Seattle JOA Reporter Gets Unique Freedom

By: Joe Strupp The Seattle Times, poised to possibly end its almost-20-year-old joint operating agreement with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, is seeking to avoid any hint of biased reporting by hiring a freelancer to cover the likely JOA shake-up and giving the scribe-for-hire a unique contract that virtually guarantees balanced coverage.

The Times' three-year deal with freelancer Bill Richards, a former reporter for The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek, includes a monthly stipend and a provision allowing him to go to a mediator if he believes editors have improperly spiked one of his stories. James M. Naughton, president of the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla., agreed to act as mediator. "I think it is a very interesting and unusual approach that is meant to ensure credibility," Naughton told E&P. Richards, 61, called the Times' arrangement "creative and gutsy on their part." If the reporter appeals a spiking to Naughton, and Naughton sides with him, and the Times still refuses to run the story, Richards can walk away from his deal, with his three-year salary intact.

"We are trying to maintain significant separation between the news operation and the business side," said David Boardman, assistant managing editor at the Times, about the freelancer's contract. "We were concerned how we were going to cover it and remain fair and balanced."

The contract is highly unusual. "I've never heard of anything like this," said Robert Leger, president of the Society of Professional Journalists and editorial-page editor at the Springfield (Mo.) News-Leader. "I think it protects both the freelancer and the newspaper."

But Jeffrey S. Philpott, chair of the Department of Communication at Seattle University, believes the unusual arrangement could create problems. "It sets up an adversarial relationship with the paper," he said. "It seems like an odd relationship with the editors."

Richards' first story, which ran Saturday, indicated a willingness to dig deep into the issue with a report that the Times had been unable to meet its loan covenants in 2002 and had become vulnerable to a takeover. The article cited elements of an internal memo and discussed union concerns that the Times might have been trying to lose money last year to allow an end to the JOA.

The Seattle JOA has come under new scrutiny since Times executives announced last week that the paper had failed to make a profit last year, marking its third money-losing year in a row. A provision in the JOA gives either newspaper the right to seek its end if one of them remains profitless for three straight years.

The Times -- reeling from a poor economy, a related decline in advertising revenue, and fallout from a bitter strike two years ago -- suffered losses in each of the last three years, spokeswoman Kerry Coughlin said last week. "There are a lot of factors and a lot of variables to consider," Coughlin said. Times CEO and Publisher Frank A. Blethen, who reportedly told a group of Times employees last fall that he would seek to end the JOA, also remained coy. "We are pretty disciplined and strategic when it comes to decision-making," Blethen told E&P Wednesday. "It will not be a knee-jerk reaction."

The Seattle Times Co., owned by the Blethen family, controls a majority interest in the Times, with a minority stake held by Knight Ridder. The Post-Intelligencer is owned by the Hearst Corp. Roger Oglesby, P-I editor and publisher, declined to comment on the JOA, but a Jan. 6 statement by Hearst executives in New York questioned whether the Times' losses could be substantiated: "We do not believe either party has a basis for terminating the Seattle joint operating agreement."

The JOA, a 100-year contract that went into effect in 1983, placed all business operations of the two papers under control of the Seattle Times Co., with profit split between the two partners -- 60% for the Times and 40% for the P-I. Under its terms, when one of the papers suffers losses for three straight years, it has nine months to trigger a provision requiring the papers to negotiate to either dissolve the JOA or shut down one of the papers. If the papers cannot come to an agreement, the JOA would automatically dissolve 18 months after the date the provision is triggered.

Any change in the JOA would require U.S. Justice Department approval.