will have no comment at this time. " So would Rawson be more forthcoming in the aftermath of a settlement late last year, following an almost four-year dispute, between the ProJo and the Providence Newspaper Guild? Don’t bet on it. An e-mail to Rawson, seeking an interview, went unanswered last week, as did a subsequent telephone message. The ProJo editor spoke with me with a few times back when I began covering the media beat in 1999, although he ruled out talk of the sticky labor issue. Other than one instance in which he offered comments by e-mail, Rawson has since declined to talk with the Phoenix. It’s anyone’s prerogative, of course, not to speak with the press. Still, the silent posture seems ironic for an editor who regularly presses for the public’s right to know and gets steamed on occasions when the ProJo receives what he sees as a lack of access from such public officials as Governor Donald L. Carcieri. I ran into Rawson last fall when the local chapter of the National Conference for Community & Justice was handing out its annual diversity in media awards, named for former Journal publisher Michael Metcalf. Not having seen him face-to-face for several years, I didn’t recognize the familiar looking fellow until he greeted me by name and offered congratulations for awards won by the Phoenix. Somewhat stunned, I returned the compliment for his newspaper. For a guy who usually doesn’t talk with me, Rawson was perfectly courteous. — Ian Donnis

WHEN MORE than 1200 Rhode Islanders sit down this Friday, February 27 for the 31st rendition of the Providence Newspaper Guild’s annual Follies, a satirical send-up of the year in news, ProJo managers will have a table at the event, held at the Venus de Milo in Swansea, Massachusetts, for the first time since 1999.

The change shows how the resolution in December of the almost four-year dispute between ProJo management and the Providence Newspaper Guild is, by all accounts, a good thing for the newspaper. Publisher Sutton is said to have become a more frequent and friendly presence in the newsroom. The new contract and pay increases will make it easier to attract and retain good staffers. "Hopefully, it will improve morale," says political reporter Scott MacKay, "and any time you can do that it will improve the quality of work that people do."

Although Guild officials take pains not to portray the agreement as a one-sided victory for their side, they say it heightens the union’s relevance and its ability to advocate for the newspaper’s fundamental interests. Guild locals are incredibly important now, says Guild president John Hill, because of the prevalence of publicly held media entities. Stock market pressure, he aptly notes, can lead to decisions that might yield short-term profits, but be harmful to the long-term ability of a journalistic institution. "We take a longer view," he says. With reporters, photographers, and other human assets providing the power behind the Journal’s appeal, Hill says, "Anything that protects the value of that asset is in the company’s best long-term interest."

In the same way that the end of the bitter 1973 strike at the Journal ushered in 27 years of relatively pacific labor-management relations, Guild officials hope the recent settlement will represent an end to the strained ties and sluggish morale that marked recent years. "We don’t have to love each other, do group hugs, or sing ‘Kumbaya,’ but there has to be a productive working relationship," says Guild administrator Tim Schick, "or we’re doomed to repeat what we just went through."

What the ProJo went through included an outpouring of journalistic talent — dubbed by union officials as "the exodus" — that ended only when 52 Guild members took part in a buyout in December 2001, winnowing the number of reporters, photographers, and editors to roughly 200. Management, including Belo CEO Robert Decherd, labeled the departures as normal turnover unrelated to the labor strife. But C.J. Chivers, who went on to star at the New York Times after leaving the Journal in 1999, offered a tart response in a 2001 letter to Decherd, saying in part: "I chose to apply to a more prominent newspaper not just because I sought other opportunities, but also because I took the measure of the Providence Journal and saw worrisome signs of short-sightedness. And like many of the paper’s readers and alumni, I have come to fear that the current exodus, as it has been called, undermines the spirit of a remarkable place."

It’s entirely possible, given the settlement of the dispute and the heightened sense of journalistic vigor in recent months, that the Journal is poised for better days. Even so, newspapers don’t typically replace reporting jobs once they’re cut in this day and age, profits notwithstanding. Instead, in a development disappointing to some ProJo staffers, the so-called Bic system — the use of two-year reporter-interns likened to pens because of their disposability — has become more entrenched than ever.

"The energy that goes into prepping these newbies is a drain," says one insider. "When major stories break, or when there’s a sudden disaster, the editors frequently don’t want to trust the interns, and have to send out some of the old folks to help out, or rescue the situation entirely. If these interns were going to stay, such mentoring would seem worth our while, but they don’t. It’s a revolving door. The Bic system is a cost-saving measure, but you get what you pay for: inexperience. That shows in the paper in ways little and large, from misspellings and wrong street names, to stories with an obvious lack of depth and institutional memory."

If management is trying to curb costs on the journalistic end, Guild partisans also suspected the ProJo was trying to destroy the union after its most recent contract expired in early 2000. The almost four years of labor strife came with considerable costs, not the least of which was bruised feelings in the workplace. Guild officials estimate the newspaper’s legal tab with Edwards & Angell in the neighborhood of $1.2 million. But after a December 15 negotiating session at the Journal, an agreement that runs through 2007, bringing raises, parking for downtown staffers, and some other benefits, came just four days later.

Without comment from Sutton or other managerial types, it’s difficult to know exactly why the Journal, after such a pitched and lengthy dispute, suddenly became amenable to ending the conflict late last year. Schick thinks it can be traced to the previous vote, in June 2003, when Guild members voted down, on a 160-109 margin, management’s previous offer — the first since 2000 — a test perhaps of a theory that union leadership was out of touch with the rank and file.

Through the dispute, Guild leaders steered clear of a strike (the last one, in 1973, proved a failure for the union). Instead, Schick piloted an approach of increasing pressure, in part by steadily filing unfair labor practice claims — and winning 27 convictions, some of them embarrassing to management — with the National Labor Relations Board. Meanwhile, although management apparently wished to bleed the Guild dry, cutting off dues contributions through payroll deduction in early 2000, the Communications Workers of America paid the union’s legal bills. "Without them, we’d be dead," says Hill. In October 2003, a US District Court judge backed an arbitrator’s ruling in the Guild’s favor on dues check-off, representing $200,000 in potential financial exposure for the company and another step in the Guild’s favor.

Hill notes that even while opposing the June 2003 contract offer, the Guild sent signals to membership that the union was prepared to deal. The goal, he says, was to create an environment in which the cost of working with the 420-member union was less than that of fighting it. After the membership rejected the contract last June, the union embarked on an escalated visibility campaign that included enlisting the support of Journal advertisers and airing $20,000 in CWA-backed radio commercials.

Events crested on November 6, when union supporters and swarms of CWA workers, in town for a regional convention, stormed their way into the Journal building on Fountain Street. Perhaps the farcical element of the ongoing dispute became clear when management screened security tapes in a bid to identify intruders. As one insider says, referring to the influential secretary-treasurer of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, "What are you going to do, arrest George Nee?"

THERE ARE TIMES, such as this past weekend, when the front page of the Sunday Journal is chocked with a rich array of staff-written stories: Scott Mayerowitz’s in-depth look at politically ambitious Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey; Washington bureau chief John Mulligan’s examination of how John F. Kerry got his groove back; and separate pieces by Paul Edward Parker and Gregory Smith on cops who ran afoul of the law. The Sunday Extra section often has some particular substance to it, in this case a empathetic piece by political columnist M. Charles Bakst on a black family that has produced three judges in Rhode Island, and editorial page editor Robert Whitcomb’s heterogeneous blend of editorials and opinion essays.

Yet there are other occasions, as one Journal staffer puts it, "[When] it takes longer to read the [Boston] Globe’s Ideas section than the whole Sunday Journal." Some longtime readers, even those who perhaps most value the ProJo’s watchdog reporting, share the view that the substance of the paper has diminished.

"As compared to the old Journal-Bulletin, when it was privately owned, I would say that the quality of coverage has gone down," says Robert Arruda, chairman of the watchdog group Operation Clean Government (who nonetheless cites the significance of the paper’s State House coverage as "critical"). "Specifically, we’re seeing more stories now that are wire stories, that are also taken from other newspapers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and less actual reporting. I think the quality of the individuals that are remaining there remains high, but, unfortunately, there has been such a reduction, in my opinion, of the staff that it seems those remaining are actually burdened with work."

Similarly, H. Philip West Jr. of Common Cause of Rhode Island, calls the ProJo’s watchdog work "priceless," adding, "The whole ethics furor, which is needed to get a secure ethics reform, would not have occurred without the series of stories that Kathy Gregg did in November and December." Asked, however, about how the Journal compares with what it was like prior to being acquired by Belo, West, who has lived in the state since 1988, says, "You’ve just put your finger on the real problem . . . Reporters have been under more pressure to deliver stories more quickly. They still have a great staff, but they’re under great pressure. I understand that. I regret that."

The primary challenge facing the Journal may be, as some reporters say, remaining as good as it is. Reporter Felice Freyer, a member of the Guild’s executive committee, cites the need to use "the talents of its staff in the best possible way." These seem close to the mark.

Without a doubt, Rhode Islanders are lucky to have a daily newspaper that, among various attributes, embraces its watchdog role, keeping politicians on their toes. But when it comes to a consistent level of depth across different beats, don’t newspaper readers deserve something more?

Ian Donnis can be reached at idonnis[a]phx.com.