How it should be done
by David Benjamin
“Real
life is slow; it takes professionals time to figure out what happened,
and how it fits into context. Technology is fast. Smartphones and social
networks are giving us facts about the news much faster than we can
make sense of them, letting speculation and misinformation fill the
gap.”
— Farhad Manjoo
PARIS — After ten years in town, the glass factory was closing down — suddenly.
In
a month, it would be gone, every machine, module, fixture and forklift,
every gray-flannel executive shifted to a new location in a
right-to-work state way down south. Three hundred fifty local employees
were offered the option of either moving to the new facility 1,400 miles
away — with no relocation subsidy — or signing up for unemployment.
The local newspaper editor — let’s call it the Gazette —
remembered the ballyhoo when the Glass Company arrived in town, broke
ground with a gold-plated shovel, promised to be a pillar of the
regional economy ‘til Hell froze over and started taking applications
for living-wage jobs. The local editor had taken photos of the
ribbon-cutting at the new factory. She had interviewed the factory
chiefs and recorded the Glass Factory’s efforts at community outreach,
including its annual Toys for Tots drive and a $500 Glass Company
scholarship given annually to a graduating member of the National Honor
Society. None of these benevolences would continue after the Glass
Company blew town.
The local editor knew also, from receiving and
dutifully re-writing its quarterly-earnings press releases that the
company, and the local factory, had been operating at or well above
break-even for all but a few of those ten years in town.
She had
a copy of the Glass Company kiss-off, sent to her electronically from
Corporate HQ in a large city 500 miles due west. In several terse
paragraphs, it revealed a plan to shut down all operations in the
editor’s little town, but offered little insight into the reasons for
this abrupt and disruptive exodus.
The local editor went to work.
Her first call was to Corporate HQ, where she got funneled to the P.R.
office, whose junior assistant could not comment but promised that Mr.
Arbuthnot, Vice President of Corporate Communications, would get back to
her “right away.”
The local editor made plans to call Arbuthnot
every hour all day and all week ’til she got through. Meanwhile, she put
in calls to the chairman of the Board of Selectman and the Town Manager
for comment. Both had heard rumors about a possible shutdown. Both were
flustered by its suddenness. Both were tempted toward anger. But they
also conveyed a knee-jerk tendency to empathize with the greed-is-good
philosophy of the Glass Company, which had brought it to town — lured by
tax waivers, zoning concessions and cheap land — in the first place.
But
the town officials gave the editor printable quotes that put them on
the spot, and they helped her fill a few gaps in the Glass Company’s
brief local history.
Next, the local editor plunged into the
“morgue,” a hodgepodge of yellowed newspapers, clipping folders,
microfilm records and computer files that dated back to the first
inklings — more than 14 years before — that the Glass Company might be
building a local factory. While the editor pored— and sneezed — through
her dusty archives, she repeated her calls to V.P. Arbuthnot.
The
morgue search provided the local editor with corroboration of the
claims and promises given the town by the Glass Company when it moved
in.
The editor then made additional calls to the mayor of the
town, in Alabama, where the Glass Factory was already breaking ground
and taking job applications. She searched online for articles in the
local Alabama press about the Glass Company’s negotiations there, and
the promises made. She took notes on similarities between the
present-day accommodations and assurances in Alabama and those bandied
in her town more than a decade before. She found officials in both state
governments who were cautiously willing to discuss pros and cons of the
Glass Company’s portable production-site practices.
That night,
still unsuccessful in her efforts to reach any executive at the Glass
Company, the local editor attended the Selectmen’s meeting, where the
chairman and the Town Manager spoke both disconsolately and carefully —
lest they offend — about the bugout by the Glass Company. To the
editor’s relief, two other Selectmen and several erstwhile glassworkers
spoke more bluntly about the Glass Company’s broken vows and mercenary
expediency. The editor hurriedly snagged two of the workers and enriched
her quote file.
That evening marked the Gazette’s
deadline. So the local editor filed her main story on the factory
shutdown, plus sidebars on the Selectmen’s meeting and comments from the
workers, without any comment from the Glass Company. She inserted high
in the lead story the standard notation, “Glass Company officials were
contacted but had not responded by press time.”
The editor
finished with a last-minute six-‘graph editorial about the Glass
Company’s departure, lamenting the loss of 350 jobs and a resulting
disturbance in the life of the community. But she stifled her urge to
blast the corporation, opting instead to end her commentary with several
pointed “how” and “why” and “what happened” questions.
Next day, with the online Gazette
posted and the print version hitting the newsstand, the editor got her
callback from the Glass Company. Arbuthnot had delegated a “top”
assistant, named Wetherbee, to control the damage. Unfortunately for
Wetherbee, the local editor had more background on the glass factory
than he did. Interviewing Wetherbee genially and with sympathy for the
vicissitudes of U.S. manufacturing in a global economy, the local editor
managed to coax from him — on the record — several revelations about
the Glass Company’s motives. Whether read in or out of context, these
inadvertently candid admissions cast the Glass Company’s management as
coldblooded profiteers blithely willing to sacrifice the livelihoods of
two or three hundred families for the sake of a few pennies in the
corporate stock price.
Accidentally, Wetherbee also revealed that
the Glass Company had come to town with no intention to linger long.
Wetherbee said with a note of pride that the Glass Company treated
frequent and advantageous “relocation opportunities” as basic corporate
policy, “good for our shareholders and good for our bottom line.”
Thanks
to Wetherbee, the local editor was able to put together much of the
story behind the story. But she was still a few phone calls away from
being satisfied. Every story, she knew, has a life of its own.
The
local editor went back online to identify experts and analysts who
could explain the finances of the glass industry. She also looked for
sources with expertise on the risks and rewards involved in siting,
building and relocating manufacturing facilities. She learned more than
she really wanted to know about the economics of “spec buildings.” All
these calls took a few days, during which she shared some of her
findings with the Town Manager, several Selectmen and one of her
favorite Town Hall sources, an astute and articulate member of the
Zoning Board who had a knack for putting municipal mishegoss into
perspective.
Following on her contacts with Arbuthnot and
Wetherbee, the local editor put in the obligatory request — three times —
for a chat with the Chief Executive Officer of the Glass Company. She
was, of course, thrice rebuffed. Meanwhile, she spoke with more
glassworkers. She interviewed the head of a labor union that was
prevented, after the company obtained an injunction, from organizing at
the glass factory. She recorded more remarks — this time somewhat less
indulgent toward the Glass Company’s duplicity — at the next Selectman’s
meeting.
Perhaps most important, she found and spoke with
officials in other communities where the Glass Factory had pulled up
stakes after using up its tax holidays and labor concessions. These
quotes corroborated the tale unintentionally told by the voluble and
amiable Wetherbee.
For the second week in a row, the glass factory shutdown led the Gazette
above the fold. The local editor was able to add “art.” She found a
photo of local dignitaries in Alabama ushering the Glass Factory to
town, photographed a Selectman speaking heatedly and added shots of
soon-to-be-fired glassworkers picketing outside the soon-to-be-empty
factory. Her follow-up editorial cast caution aside. She scorched Glass
Company executives for their venality and dishonesty in hustling the
original sweetheart deal, and for chucking their responsibility to a
community of salt-of-the-earth folks who had come to depend on them.
She
typed the word “criminal,” but then — having no legal foundation and
knowing that the Glass Company had conformed to conventional business
principles — deleted it.
To the her surprise, the editorial got re-posted by several news aggregators and eventually quoted in The Financial Times. This flicker of bad publicity finally brought the Glass Company CEO out of hiding, long enough to declare that all the Gazette’s coverage of the factory shutdown was “fake news.”
The
local editor quoted the CEO in full (with a photo) in her next issue,
but otherwise paid his retort little heed. She was busy following up the
shutdown — below the fold —with a feature about three single-parent
families suddenly left without means. She also had the annual Town
Meeting — with 59 articles that had to be explained, plus the opening of
the Little League season and a burgeoning Health Board fuss over Leon
Grant’s apparently illegal “farm pond” on the west side of town.
Monday, March 12, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment