Solidarity in the newsroom? Media concentration and union organizing: A case study from the sunshine state

Lakeland Ledger

In August 2016, the Lakeland Ledger became the first newspaper in modern memory to organize in Florida, and the vote was an overwhelming 22-3 (Journalists, 2016). The Ledger and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune joined 14 other GateHouse papers that had unionized with the NewsGuild-CWA. Since GateHouse’s acquisition of the Ledger the year before, layoffs hit at least 21 newsroom employees, and at least six positions were left unfilled and eventually eliminated (Florida NewsGuild, 2016). According to the journalists who led the organizing efforts at the Ledger, the devastating layoffs, a hiring freeze, and stagnant wages for almost a decade were some of the key reasons for unionizing, but the primary catalyst was having a voice in decision making and the direction of the paper. With the purchase of the paper by Halifax and then GateHouse, it was clear that the people making decisions were not journalists; rather, number-crunching became the incentive for newsroom decisions and outcomes at the expense of the resources needed to cover an area as large as Polk County, which several journalists noted is the size of the state of Delaware at approximately 2010 square miles.

As Gary White, a 15-year veteran at the paper, stated, the layoffs and unfilled positions when people left largely due to retirements, to dissatisfaction with work conditions, or to move on to different industries led to increased workloads with remaining journalists doubling, tripling, or quadrupling the number of beats and/or cities they were responsible for in addition to unofficial beats – that is, if a journalist writes a story on a particular issue, such as tourism, that person would be asked to consistently cover that issue as well. Furthermore, considering the size of the county that the paper serves, it is impossible to cover the areas that once were covered when the newsroom was at capacity. White noted that at its peak in 1999, there were about 100 people on staff; that number dwindled to 25. With so few journalists, the newspaper’s focus turned to the biggest city in the county – Lakeland, home to about 100,000 people. John Chambliss, who has been with the paper off and on for 18 years, noted that the Ledger previously had four bureaus to cover the county. What remains is the Lakeland newsroom and the Winter Haven bureau – which at one time had at least four journalists and now has only one. Chambliss stated that the bureau model was an effective way to cover the large county, but the bureaus began to close right before the New York Times Company sold the paper to Halifax.

With concentration of ownership and the focus on profit-maximization, cutting bureaus makes sense as overhead and salaries can be eliminated as cost-cutting measures. What is not considered is the effects on readers who are now marginalized. As Chambliss and Mary Sue (Suzie) Schottelkotte, a journalist at the paper for 34 years, noted, much is missed with so few journalists; this results in what they called ‘drive-by journalism’. ² That is, reporters who once had time to delve deeper into topics and issues now had to cover multiple beats and meet quotas at the expense of the time needed to investigate important stories. White noted that city and county officials, law enforcement, and others would call to ask if the paper could cover a story, and the editors sometimes had to say no because there simply was not enough staff. As of our interview in January 2018, Chambliss was covering both the county and the city, which is arduous for one person to do. He pointed out that this situation was ‘outrageous’, especially when one considers how much power, money, and influence are involved at the local government level. It is increasingly difficult to serve as a watchdog when one journalist is spread so thin. As Schottelkotte stated regarding journalism today, ‘Someone has to keep an eye on local government, to hold them accountable and to hold their feet to the fire. There has to be a watchdog group with the credibility to monitor the actions of elected officials’. But with so few journalists available to cover those in power, that role is even more challenging.

This is particularly frustrating for the journalists at the Ledger, especially because the paper had won the 2014 Newspaper of the Year award. According to Chambliss, at that time, the Ledger still had an investigative team and a core of reporters. Just a few years later, according to Sara Drumm, who had worked at the paper for 3 years before leaving to pursue a new career, the newsroom that was once bursting at the seams was decimated, and the news staff now shares space with the advertising department.

GateHouse also cut costs by centralizing copyediting and design in its Austin, Texas, office, which, according to White, led to the disappearance of 12 to 15 local jobs. While centralizing these production practices may help GateHouse save money, it has serious ramifications at the local level according to the journalists interviewed as readers have noticed a decline in quality. They reported that people in Austin are not familiar with the area or the local culture, so it is easier to put forth inaccurate headlines and other copyediting errors that affect the credibility of the local paper. Add to this the lack of accountability when mistakes are made due to centralized production. Readers point out these errors that could have been avoided if copyediting and design were still done at the local level.

When asked why they organized, the common theme was the reporters did not feel like they had power or options. According to White, it was not until someone from another unionized GateHouse paper called them, explaining the importance of organizing and offering his help, that they decided to move forward with organizing. He does not think they would have taken the step to unionize without that call. Journalists had talked about organizing in the past, but it seemed impossible in Florida – a Right to Work state in the South. The organizers had meetings with the newsroom staff and representatives from the union, who were available to answer questions, explain the process and what to expect after unionizing, and help counter the anti-union arguments the management would inevitably use. From these discussions, as all of the interviewees noted, it was clear that with a union, they would have some say in what happens at the paper. As it was, the newsroom morale had been quite low for some time. But the newsroom was cohesive in its support for organizing, and as such was able to keep the organizing efforts quiet until the cards were collected so as not to raise the ire of management. ³ As such, management was taken by surprise. Once the campaign became public, the anti-union missives began.

According to White, it was obvious that the anti-union sentiments were coming from corporate headquarters. The company sent a representative from GateHouse for its anti-union push. The publisher who was once largely absent started showing up frequently to talk them out of unionizing, arguing that unionizing would cost the company a lot of money, which would come out of the budget. He and other human resource (HR) representatives also argued that the union would not be able to get them anything, that the staff would lose money because they would have to pay dues, and that if the journalists went through with organizing, they would be blackballed, unable to work anywhere else. However, according to White, the reporters knew that nothing good would happen otherwise if they continued to rely on the status quo; it was clear by the publisher’s words and actions that he had no intention to make any changes. As Drumm pointed out, as the vote approached, each journalist was called into a private meeting with the editor, who tried to convince him or her not to support the union. People were nervous about what the editors and publisher would think and hoped that they would understand that the decision to unionize was not personal; rather, the problem was GateHouse. Schottelkotte noted that despite that nervousness and fear of what would happen if they lost the election, it was not difficult to convince people that a union was necessary: ‘“What do we have to lose” was the prevailing thought’. Furthermore, they knew that ‘solidarity had to start right now’ to effect change. White said that ‘no one had experience with unions, but they knew they had to do something’. And though Drumm knew she was leaving the paper, she felt that it was her responsibility to make things better for those who came after her.

The organizers saw positive changes after the election. White noted that newsroom morale changed since organizing, as the staff became more in tune with one another and talked to each other more and more often, which helped to increase their optimism about the future and improved working conditions. Chambliss pointed out that journalists at the Ledger have a stronger voice now that they have a union. He noted that the union allows for stability, gives employees a voice that they did not have before, and empowers them to call meetings with management to express their concerns, which they did not feel comfortable doing before, certainly not as individuals. He posited that the newsroom now has a little more leverage and more power, and Schottelkotte agreed, noting that at the end of the day, the unity of the members of the union newsroom and the negotiations with management will make the newspaper stronger.

Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Unlike the Ledger, the vote to unionize at the Herald-Tribune was much closer as the journalists voted 22-16 in favor of joining the NewsGuild-CWA. The paper had at least 16 layoffs in the previous year, and employees had not had a raise in 9 years (Voting, 2016). Like the Ledger journalists, the Herald-Tribune reporters made it clear that the choice to unionize was about GateHouse corporate practices, not local management. This is especially so as each journalist interviewed noted that he or she had a ‘great’ executive editor before they unionized; the journalists respected him, knew that the problems with their working conditions were corporate issues, not local issues, and did not want him to take unionizing personally; however, he did. As did the publisher, who said he was ‘very disappointed’ with the decision to organize because, as he stated, ‘I firmly believe local journalism is going to continue to need a more creative, flexible and nimble atmosphere to be successful in the future’ (Hare, 2016: para. 7). While this may sound efficient from a corporate standpoint, this is a typical anti-union statement that really means that management wants all employees to be at will – that is, able to be fired without just cause – and work more for less.

Like the Lakeland paper, the Herald-Tribune saw rounds of layoffs, but unlike the Ledger, the layoffs seemed to be random while Lakeland’s layoffs appeared to be based on seniority with those there the least amount of time laid off first (and in one division, the person with the least seniority had been there 20 or so years according to Gary White). Also like Lakeland, the centralization of design and copyediting introduced many problems at the local level. As one Sarasota reporter stated, the lack of local knowledge – such as information about politicians and maps – led to accuracy problems, which led to more frustration and more complexities. With the centralization of design, the paper no longer looked unique, ‘and loyal, invested readers who cared a lot about the paper’ started calling, emailing, and sending letters based on the changes and problems with accuracy based on centralized copyediting. High turnover, positions not being filled, people taking on multiple beats, and cuts to bureaus were other similarities the papers shared.

For Sarasota, the union was seen in early 2016 as a ‘counterpoint to Lakeland’, which, as noted, had been gutted and appeared to be the worst-case scenario. The nascent union effort was seen as preventive; as one reporter stated, ‘We didn’t want to wait to be hollowed out because then it would be too late’. There was some interest in the union, but there was not a consensus. Then in April 2016, the paper – which had a strong investigative team – won a Pulitzer for ‘a year-long investigative collaboration with the Tampa Bay Times detailing horrific conditions in Florida’s mental health hospitals’ (Le Coz, 2016: para. 1). This, according to several of the journalists interviewed, including Billy Cox, who started at the Sarasota paper in 2006 after 30 years at Florida Today, ‘took the steam out of unionizing’. Another reporter noted that many in the newsroom ‘thought GateHouse would protect them after that because they were seen as special’. Several journalists interviewed noted that the paper was profitable and served as a ‘shining star’ for GateHouse, supporting other, struggling outlets, which added to the thought that they would be saved from the massive layoffs at the Ledger and other GateHouse papers. A month later, the paper received more accolades from the Florida Society of News Editors for not only the Pulitzer piece but also first place awards in multiple categories, including features and arts writing, beat reporting, business stories, columns, feature page design, sports page design, and multimedia (Frobisher, 2016). According to Cox, the next day, reporters, including some award winners, were laid off: ‘It was like a virus; no one knew if they would catch the pink slip’. Another journalist explained it as such: one day everything was okay, and the next day was ‘like the Red Wedding in Game of Thrones’. As another reporter stated, if we can win awards one day and be laid off the next, ‘clearly nothing can protect us’. With that, the union organizing efforts accelerated.

Unlike the Lakeland effort, in which most of the newsroom agreed with unionizing and were able to keep things quiet, the Sarasota effort was sharply divided. It appears that the executive editor found out about the effort before all of the cards were collected and counted, and he was, according to all of the journalists interviewed, ‘furious’. The anti-union campaign was very tense and mean-spirited as journalists heard the same arguments from the anti-union handbook that the Ledger staff heard. But at Sarasota, these arguments were convincing for at least 16 staff members who voted against unionizing. It became intense to the point that two unfair labor practices (ULPs) ⁴ were filed based on retaliation.

The first ULP was filed on behalf of Elizabeth Johnson, an award-winning investigative journalist who had been at the paper for 4 years. According to Johnson, when she first arrived, the paper was doing ‘amazing projects’, including long-term investigative journalism, and they had the resources and support to do so. She was an integral part of the investigative team, but once the organizing effort became public and it was clear that she was one of the union organizers, she was left out of discussions and meetings and, as all of the journalists interviewed noted, was blackballed and treated with disdain by management and anti-union colleagues. The catalyst to organizing was, like Lakeland, the layoffs and the lack of raises. But what wasn’t as visible was how inconsistent the rules were across and within departments. The problem was, according to Johnson and others, that no one really knew about the discrepancies and lack of fairness until they came together to organize. One of the key takeaways for the journalists interviewed from both papers is that before discussions of unionizing, they worked like independent contractors, which benefits corporate owners, rather than as a collective unit, which benefits newsgathering and reporting in service to the public. The organizing campaign allowed them to get to know their colleagues, people they may have never talked to before, and the camaraderie was one of the best things to come out of unionizing.

Once the election campaign began, the sharp divide and anti-union sentiments perpetuated by management were largely felt by the organizers, and for Johnson and Cox, the retaliation from management invoked the ULPs, which were combined into one ULP case. Johnson was alienated from her own projects, threatened with being blackballed, berated for everything, told ‘no one cares about what you say’ in a meeting about issues related to her beat, and isolated. Cox was moved from being the senior feature writer to the education beat. Although the education beat was not his interest, he did it anyway with the thought that it would be temporary since the education reporter had just left. When new jobs were posted, none were for the education beat, and that was when he knew it was retaliation. While the combined ULP was ruled in the journalists’ favor, the retaliation took a professional and personal toll. What the retaliation also did was make it clear that those who were outspoken about the union as a voice for the newsroom would be treated poorly, and though they may not be directly related, according to the journalists interviewed, many who have left the paper since the vote were union supporters.

For the journalists interviewed, while the layoffs and lack of raises were a catalyst for change, particularly after they met with the NewsGuild and union leaders at other GateHouse papers, the main motivation was having a voice in the workplace. They wanted to be a part of the decision making and be part of the process, including negotiating benefits, raises, vacation time, severance packages, and figuring out a plan for how layoffs – if truly needed – would occur. The opportunity to have a collective voice was the overall goal. As two Sarasota journalists said, ‘We want to control our destiny’. Barbara Peters Smith, a journalist at the Herald-Tribune off and on since 1991, stated that with the union, their voices must be noticed now, and they had to be treated in a ‘more dignified, humane way’, which other journalists interviewed also noted. They wanted an end to the focus on the quarterly numbers only and the patronizing way corporate treated its workers.

Interestingly, unlike Lakeland, it appears that at the Sarasota paper, the younger journalists seem to drive the organizing campaign. This is consistent with recent reports that suggest that millennials are ‘keeping unions alive’, when ‘[h]istorically, younger workers have been less likely than older workers to be a member of a union’ (Chen, 2018: para. 2). Chen (2018: para. 4) wrote that ‘youth are increasingly driven to join unions precisely in response to economic precarity and eroding economic mobility’. This is demonstrated by the surge in graduate student and digital news outlet unionization. The flexibility that management celebrates is precisely what is driving millennials and others to counter with a collective voice.

For private equity firms and hedge fund managers, the newspaper industry is not about the watchdog role of the press or providing information citizens need to make informed political, economic, and social decisions. Rather, it is, as Peters Smith noted, a counterproductive business model: ‘Buying into a dying industry, hastening its demise by squeezing as much as possible out of it for shareholders … their interest is money, not journalism’. Private equity firms and hedge funds are generally not interested in investing in quality journalism or in the journalists who work so hard to make a difference, as it is counter to their mission of making as much money as possible before selling off the property. For the journalists interviewed, journalism is a calling, which, as Peters Smith said, ‘makes a great labor force that will just take it and take it’.

This is one reason why the journalists interviewed, including those who were retaliated against, would recommend unionizing, though some had caveats. It is not easy, many of them noted (one reporter said ‘organizing sucked’), but there does not seem to be any other options. As Cox stated, ‘You don’t have a choice. If you trust corporations to look out for your best interest, then you are naïve’. As Johnson noted based on her experiences with hostile management and anti-union colleagues, ‘If you are going to organize, be ready for life being turned upside down’. However, she notes that what they accomplished as one of only two newspapers to organize in Florida was ‘groundbreaking’, and the industry needs ‘as many people to organize as possible’. Chambliss at the Ledger said that he would recommend unionizing because ‘we feel stronger as a unit’. Lakeland’s Schottelkotte, when asked if she would recommend unionizing to other papers, said, ‘Absolutely, in a heartbeat. It’s hard, it’s scary, but … the protection is absolutely worth it’. As a Sarasota journalist noted, journalists do what they do because ‘you love it, care about it, and do it because you think it is important … If you love it, you want to protect it’. And organizing seems to be the best option right now to do so.