When it comes to covering themselves, newspapers inevitably do a terrible job. Last week, after Union-Tribune editorial cartoonist Steve Kelley appeared on television and on radio talk shows saying that he had been fired after 20 years with the newspaper, editors seemed gripped with a paralysis. Instead of reporting it like any other story involving a high-profile figure, the paper said nothing.
Dozens of readers called for an explanation. I had none. “You’re a newspaper,” readers told me. “You’re supposed to tell us what is going on. Kelley is a public figure. Why aren’t you covering him as you do other public figures?”
It’s true. Were Kelley a public official, the Union-Tribune would be all over the story. If the employer involved were to respond with a no comment, that’s what the newspaper would report. But, journalists would not let the matter rest. They would talk to as many people as possible to get an explanation they could print. That didn’t happen in this case. Other media reported the story, but not the Union-Tribune. By the time editors considered doing an article, it was already old news. The first acknowledgment about Kelley’s departure appeared with letters to the editor on Friday. A news story finally appeared Saturday.
“First of all, I think we did drop the ball,” Editor Karin Winner said Friday. “If we’d been on our game, we would have filed a small news story about this the day that Steve went public with the news of his departure.
“That said, the restrictions that the law and our lawyers put on us in these situations make it difficult to explain our actions publicly.
“In short, I think if the circumstances were fully aired, many of our readers would understand even if they disagreed with our decision,” Winner said.
The newspaper is no different than any other employer in a similar situation. It doesn’t take inside knowledge to know that Union-Tribune editors are not going to explain the events that resulted in Kelley’s departure. As a rule, employers never publicly discuss personnel matters. Yet, that usually doesn’t stop reporters from trying to get answers.
In this case, what does the newspaper owe its readers? I agree with those who say that Kelley is a public figure. As one caller put it, “I wouldn’t expect you to have an explanation if it involved someone in a less prominent position, but it’s different with Kelley.”
Unlike headline-grabbing situations at other newspapers, it’s not clear what prompted Kelley’s departure.
There were no accusations of journalistic wrong-doing. As far as I know, his departure has nothing to do with his ability as a cartoonist.
“I’m sorry it has come to this,” Winner said. “Steve is an extraordinary talent — but that isn’t our only expectation from an employee in the workplace.”
An editor’s note that appeared with Friday’s letters to the editor called Kelley’s work with the Union-Tribune “consistently provocative and often brilliant.”
The cartoon Kelley reportedly believes prompted the dismissal, while rejected by Union-Tribune editors, has appeared in other Copley newspapers and on television and various Web sites. There’s no political message in it that I can see. So, what did Union-Tribune readers miss by not seeing it?
The cartoon shows two teen-agers, their pants slung so low over their hips that their backsides are partially exposed. “Say what you want about today’s teen-agers,” an observer comments to another, “they’ll have no shortage of plumbers.” It’s not Kelley’s best work and I, for one, do not get the point.
While a cartoonist is paid to give his opinion, to push the boundaries, to provoke a reaction, it’s not a secret that editors have sent Kelley back to the drawing board in the past when they thought his cartoons fell short of his talent. Editorial cartoons either work or they don’t. If people don’t understand the message immediately, it means the cartoonist could do better. Were editors in this case trying to suppress an unpopular idea? Did they want him to be politically correct? I think not. I think they wanted better work from him.
Some readers have demanded that the newspaper take Kelley back. However, I think most people recognize that the Union-Tribune has the right to determine who should be on its payroll.
What resonates more with me is readers who question why the newspaper failed to acknowledge the situation early on.
It’s not clear why editors did not anticipate that a story was needed to explain the situation to readers. That’s where they failed to do their journalistic duty. Even a bare-bones story simply acknowledging that Kelley was no longer with the newspaper would have been better than nothing.
