The Roanoke Times is strangely silent about whether it reassigned a reporter at the behest of a big local business.
A couple of weeks ago, a strong Wall Street Journal story peeled the curtain back on how a monopoly local hospital—and a nonprofit one at that—throws its weight around Roanoke, jacking up prices, cutting off referrals to independent doctors, and, tellingly, pulling ads from the Times after repeatedly complaining about a reporter who had been aggressively covering the hospital.
The Times moved the reporter, Jeff Sturgeon, to another beat, and in the Journal story, didn't say whether its personnel decision was influenced by the hospital, Carilion Health System. That’s here:
As tension between Carilion and Roanoke's independent doctors grew in 2006, a group of 200 doctors formed an organization called the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare to protest the Carilion Clinic plan. The group posted a petition on its Web site and put up billboards around Roanoke that read: "Carilion Clinic. Big Dream. Big Questions." The local newspaper, the Roanoke Times, covered the controversy in a series of articles written by its health-care reporter, Jeff Sturgeon.A few months later, in March 2007, the Roanoke Times moved Mr. Sturgeon off the health-care beat after Carilion complained repeatedly about his coverage. Carilion says it communicated its displeasure to the paper's editors, but never asked that Mr. Sturgeon be reassigned. Carilion withdrew most of its advertising from the paper, but says it did that as part of a reallocation of its ad budget. "Any friction that exists between an organization like us and the media is entirely appropriate," Mr. Earnhart says.
Mr. Sturgeon, who now covers transportation, declined requests for comment. Carole Tarrant, the Roanoke Times's editor, said: "We're covering Carilion like we always have and always will, and have no plans to change how we cover Carilion." She declined to elaborate.
But in asserting that the paper’s coverage hadn’t changed, Tarrant didn’t address whether the hospital’s complaints, and the pulling of its ads, had played a role in the decision to move Sturgeon.
The story caused a stir in Roanoke, and on Sunday the paper’s managing editor, Michael Stowe, wrote a column headlined “Journal story prompts questions about Carilion coverage,” saying more than a dozen readers had written about the Journal story, with some questioning the Times’s own coverage of Carilion.
He defended the paper’s coverage:
We knew that Journal reporter John Carreyrou had visited Roanoke earlier in the summer to report on Carilion's growing influence in the region. What new facts or sources, we wondered, might he uncover?When the story published in the Journal on Aug. 28, we were pleased to see few surprises.
But, like Tarrant, he failed to address the only allegation directed at the paper itself: that it had removed Sturgeon at the hospital’s behest. Oddly, the column does address why the paper dropped the comic strip “For Better Or For Worse,” which is repeating its original story line, even though it still runs “Peanuts.”
In an interview with me, Stowe said he believed the issue had “been addressed” by Tarrant in the original Journal story. He also repeated that the coverage of Carilion had not changed, even if the reporter had.
“I can tell you that we feel like we cover Carilion better any other news media organization,” he said. “We have a track record.”
As for Sturgeon, he said that “we restructure and change beats all the time,” but declined to say whether Sturgeon’s reassignment was part of a normal beat change. “We don’t get into personnel decisions and why we change beats,” he said.
He said Sturgeon wasn’t “banned’ from covering Carilion and that, as he noted in his column, that Sturgeon did write a tough story about Carilion in May.
Tarrant and Sturgeon both declined to comment to me.
So here’s the record on Carilion and Sturgeon as it now stands:
A hospital complains about a reporter and pulls ads from the paper. The paper reassigns him.
The paper—offered three chances—declines to deny that one caused the other when a simple “no” would do.
So he's covering transporation now? Wait until he pisses off the local auto dealers, another sensitive group that likes to speak to newspapers in terms of ad volume. What will they reassign him to cover then -- garden club meetings?
Why would a non-profit hospital, essentially a monopoly, even bother to advertise in the local paper? At least the auto dealers should be spending money to advertise.
They advertise because there is a 500-bed tertiary care hospital owned by HCA 8 miles away which has 40% of the hospital admissions and is seeing growth. I'm not sure this situation meets the strict definition of "monopoly".
Well, if by saying "no" they would be lying, which appears to be the case, then they shouldn't say no.
Tarrant and Stowe should, however, feel humiliated, and they should be questioning why they bother getting up in the morning. If they had any self-respect whatsoever, they wouldn't show up in the newsroom ever again.
I know Carole Tarrant and have worked with her for many years. She's never caved into pressure on stories that were way more controversial than anything involving this hospital. Anyone who is in management deals with a lot of personnel issues that can't be dealt with publicly. Maybe this is one of those cases. I thought the whole idea of CJR was to think about the overall issues of journalism and add an extra layer of care and understanding to the many issues involved in covering a story. Instead, this story is based on little more than a paragraph in a Wall Street Journal story and is basically a knee-jerk reaction to a situation that the writer here seems to know nothing about other than his unresearched opinions. Given the tenor of this piece, it's seems there's something rotten at CJR.
I have known Carole Tarrant for more than 20 years and have worked with her on stories far more difficult and controversial than the one involving this hospital. She has more backbone than most journalists or most people. She's never caved in on anything. This story is a cheap shot based on supposition and not much more. It takes a sliver from a Wall Street Journal story and is basically a knee-jerk reaction to a situation that the writer here seems to know nothing about other than his unresearched opinions.
I also thought the RT's response in Sunday's paper was oddly silent on this issue. I'm embarassed that the CJR had to do what the RT should have done in its own pages after the WSJ raised the question of whether Sturgeon had been replaced because of pressure from Carilion.It's not a matter of whether or not Tarrant has a backbone. It's how the Roanoke Times handled this particular issue. And I think most journalists would agree that my dodging the issue, the newspaper comes up looking fishy.
I meant to say (oy, where's a copy editor when you need one) "by dodging the issue."
As someone who has lived in Roanoke for 19 years, let me assure you this was NOT a "knee jerk" reaction. I am very knowledgeable about the situation. There is absolutely no question but that Carilion complained, pulled their ads from the paper (representing 20% of its ad income), then Sturgeon was removed. Carilion wields a tremendous amount of influence over media in our town. To those of us who live here, it's a common occurance.
Thank you for calling attention to the suffocating influence this hospital (and many others) has on the media. The public is paying a dear price to feed this monster whose appetite will never be satisfied. The peculiar reimbursement advantages to the 'clinic' need to be exposed as well. Yes, a good newspaper could do a great service to its readers. Thanks again.
Just another example of Big Medicine running rampant and the media doing nothing to stop it.
For a journalism review, you guys seem unaware of good journalistic ethics. What kind of headline is "Something's Rotten in Roanoke"? Talk about biased from the beginning. You're setting up readers to have a reaction before they've even read the story!
It should also be noted that not denying an accusation is not the same as confirming it. The Roanoke Times has no reason to respond to you, the WSJ, or anyone else when there is no evidence (as of yet) that they've done anything wrong. Mr. Sturgeon was transferred to another beat close to a year after the series of stories he did -- that's hardly a connection.
The focus here should be on the real (and original) story -- the Carilion monopoly. They're the problem -- not TRT.
A newspaper that's in the business of exposing other businesses and government actions, has a responsibility to answer charges when journalism reviews and readers are questioning whether that newspaper's actions are suspect. And if the newspaper is allowing Carilion to shade its coverage any any way, most journalists would agree that's a story. If that's not what happened, the RT needs to say so. I'd love to hear from a journalism professor or other impartial ethics person on what they think.
This kind of a thing happens everyday in India. One of the times I remember vividly was when I was asked to cover the opening of a new high school. Now, this concrete structure was located within a 500 feet radius of a drinking water source, so I questioned that, because the Indian Supreme Court had forbidden construction around drinking water sources - for, I guess, within 10 kms of a drinking water source.When I came back to my office to file the story, the editor and my bureau chief were sitting with a thundercloud over their heads because the owner of the school - being a close and dear friend of the editor - was not pleased with my question and I was told by my editor that unless told, I was by no means to ask questions. My job was only to do a report and not ask questions. The paper would have lost advertising from that school too - otherwise!
This kind of thing also happens every day in the US.
I'm surprised the comments have not touched on this. Perhaps, at 28, I can better remember my early 20s at a community newspaper where, if the advertiser complained and that advertiser was big enough, the publisher budged. I don't condone it; it's just a reality.
It doesn't really matter if the Times editor denied or confirmed it, if CJR is irresponsible, or if Big Medicine is slowly taking over the world. That's all lipstick on a pig. The looming question is how do we help community publishers stymy this practice, a practice that doesn't indicate weakness but a willingness to keep people employed?
After all, resigning in protest is much easier when you're a high profile editor at, for instance, The Los Angeles Times, than the editor slogging it out at a small or mid-size newspaper—perhaps barely maintaining revenue to pay a skeletal staff.
Instead of taking swipes at the Roanoke Times, Columbia Journalism Review or Carilion hospital, let's instead talk about how we can remedy this problem.
Sorry to interrupt the conspiracy theories between Dean and his WSJ buddy John, but here is yet ANOTHER story about Carilion Clinic written THIS WEEK by Jeff Sturgeon:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/178088