|
|
|
| Bookbulb Library |
|
 |
This book is written from a personal perspective and as a memoir. It consists of a compilation of weekly columns that I wrote over my own copyright notice for the Journal Review, a six-day daily newspaper in Crawfordsville, Indiana, and the events and results of staff meetings starting from the late summer of 2004 when a new competitor announced itself to the community leading to a newspaper war in a small town.
I had been working at the Journal Review as circulation director for sixteen months when The Paper of Montgomery County announced its plans. It is obvious, then, that my allegiances were in sympathy with the Journal Review, but my opinions were and are entirely my own. My observations are based upon my experiences in newspaper work in Crawfordsville and in other communities in Indiana and elsewhere.
******************** ******************** ******************
Often after American military reverses, inquiries are conducted to assess fault and blame. It may be unproductive, but it is something of a tradition nonetheless. Should The Paper fail, it would probably be due to undercapitalization and a failure to capture significant readership. In an age when newspapers are struggling, starting a brand new newspaper and expecting it to prosper is a tall order. Add to that the fact that the new paper must compete with an established competitor and you increase the odds against success further. Under these circumstances, failure would be at least forgivable.
If the JR should fail, then what were the reasons for its collapse? After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel and General Short were found to have been derelict in their duties to defend the Pacific Fleet and the military installations in Hawaii. Both claimed that vital information regarding the state of Japan’s diplomatic negotiations with Cordell Hull as well as the deployment of her naval forces had been withheld from them. Critics of Kimmel and Hull point out that both had been issued orders to assume a defensive posture against the possibility of attack and that Hawaii’s military garrisons were assumed to be on alert as anticipated by those same orders.
With those precedents, I would find that Phillip T. Smith promoted Randall J. Pribble to the position of publisher at the Journal Review in the expectation that Mr. Pribble would work with his predecessor, Ron Dietz, to effect a smooth transition in the change of command. For reasons that remain obscured, but which, given the gravity of the situation, Mr. Pribble failed to accept the guidance that was offered and that, instead, he prematurely ended the transition period by removing from himself the resource that had been intended for his use.
Further, Mr. Pribble failed to properly reconnoiter his field of operations, and he did so in the face of known enemy activity. These failures made full and complete field reports to Mr. Smith impossible with regard to enemy initiatives, order of battle and the overall environment in the battle zone. The preponderance of evidence also suggests that Mr. Pribble made erroneous reports to Mr. Smith at times which were intended to suggest that subordinates and not Mr. Pribble himself were responsible for failure of specific operations. Morale of troops was allowed to suffer as casualties mounted without good cause. Finally, leadership that should rightly be expected from one placed in positions of command was lacking. Mr. Pribble is held accountable by this court of inquiry.
In the case of Phillip T. Smith and with consideration given for his position being at a distance from the field of conflict, this court finds that the situation on the field was such that a superior officer should have made inquiries as early as March, 2005, when it was known to Mr. Smith that the attempt at transitional change of command had failed. In the event that such inquiry was not made, Mr. Smith would have exercised due diligence only had he thereafter taken greater effort to ensure his full and complete knowledge of the field of conflict. Mr. Smith failed to take either step effectively resulting in continued failures of leadership. His failure to act allowed the casualties accountable to his subordinate to continue; in this he is held jointly responsible for those casualties.
Further, it is the opinion of this court of inquiry that Phillip T. Smith cannot be held to be blameless or without some guilt given that he was privy to certain classified documents and reports that would have given a prudent commander reason to take corrective action. It is evident to the court that a situation was tolerated for reasons unknown even though said situation was clearly in an area of conflict and was in the presence of enemy forces. Mr. Smith is held accountable by this court of inquiry.
In summary, this court finds that both Randall J. Pribble and Phillip T. Smith have been in dereliction of their respective duties. This court lacks the authority to pass sentence upon either man, but will acknowledge that the public, the citizens of Crawfordsville and Montgomery County, Indiana, have both the full authority as well as the responsibility to do so. This court is adjourned sine die.
******************** ******************** ******************** **
Alas! This is not a military issue where summary justice is swift and sure. Many people disputed what they felt was the improper treatment of Kimmel and Short at the time of their removal from command and some still do all these years later. Some will disagree with my opinions stated here. Some probably dislike military methods and efficiency, and all of that is their prerogative. These are my findings, my opinions and my experiences after having served on the battlefield. Then, too, it is military methods and efficiency that led Union troops to victory over the Confederacy; those who wish to comment to the contrary should write their own book.
******************** ******************** ******************** ********
The greater issue is this: Many or perhaps most newspapers in this country today are suffering from the same arrogance of ownership and management. The industry seems to refuse to make itself relevant to new generations of Americans, both readers and advertisers. This can hardly be entirely charged to Pribble or Smith, or, for that matter, even Gannett, but all of these have become involved in the process of attempting to produce cheap newspapers and providing increased profits while simultaneously divesting their ranks of effective and knowledgeable staff. Until this changes, and there is no indication that it will, newspapers will continue to diminish in both quantity and quality.
At the same time, newspapers in general have allowed their profitable classified advertising franchise to be co-opted by online sites. Newspapers have debated whether or not to charge for online publications and, for that matter, they have failed to determine what content should be included in free web publications. It is likely that the time to have come to decisions in these matters is past. Cynical by nature, I do not believe that any publication based upon present-day newspaper concepts or designs will be successful. That boat has sailed.
I regret the loss of incubators for future writers working under the critical eye of a crusty editor. Many of my favorite authors have learned their craft while writing for newspapers. Mark Twain, Rudyard Kipling and Ernest Hemingway come to mind. Today, many think of themselves as writers so they blog. It has been my experience that for every good blog, there are 847 poorly-written exercises in “writing” for publication. I assure the bloggers that a word processing application with spell check is no substitute for a good style book and a curmudgeon sitting in the corner office with a blue pencil and a blue vocabulary.
******************** ******************** ******************** *********
The business of newspapers is changing more quickly than many newspapers can manage. There will be closures of newspapers; adapt or perish should be watchwords in the business. Unfortunately, the newspaper industry has proven to be incapable of adaptation and evolution, and thus much of its culture will most likely perish. I deeply regret the passing of any newspaper. I shall be grateful if I do not live to see the final passage of the last newspaper.
back to top
|
|
|
Advertisement:
|
