An open letter to Ms. Melinda Gorham, editor, Huntsville (Ala.) Times
Dear Ms. Gorham:
As someone whose work occasionally elicits reader wrath on subjects a lot more weighty than whose football team is better, I read sportswriter Paul Gattis' column with some interest.
I think your follow-up column, well-meaning as it might have been, was the same type of response as that of football officials who never see, and penalize, the guy who throws the first punch, only the guy who retaliates.
After 21 years in this bidness, almost all of that in hard news reporting on subjects that can involve a lot of emotion, I'd like to think I have a pretty thick skin. But I've noticed something else going on: The nature of the criticism these days is much more personal, and much more vicious, now than when I was starting out. And while I'm happy to try to address just about any substantive problem a reader or other customer might have -- or, if I can't do it, to try to find someone who can -- I'm tired of putting up with baseless personal abuse and simply won't do it anymore. And because I try not to ask the people I supervise to do things I wouldn't do, I've told my reporters that they don't have to do it, either.
Moreover, as thinkers a lot more learned than I have observed, a threat to a newspaper's credibility is a direct attack on its net worth, given that a large majority of a paper's market value is tied up in "good will," a financial term-of-art that includes how honest readers and advertisers think a paper is. As a manager at my paper and for my corporation, I no longer let unfounded attacks on our competence OR integrity pass unchallenged. To do so would be a disservice to our shareholders as well as my co-workers and the community we serve.
And think about this: We hope and expect readers to believe that we are on their side. But if we won't fight for ourselves, why should they believe us when we say we'll fight for them? (Do not be misled by the fact that this argument has recently been advanced by certain prominent Democrats in a purely political context. I've been saying it, about newspapers, longer than they have, and I've been a registered Republican since 1978.)
I won't argue that Gattis' column was perfect. The cold logic of his column, fine as it was, was undermined by the tone in some places.
But neither will I ignore the fact that that tone stemmed in significant part from baseless and unprovoked attacks on his character and integrity. I just wish you hadn't ignored that fact as well. But you did, and in addition to the small and invisible but very real hit on your bottom line, whatever trust you might have accumulated in your newsroom up to now also has taken a hit -- one from which it might never recover.
Sincerely,
Lex Alexander