Still reflecting on Steve Smith's appearance the other night, and the mini-reunion it drew of old Eugene news types.
Also in the audience were Jacqui Banaszynski and Don Nelson, who were part of that crew of "Young Turks" -- that's actually what people called them -- at the Register-Guard in the late 1970s and early '80s. Jacqui said something after the event about how there seem to be certain moments when newspaper staffs come together in an almost magical way. I've always noticed that too, and that old R-G crew was a classic case.
For a smallish paper (I think circulation is about 80,000), the Guard was always celebrated for its writing and, especially, its photography and design. And it turned out an amazing number of top-flight journalists.
Jacqui left for Minneapolis shortly before I arrived in 1980, but I knew her from visits to the newsroom. She went on to win a Pulitzer at the St. Paul Pioneer Press, then was an editor at The Oregonian before moving to the Seattle Times, where we reconnected. Jacqui and Don were a couple then, as they are now. They've followed each other around the country for the better part of three decades; Nellie's now the editor of the Skagit Valley Herald, after spending some time as editor of the Puget Sound Business Journal.
For a while Eugene was like the farm team of the Seattle papers. Blaine Newnham, the longtime Times sports columnist, had been sports editor at the R-G. Cathy Henkel, the Times' current sports editor and Bud Withers, a sports reporter there and formerly at the P-I, both were on Blaine's R-G staff. Harley Soltes and Betty Udesen, both incredible Times photographers, came from Eugene (although Betty worked at the nearby Springfield paper).
Terry McDermott, a great friend and for my money the best journalist to work in these parts, spent time with the rest of us at the Guard. In fact I think he replaced Steve Smith when Steve moved on. Terry's wife Millie Quan was my editor at the Guard and hired me at the Times (they both had a hand in getting me a gig at the LA Times, where they both still work).
Other R-G Young Turks, not so young anymore, included my good friends Mike Stahlberg and Ron Bellamy, who are still at the Guard, and Brian Lanker, the trendsetting photographer and designer who went on to fame as photographer of Sports Illustrated swimsuit editions.
And there were so many other excellent reporters and editors there around that time beyond that Young Turk group. I'll always have soft spots for Lloyd Paseman, film critic and assistant city editor while I was there; Fred Crafts, the arts and entertainment editor who gave me many breaks; and especially Dean Rea, whose name sounded like a very apt title given his stern professorial approach.
I'll never forget Dean regularly calling and waking me up at 6:30 in the morning (we were an afternoon paper at the time, so editors worked early), to point out some flaw in a story I'd filed the night before. "Mark, Dean Rea," he'd invariably begin. And then some variation of: "Do you have an AP stylebook? Turn to Page 86." And he'd hang up, leaving me to figure out which stylebook entry I'd overlooked.
My favorite Dean Rea lesson was the time he woke me up with the most concise writing instruction I ever got. "Mark, Dean Rea. Ever hear of a little thing called parallel construction?" Click. Well, I'm sure he didn't hang up without any further discussion, but that's sure all I remember of the conversation.
Man. Those were some good times. What a paper you could put out with that gang now.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
You can almost smell the grass
What a beautiful day. Chilly, but it's clear and sunny, the mountains are out, it's a three-day weekend and I can still hear those magical, hopeful words from earlier this week: Pitchers and catchers report!
At this point, the Mariners suck only on paper.
At this point, the Mariners suck only on paper.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Shame on Jamieson?
One of Steve Smith's remarks at last night's SPJ session hit close to home. Recounting some of the criticism of the Spokesman-Review's Jim West coverage, Smith called out the P-I's columnist Robert Jamieson.
As Jamieson's editor, I winced.
I remember the column Smith had in mind. It ran just after the Spokesman's initial report, and it lumped the paper's coverage with a bunch of reporting embarrassments, from the Sacramento Bee columnist who resigned after apparently fabricating sources to Jayson Blair, the disgraced New York Times reporter who did the same.
Smith said it was Robert's column that was disgraceful. "Shame on Robert Jamieson," he said.
Smith's point all night was that his paper's coverage was thoughtful, deliberative and ethical. He said the decision to use an undercover proxy -- entrapment, in Jameison's view -- was a subjective one and open to debate, but it wasn't reckless. To lump the Spokesman in with Newsweek's discredited Quran-flushing story and the rest, he said, was just plain wrong and inexcusable.
I related all this to Robert today, and I won't be surprised if he revisits the subject.
As Jamieson's editor, I winced.
I remember the column Smith had in mind. It ran just after the Spokesman's initial report, and it lumped the paper's coverage with a bunch of reporting embarrassments, from the Sacramento Bee columnist who resigned after apparently fabricating sources to Jayson Blair, the disgraced New York Times reporter who did the same.
Smith said it was Robert's column that was disgraceful. "Shame on Robert Jamieson," he said.
Smith's point all night was that his paper's coverage was thoughtful, deliberative and ethical. He said the decision to use an undercover proxy -- entrapment, in Jameison's view -- was a subjective one and open to debate, but it wasn't reckless. To lump the Spokesman in with Newsweek's discredited Quran-flushing story and the rest, he said, was just plain wrong and inexcusable.
I related all this to Robert today, and I won't be surprised if he revisits the subject.
On taking down Jim West
Steve Smith, editor of the Spokane Spokesman-Review, struck me as thoughtful and persuasive last night as he discussed his paper's controversial Jim West story.
It's been nine months now since the Spokesman printed the stories about West trolling gay-oriented Web sites for underage partners, revelations that led to the Spokane mayor's recall and brought both praise and scorn upon the paper. The criticism has mainly concerned the Spokesman's use of an undercover investigator, hired by the paper, to pose as a teenage boy online and to confirm that West indeed was the person behind his apparent online persona.
Last night Smith explained and defended the ethics of that strategy, as he has done in many public appearances since the story broke. I thought he made his case well -- the undercover lurking by "Motobrock" was approved only after more than a year of digging, he said, and a determination that this story couldn't be nailed down any other way. Not everyone agreed, even in this audience primarily of reporters and editors (Smith's appearance was sponsored by the Seattle chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists).
It was a fascinating evening. I had several personal connections beyond my professional interest.
First, Smith and I worked together 26 years ago at the Eugene Register-Guard, where I was a part-time reporter and University of Oregon student at the time, and Steve was a reporter. I sat next to him in the newsroom, in fact, and I remember him showing me the ropes at the Lane County Courthouse and generously giving me reporting and writing help. I always liked him, although I hadn't seen him before last night for probably 25 years.
Also I know West very well, having covered him in Olympia in the late 1980s and early 1990s when he was a state senator and I was a statehouse reporter for the Seattle Times. I wrote many stories about him and his legislation, including the first coverage of his famous teen-sex bill -- even consensual sex among minors would be considered a felony -- that has been cited in the past year as evidence of West's hypocrisy. Personally, I always liked West too.
I was thinking about all of that last night as Smith was asked about the "fact" that everybody in Olympia knew West was gay and "covered it up."
In fact, though -- and I believe Times politics editor Richard Wagoner pointed this out from the audience -- the "fact" of West's homosexuality was the talk of much rumor and speculation in Oly at the time, but wasn't known to be true. Could that have been investigated? Sure, I suppose. I know we talked about it. But the prevailing thought, which I endorsed then and still believe, was that it wasn't the newspaper's place to out a politician on his otherwise legal sexual preference.
As Smith said last night on another question, you could argue the point.
Somebody at work today wondered aloud how the Spokesman-Review's coverage will be judged over time. I think the Motobrock decision will continue to be debated. But my guess is that the appreciation of Spokane readers, and eventually journalism critics, will grow as time passes.
The ultimate test is the veracity of the story, and that doesn't seem to be in question at all. The Spokesman nailed it.
It's been nine months now since the Spokesman printed the stories about West trolling gay-oriented Web sites for underage partners, revelations that led to the Spokane mayor's recall and brought both praise and scorn upon the paper. The criticism has mainly concerned the Spokesman's use of an undercover investigator, hired by the paper, to pose as a teenage boy online and to confirm that West indeed was the person behind his apparent online persona.
Last night Smith explained and defended the ethics of that strategy, as he has done in many public appearances since the story broke. I thought he made his case well -- the undercover lurking by "Motobrock" was approved only after more than a year of digging, he said, and a determination that this story couldn't be nailed down any other way. Not everyone agreed, even in this audience primarily of reporters and editors (Smith's appearance was sponsored by the Seattle chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists).
It was a fascinating evening. I had several personal connections beyond my professional interest.
First, Smith and I worked together 26 years ago at the Eugene Register-Guard, where I was a part-time reporter and University of Oregon student at the time, and Steve was a reporter. I sat next to him in the newsroom, in fact, and I remember him showing me the ropes at the Lane County Courthouse and generously giving me reporting and writing help. I always liked him, although I hadn't seen him before last night for probably 25 years.
Also I know West very well, having covered him in Olympia in the late 1980s and early 1990s when he was a state senator and I was a statehouse reporter for the Seattle Times. I wrote many stories about him and his legislation, including the first coverage of his famous teen-sex bill -- even consensual sex among minors would be considered a felony -- that has been cited in the past year as evidence of West's hypocrisy. Personally, I always liked West too.
I was thinking about all of that last night as Smith was asked about the "fact" that everybody in Olympia knew West was gay and "covered it up."
In fact, though -- and I believe Times politics editor Richard Wagoner pointed this out from the audience -- the "fact" of West's homosexuality was the talk of much rumor and speculation in Oly at the time, but wasn't known to be true. Could that have been investigated? Sure, I suppose. I know we talked about it. But the prevailing thought, which I endorsed then and still believe, was that it wasn't the newspaper's place to out a politician on his otherwise legal sexual preference.
As Smith said last night on another question, you could argue the point.
Somebody at work today wondered aloud how the Spokesman-Review's coverage will be judged over time. I think the Motobrock decision will continue to be debated. But my guess is that the appreciation of Spokane readers, and eventually journalism critics, will grow as time passes.
The ultimate test is the veracity of the story, and that doesn't seem to be in question at all. The Spokesman nailed it.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
A bogey for 'Radio Golf'
It's easy to see how "Radio Golf," August Wilson's final play, closing this weekend at Seattle Rep, got such great reviews.
It's politically correct material, written by an acclaimed, Pulitzer-winning playwright ... who happens to be from Seattle ... and is one of America's preeminent African American writers ... and died just months before the play opened. Can't miss!
But I don't think the critics did their readers any favors with the generous notices that ran last month. Michelle and I saw "Radio Golf" last night and, although we went in with great expectations and good will, both left Bagley Wright disappointed. I'm not a theater critic, but I found the performances weak, the line readings rushed and unconvincing and the staging unimaginative.
The biggest surprise, though, was the script, which felt unfinished. And it probably was. News accounts said Wilson completed the play shortly before he died in October, and while I watched and listened I couldn't shake the feeling that he was rushing to finish before time ran out. With time to rewrite and then to revise during early stagings, as he frequently had done, maybe Wilson would have lost some of the cliches, sharpened the characters, tightened the speeches.
Without that polish, the final piece of his 10-play, 20th-century cycle feels unequal to the praise it received, let alone the earlier installments (of which I only saw one, "Fences").
It's a shame, I think, that Seattle's critics couldn't bring themselves to say that. Either they're overly polite or blinded by respect or love or grief.
Seattle Weekly's Lynn Jacobson appeared headed toward that regretful but honest take in the opening paragraphs of her Feb. 1 review, but then took a sharp turn and praised the play as "a quiet pleasure." The P-I's Joe Adcock was the most fawning. Even The Stranger loved it.
In the end, the town's most sober and evenhanded review was probably Misha Berson's Jan. 27 take in the Times. While she was extremely positive, Misha also was willing to characterize the play as "raw" and "unfinished," and noted that it "frays at the finale."
It will be interesting to see how "Radio Golf" travels. I wonder how the New York critics, some miles and months removed from Wilson's death, will score this round.
It's politically correct material, written by an acclaimed, Pulitzer-winning playwright ... who happens to be from Seattle ... and is one of America's preeminent African American writers ... and died just months before the play opened. Can't miss!
But I don't think the critics did their readers any favors with the generous notices that ran last month. Michelle and I saw "Radio Golf" last night and, although we went in with great expectations and good will, both left Bagley Wright disappointed. I'm not a theater critic, but I found the performances weak, the line readings rushed and unconvincing and the staging unimaginative.
The biggest surprise, though, was the script, which felt unfinished. And it probably was. News accounts said Wilson completed the play shortly before he died in October, and while I watched and listened I couldn't shake the feeling that he was rushing to finish before time ran out. With time to rewrite and then to revise during early stagings, as he frequently had done, maybe Wilson would have lost some of the cliches, sharpened the characters, tightened the speeches.
Without that polish, the final piece of his 10-play, 20th-century cycle feels unequal to the praise it received, let alone the earlier installments (of which I only saw one, "Fences").
It's a shame, I think, that Seattle's critics couldn't bring themselves to say that. Either they're overly polite or blinded by respect or love or grief.
Seattle Weekly's Lynn Jacobson appeared headed toward that regretful but honest take in the opening paragraphs of her Feb. 1 review, but then took a sharp turn and praised the play as "a quiet pleasure." The P-I's Joe Adcock was the most fawning. Even The Stranger loved it.
In the end, the town's most sober and evenhanded review was probably Misha Berson's Jan. 27 take in the Times. While she was extremely positive, Misha also was willing to characterize the play as "raw" and "unfinished," and noted that it "frays at the finale."
It will be interesting to see how "Radio Golf" travels. I wonder how the New York critics, some miles and months removed from Wilson's death, will score this round.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Insert (Super, Motown, XL, Satisfaction) pun here
The Super Bowl naturally dominated the morning papers and the talk around town today. Headlines played off the disappointing outcome in various ways: "XL Letdown" in the P-I, where Art Thiel's front-page take was engagingly harsh; "Not this year" in the Times, "Motown Meltdown" in the TNT, etc.
I'd expect even more tomorrow on the officiating. I heard a lot of conspiracy theorists today, which I find astonishing. Some bad calls, sure. But can anybody seriously think that the NFL told the refs to rig the game for the Steelers? That's what several otherwise balanced home-town fans had to say.
A decent riff on the refs appeared in Slate.
And if you can't get enough of the Seattle's-a-nice-place theme, here's a Washington Post story from game day.
I'd expect even more tomorrow on the officiating. I heard a lot of conspiracy theorists today, which I find astonishing. Some bad calls, sure. But can anybody seriously think that the NFL told the refs to rig the game for the Steelers? That's what several otherwise balanced home-town fans had to say.
A decent riff on the refs appeared in Slate.
And if you can't get enough of the Seattle's-a-nice-place theme, here's a Washington Post story from game day.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Eye on Seattle
If all goes well, few will see this blog.
That's not a common wish for a new publishing venture, but then I'm thinking of Seattle Observed as less a venture than a semi-public experiment.
For years, I've wanted to see a good, dependable review of the area's news and critique of its journalism. Long ago, before "blogging" existed, I co-founded a web site devoted to this idea but on a larger scale, PersonalReader.com. It rocked, but as with many late-'90s Internet ideas, didn't last. Ahead of its time, maybe.
Fast-forward to today, and the blogosphere as it has developed is wonderfully entertaining and opinionated, but hasn't produced many of the kinds of local news-and-review sites that I'd like to see. A terrific exception, L.A. Observed, is one of my favorite web destinations and my model for this effort.
Like L.A. Observed's Kevin Roderick, who is a freelance writer and spent years at the Los Angeles Times, I'm a career journalist. For the past two years I've been an editor at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, but I've also spent 12 years at the Seattle Times, three years at the LA Times and various stints at other publications in California and Oregon and, for a few months 10 years ago, at MSNBC.
Which brings me back to my wish for few eyeballs. At least for now.
My goal for Seattle Observed is not to compete with any of the local news media, particularly my employer, nor to promote or disparage them. I simply want to compile, for my own use and amusement, a running take on what's going on around town.
If the blog gets too much notice or ridicule too soon, I suspect I'll need to take it down. A much better outcome would be to get the idea established, gauge how much work it would take to keep it going, and then migrate it to my paper's web site, SeattlePI.com.
Should you happen to run across it in the meantime, please let me know what you think. And then keep it to yourself.
-- Mark Matassa
That's not a common wish for a new publishing venture, but then I'm thinking of Seattle Observed as less a venture than a semi-public experiment.
For years, I've wanted to see a good, dependable review of the area's news and critique of its journalism. Long ago, before "blogging" existed, I co-founded a web site devoted to this idea but on a larger scale, PersonalReader.com. It rocked, but as with many late-'90s Internet ideas, didn't last. Ahead of its time, maybe.
Fast-forward to today, and the blogosphere as it has developed is wonderfully entertaining and opinionated, but hasn't produced many of the kinds of local news-and-review sites that I'd like to see. A terrific exception, L.A. Observed, is one of my favorite web destinations and my model for this effort.
Like L.A. Observed's Kevin Roderick, who is a freelance writer and spent years at the Los Angeles Times, I'm a career journalist. For the past two years I've been an editor at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, but I've also spent 12 years at the Seattle Times, three years at the LA Times and various stints at other publications in California and Oregon and, for a few months 10 years ago, at MSNBC.
Which brings me back to my wish for few eyeballs. At least for now.
My goal for Seattle Observed is not to compete with any of the local news media, particularly my employer, nor to promote or disparage them. I simply want to compile, for my own use and amusement, a running take on what's going on around town.
If the blog gets too much notice or ridicule too soon, I suspect I'll need to take it down. A much better outcome would be to get the idea established, gauge how much work it would take to keep it going, and then migrate it to my paper's web site, SeattlePI.com.
Should you happen to run across it in the meantime, please let me know what you think. And then keep it to yourself.
-- Mark Matassa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
