'Seattle Times' Won't Extend Contract of JOA Freelancer

By: Joe Strupp The Seattle Times, which drew industry-wide praise three years ago when it hired an outside freelancer to cover the paper's joint operating agreement (JOA) battle with the rival Seattle Post-Intelligencer, has chosen not to extend his contract and will instead assign a staff writer to report on the ongoing issue.

Managing Editor David Boardman, in a memo to staff obtained by E&P, revealed that the paper had decided not to renew the contract with freelancer Bill Richards, which ends on Dec. 31. Richards, a veteran journalist who has written for The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, had been covering the JOA story since the end of 2002.

Times Staffer Eric Pryne will take over the JOA coverage, which is expected to include some bruising court hearings in the coming year.

"Eric Pryne has had some tough assignments in his nearly three decades at The Times," the memo said of Pryne. "He is about to tackle another tough charge: covering the ongoing legal battle over the joint operating agreement between The Seattle Times Co. and the Hearst Corp."

The memo went on to explain that Richards, who had received an undisclosed monthly stipend no matter how many stories he wrote, was not being re-hired, but with little explanation. "We have decided to take that coverage in-house moving forward," it said, in part. "We are confident that we can fairly, thoroughly and ethically cover ourselves, as we have on other matters in the past."

The memo added that Executive Editor Mike Fancher would not edit the JOA stories and stated that the newsroom had "struck an agreement with Eric that will ensure his independence and the integrity of his reporting," but did not elaborate.

Neither Fancher nor Boardman immediately returned calls seeking comment Tuesday night.

Richards said he had not expected the paper to use a staff writer after his reporting had appeared to prompt positive reactions, with Boardman even nominating him for a Pulitzer Prize. "I'm a little surprised they didn't stay with it," Richards told E&P. "I think the quality of the work was acceptable. I got no negative feedback on the quality of the reporting."

When the contract was forged in late 2002 and took effect Jan. 1, 2003, the agreement was considered notable because it allowed Richards to cover the story -- in which the Times is seeking to end the 22-year-old JOA and the P-I is suing to stop them -- with virtually no limitations. The deal paid Richards monthly without a required minimum or maximum number of stories each month. He was allowed to cover any aspects of the story and the Times was required to publish his coverage, unless there was a valid reason to deny it.

If a dispute arose, either side could go to a designated mediator, former Poynter Institute President James M. Naughton, to resolve the dispute. Neither side has had to take advantage of the mediation.

The Times has sought to end the JOA, which divides advertising and circulation profits through a 60-40 split, based on a provision in the agreement that allows either paper to pull out if it loses money for three consecutive years. The Times, which receives the higher profit portion, claims to have lost money annually from 2001 to 2004.

Some of Richards' stories have sparked disagreements with editors, such as a 2003 article that revealed a $10 million side deal between the Times and P-I owners at Hearst Newspapers giving Hearst the right of first refusal to buy the Seattle Times Co.'s majority ownership in the Times. Richards said that appeared to have violated anti-trust laws at the time, 1999.

Richards had written other articles questioning the Times' accounting practices, such as one story that reported the paper improperly included losses from other Seattle Times Co. properties on the Seattle Times' balance sheet and another report that the Times had not included a $30 million real estate sale in its 2004 calculations.

Richards recently said he believed upcoming court hearings were expected to be among the most complicated and critical, as the lawsuit enters the crucial phase in which each side must provide tangible proof that profits were or were not obtained by the Times.

"It is easier for an outsider to cover," Richards said about the impact of his arrangement. "The business has gotten tougher and tougher to cover yourself. It's like getting your left fielder to cover your baseball team."