In an age of multiple platforms and increasing opportunities, conflicts multiply, too
Eric Deggans |
Dec. 15, 2009 9:01 a.m.
In this 24/7 media world, can a news organization really afford to refuse two national news-level scoops from a reporter on its payroll?
That’s one of the many paradoxical questions at the heart of the Philadelphia Inquirer’s ongoing fight with its sports columnist, Stephen A. Smith – a more than two-year donnybrook that has kept a high-profile sports commentator out of the top newspaper in one of the country’s biggest sports towns.
It’s also a look at the landscape of conflicts and questions inherent in a world where sportswriters have more opportunities than ever to appear on different media platforms owned by different companies – and the nightmare that can result when a conflict arises.
Even Smith’s scoops were conflicted. First, Smith reported November 25 that fading NBA star Allen Iverson was going to retire, posting a statement from the athlete on his own Web site, StephenA.com. Three days later, Smith wrote a column for FoxSports.com breaking the news that Iverson was talking to his former team, the Philadelphia 76ers, about returning — a deal the famously volatile player signed the next week.
Smith’s representatives said the columnist offered the stories to the Inquirer first. But even though an arbitrator this year forced the newspaper to reinstate Smith after firing him in January 2008, the Inquirer insists Smith adhere to an ethics code before agreeing to publish his columns.
And that’s where things get dicey.
Smith’s lawyers say the newspaper wants to control what Smith says in his other media appearances, and is particularly concerned about political commentary (in past appearances on MSNBC, for example, Smith has criticized then-presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani and Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck).
The commentator, who once hosted a TV show on ESPN and a program on ESPN Radio, still serves as a fill-in host on the syndicated non-sports radio program, The Steve Harvey Morning Show.
And the wicket may get even stickier on January 4, when Smith starts a new job hosting a three-hour morning show for Fox Sports Radio Network weekdays.
“Our position is that a great sports columnist is one who incorporates the political realities into sports coverage,” said one of Smith’s attorneys, Tricia “C.K” Hoffler, who said he may employ legal action to see Smith’s columns returned to the newspaper. “While there could be a conflict, we think its something most serious media entities embrace. It gives an extra bit of cachet.”
Inquirer editor William K. Marimow declined to say much for the record, given that this interminable struggle is likely headed for another courtroom before the dust settles.
“It’s our policy not to comment on any personnel or threatened legal matters,” said Scott Baker, general counsel for Philadelphia Newspapers, the Inquirer’s owner. “We’ve complied at every turn with the arbitrator’s award…and hope it ends well.”
According to an account of the arbitration by the Newspaper Guild’s in-house publication The Guild Reports, Marimow also expressed concern over a $20,000 raise for Smith agreed to by his predecessor and wondered if the newspaper was getting its money’s worth from him.
“They currently want to control what he has on his personal Web site regarding politics, and when he appears on TV or radio (they desire) that he does not discuss politics,” said Bill Ross, executive director of the Newspaper Guild of Greater Philadelphia, which has filed grievances on Smith’s behalf and sought his reinstatement.
Ross said the newspaper is currently negotiating with the Guild over instituting an ethics code, but those talks are not complete. The union official also said no other staffer at the newspaper has been asked to pledge to this code.
“It’s never been an issue before to my knowledge,” said Ross. “It’s yet another reason for newsroom management not to comply with the arbitrator’s award.”
Marimow, an accomplished editor who has worked at National Public Radio and The Baltimore Sun, can be tough. His feud with The Wire creator and former Baltimore Sun police reporter David Simon is legendary, with one of their many points of disagreement reportedly traced to the moment Simon asked for a raise after returning from a two-year leave of absence during which he wrote his second book.
But what may be most surprising about the fight between Smith and the Inquirer is that it has happened at all – and been so public.
Many big city newspapers seemed to have accepted a while ago that there are slightly different rules for stars; in part, because newspaper journalists often work without contracts and can leave jobs anytime they choose for a competitor. Newspapers often can’t pay media stars enough to keep them away from other opportunities.
Outside the sports world, Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward reportedly accepts $100 in salary each month while balancing work on his blockbuster books for work with the paper – occasionally sparking criticism over scoops in his books that are not reported in the Post.
Another Washington Post writer, media critic Howard Kurtz, hosts a show for CNN while occasionally covering stories that include them. Detroit Free Press sports columnist and best selling author Mitch Albom was briefly suspended in 2005 after writing a column in advance saying he saw two athletes at a game that had not happened when he composed the piece.
(Critics, including me, wondered if a lesser-known writer would have been fired or seriously disciplined for this infraction, for which Albom apologized.)
So is Smith’s conflict with the Inquirer an attempt by a bankrupt newspaper to even the score with a highly-paid star or an effort by a high-profile columnist to explore all the options available in the current media climate?
Given how long this fight has dragged on and the amount of money each side has spent on legal fees, it’s hard to know what lessons will surface now, even if another court verdict comes down.
But as newspaper salaries drop and outlets proliferate, expect friction over these kinds of issues to only increase, as the struggle to balance new media opportunities clashes with questions of authority, control and big money salaries.
That’s one of the many paradoxical questions at the heart of the Philadelphia Inquirer’s ongoing fight with its sports columnist, Stephen A. Smith – a more than two-year donnybrook that has kept a high-profile sports commentator out of the top newspaper in one of the country’s biggest sports towns.
It’s also a look at the landscape of conflicts and questions inherent in a world where sportswriters have more opportunities than ever to appear on different media platforms owned by different companies – and the nightmare that can result when a conflict arises.
Even Smith’s scoops were conflicted. First, Smith reported November 25 that fading NBA star Allen Iverson was going to retire, posting a statement from the athlete on his own Web site, StephenA.com. Three days later, Smith wrote a column for FoxSports.com breaking the news that Iverson was talking to his former team, the Philadelphia 76ers, about returning — a deal the famously volatile player signed the next week.
Smith’s representatives said the columnist offered the stories to the Inquirer first. But even though an arbitrator this year forced the newspaper to reinstate Smith after firing him in January 2008, the Inquirer insists Smith adhere to an ethics code before agreeing to publish his columns.
And that’s where things get dicey.
Smith’s lawyers say the newspaper wants to control what Smith says in his other media appearances, and is particularly concerned about political commentary (in past appearances on MSNBC, for example, Smith has criticized then-presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani and Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck).
The commentator, who once hosted a TV show on ESPN and a program on ESPN Radio, still serves as a fill-in host on the syndicated non-sports radio program, The Steve Harvey Morning Show.
And the wicket may get even stickier on January 4, when Smith starts a new job hosting a three-hour morning show for Fox Sports Radio Network weekdays.
“Our position is that a great sports columnist is one who incorporates the political realities into sports coverage,” said one of Smith’s attorneys, Tricia “C.K” Hoffler, who said he may employ legal action to see Smith’s columns returned to the newspaper. “While there could be a conflict, we think its something most serious media entities embrace. It gives an extra bit of cachet.”
Inquirer editor William K. Marimow declined to say much for the record, given that this interminable struggle is likely headed for another courtroom before the dust settles.
“It’s our policy not to comment on any personnel or threatened legal matters,” said Scott Baker, general counsel for Philadelphia Newspapers, the Inquirer’s owner. “We’ve complied at every turn with the arbitrator’s award…and hope it ends well.”
According to an account of the arbitration by the Newspaper Guild’s in-house publication The Guild Reports, Marimow also expressed concern over a $20,000 raise for Smith agreed to by his predecessor and wondered if the newspaper was getting its money’s worth from him.
“They currently want to control what he has on his personal Web site regarding politics, and when he appears on TV or radio (they desire) that he does not discuss politics,” said Bill Ross, executive director of the Newspaper Guild of Greater Philadelphia, which has filed grievances on Smith’s behalf and sought his reinstatement.
Ross said the newspaper is currently negotiating with the Guild over instituting an ethics code, but those talks are not complete. The union official also said no other staffer at the newspaper has been asked to pledge to this code.
“It’s never been an issue before to my knowledge,” said Ross. “It’s yet another reason for newsroom management not to comply with the arbitrator’s award.”
Marimow, an accomplished editor who has worked at National Public Radio and The Baltimore Sun, can be tough. His feud with The Wire creator and former Baltimore Sun police reporter David Simon is legendary, with one of their many points of disagreement reportedly traced to the moment Simon asked for a raise after returning from a two-year leave of absence during which he wrote his second book.
But what may be most surprising about the fight between Smith and the Inquirer is that it has happened at all – and been so public.
Many big city newspapers seemed to have accepted a while ago that there are slightly different rules for stars; in part, because newspaper journalists often work without contracts and can leave jobs anytime they choose for a competitor. Newspapers often can’t pay media stars enough to keep them away from other opportunities.
Outside the sports world, Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward reportedly accepts $100 in salary each month while balancing work on his blockbuster books for work with the paper – occasionally sparking criticism over scoops in his books that are not reported in the Post.
Another Washington Post writer, media critic Howard Kurtz, hosts a show for CNN while occasionally covering stories that include them. Detroit Free Press sports columnist and best selling author Mitch Albom was briefly suspended in 2005 after writing a column in advance saying he saw two athletes at a game that had not happened when he composed the piece.
(Critics, including me, wondered if a lesser-known writer would have been fired or seriously disciplined for this infraction, for which Albom apologized.)
So is Smith’s conflict with the Inquirer an attempt by a bankrupt newspaper to even the score with a highly-paid star or an effort by a high-profile columnist to explore all the options available in the current media climate?
Given how long this fight has dragged on and the amount of money each side has spent on legal fees, it’s hard to know what lessons will surface now, even if another court verdict comes down.
But as newspaper salaries drop and outlets proliferate, expect friction over these kinds of issues to only increase, as the struggle to balance new media opportunities clashes with questions of authority, control and big money salaries.
