The Blog

I'm sure there's not a lot of information coming out, so I'm not complaining so much as just commenting that what I'd really like to know is who the shareholder was and what the revolt was about. I guess it's possible that they simply didn't like the results they were getting, and wanted to let someone else try. It's also possible they didn't like something in particular, and wanted to get that changed. If so, it'd be interesting to hear what they'd like to see changed. Or at least what Barron, Halbreich and Surkamer might be expected to do. Barron's background is the business side. Some S-T staffers blame him for the Trib-handling-circulation fiasco, even questioning his loyalty because of that decision. That seems dubious, but it's a surprise to me that he's being promoted, given the continuing problems in distributing the paper. It sometimes seems these companies rely on too few people. I followed your link to the Freidheim bio, and it looks like a parody of Jim Thompson's testimony about Hollinger. I mean, the guy is leading a paper into oblivion, and even if you think it wasn't his fault, that ought to be a full-time job, but instead, he's a director at MicroAge, a "lead director, chairman of exec committee, member of audit committee" at HSBC Finance (perhaps not coincidentally another company that's going down the tubes); a director at Security Capital, and a trustee at Brookings (though the latter may just be because he has money to give them). I mean, who the hell would want the CEO of a failing newspaper running their corporate audit committee? Surely there's someone who actually has the time to look at the reports who could do it instead, no? I sort of feel the same about Barron. If he couldn't get the business office in order, they should promote somebody from down lower who actually ran a tight ship. This is a guy who spent a few years running a building supplies firm (during the big construction boom, I might point out). Yeah, he's got a background in newspapers, but given that he left for a while, my guess is that there are others with at least as much experience and know-how. It looks like failure rewarded. But that's the American corporate way these days.

Hey RyanWC, you mean Rick Surkamer, not John Barron. Rick Surkamer is the one from the business side who's done everything you mention here, who inexplicably has become president of the company. Barron is the former editor who was rerouted into General Manager job and now is publisher.

That's why you should be very skeptical about anything you read in blogs. Starting with anything I post. Sorry. I guess it also demonstrates the self-editing power of blogs. Thanks for the correction.

But meanwhile, ryanwc, your posting -- unedited and erroneous -- was out there unchallenged for hours. It might have been there for days, or forever, to be picked up by researchers and quoted as fact . . . Don't mean to come down hard on you specifically. Clearly, you're an excellent writer, whoever you are. Moreover, as a reporter over the years, I got plenty of stuff wrong that slipped past some of the finest editors in the business; as an editor over other years, I plead guilty to having inserted an error or two in the act of unconvoluting a sentence. But here, as you correctly observed, we have illustrated the danger of Bloggery: a posting, anonymous, erroneous, by a writer whose skills suggest he or she knows his or her stuff. It was an earnest posting. But what if the posting had been deliberately intended to distort the truth. What then? To those who celebrate the diminishment and potential extinction of general-circulation print media that invest in and value credibility, media whose mission is nothing less than providing information while maintaining the trust of its readership, I suggest you re-read the three previous postings . . .

Mr. Solomon, Agreed. I've felt like quite an idiot all morning. And among other things, I've been moving away from anonymous posting to take away that immunity from one's mistakes that anonymity permits. While I'm not ready to out myself completely on this one, (and I think Mike probably knows who I am ... giving a real e-mail address was part of that move on my part), it's made me commit that in future, I'm going to follow your lead and use my full name, because it'll encourage me not to post about stuff I'm not much of an expert on. I'd note that the Daily Kos blog seems to have decided in the last week or two that people with an official should post under their real names. On the other hand, I appreciate the possibility of anonymous posting, since it sometimes allows people to say things that need to be said and otherwise wouldn't get said.

Alan, There are lot's of things in the news about Rick Surkamer taking over as president, Jeremy Halbreich taking over as CEO, anonymous posting and the future of the paper for me to consider. You do not mention the blog, but it could be mine. I noted in a blog post [http://www.chitowndailynews.org/Media_Insider/Freidheim_out_as_SunTimes_CEO_Whos_next,22222] that Wick Allison of “D Magazine” in a conversation [http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2009/01/30/halbreich-says-hes-not-interested-in-being-sun-times-prez/#comment-60719] with Halbreich said, “it's not what I signed up for.” What I didn't say in my blog was that I had been following a lead in Dallas, to attempt to write an entry about the manner of management we were likely to see under Halbreich. Those leads led me to Allison. We had some communications through a conduit about Halbreich. Allison posted his conversation with Halbreich, noted above, on the D Magazine site and that investigation seemed to end at that point. Looking back, what Halbreich said to Allison was that he didn't want to be president of the holding company. And, in the end he accepted a different job, interim chairman and CEO of the company. The president position went to Rick Surkamer. I'm disappointed that my anonymity didn't allow me to pursue Halbreich more aggressively and get the right questions asked. That's a price I'm paying for being anonymous. My blogs about this issue are out there. I won't change them, although, I will note this discussion in the comments. I feel Halbreich was being disingenuous in his answer. But, it was my fault for reading too much into it. Halbreich and the dissident shareholders have not generally been forthcoming. The public relations firm that represents the dissident shareholders told me they were not interested in discussing their plans for the company with the press. The primary document of their intent once in control of the company is the letter to shareholders, which is reproduced here. [http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20081219005466&newsLang=en] Although the dissidents wanted to get rid of Cyrus Freidheim, the operations of the company were in the hands of Surkamer. Another poster, “ryanwc”, notes that the flawed decision-making of the recent past are largely the result of Barron's (Surkamer's) management. As “Chicago fan” notes, the decision to make him the president is inexplicable at the moment. “Ryanwc” notes in a reference to Barron (Surkamer), “if he couldn't get the business office in order, they should promote somebody from down lower who actually ran a tight ship.” In fact, the business side of the Sun-Times is pretty disappointing. In general, management has looked outside for help. For example, Surkamer came from the Chicago Tribune circulation department by way of a building materials company. Barb Swanson, who was the Sun-Times VP of advertising, came from the Chicago Tribune too. On the other hand, the current VP of advertising, David Ruiz, did come from inside the Sun-Times however. Going back, you'll see that circulation management has been a big issue at the Sun-Times. It is even mentioned in the comments above. The senior circulation position at the company is occupied by a person with no previous newspaper circulation experience: Courtney Price. [http://www.linkedin.com/ppl/webprofile?action=vmi&id=5173313&authToken=IFzw&authType=name&trk=ppro_viewmore&lnk=vw_pprofile] I'm not suggesting that Ms. Price be shown the door. I have no opinion about Ms. Price and her work. However, the Sun-Times needs a clean circulator. Surkamer could have done this job. He is qualified to deal with the issues in circulation, but he hasn't and his attention is focused elsewhere. I'll stand by my blog and take the heat when I make an error. Clearly, I did over reach discussing Surkamer being out. I think it would help things if you stated which blog you mean to discuss, and also take the discussion to that blog.

My guess is that Solomon was referring specifically to my post in this blog, and generally to the flaws in the blog model, and wasn't referring to anything in your fairly well sourced blog that seems to adhere to a more traditional media model (ie, better attempts to source things, accountability to the Chi-Town Daily News and probably some direct editing or discussing of sourcing with them.) I'd like to pose a different challenge to Mr. Solomon, though. I certainly want mainstream media to survive. But in your admission that you might have once or twice allowed a mistake into something you once edited, aren't you glossing the whole history and motivation of the blogosphere. Without the Iraq War, the fake "yellowcake in Niger" and the weirdo stories of Judy Miller about al Qaeda/Iraq connections sourced to a supposed spy codenamed curveball, without hte fake "mobile weapons lab" and the tubes that reporters didn't bother to tell us actually had hundreds of normal industrial uses other than centrifuging material for a bomb; without that epic fail, do you think the blogosphere reaches the point it has reached today. Aren't the blogs, which are primarily liberal, basically a repudiation of a failed model in which what counted most, what was reported most, wasn't truth, but what official sources said, as shown so notably in the run-up to the war? And isn't the blog model of informed comment allowed to correct error in a democratic setting, a much healthier model, whose strengths we need to reconcile with the concurrent need for paid reporters with the resources to look into things?

Ryanwc, Thanks for saying that “it isn't about you.” I think that we see ourselves in the mirror too much. I have some thoughts on this issue of blogs strengths and weakness too. However the discussion under your guidance is moving in an interesting direction.

Agree the discussion is moving interestingly -- but it's also moving well beyond the initial subject matter. Perhaps we can continue it later, in another forum.

I'm reading even if I'm not commenting.

As the Sun-Times company, here's the question: Why was Rick Surkamer retained and given the title of president? He's been the one running the company, and poorly so. There are many aspects of the business he doesn't seem to understand and is ill equipped to handle. Cyrus Freidheim needed to go, clearly. He was disconnected from the day to day realities of the business. His farewell memo to staff is a total work of fiction. This company is in a crisis and has no discernible strategy. The beleaguered workforce, having seen Nero fiddle while Rome burned, has zero confidence in upper management. This company was being driven into the ground by Surkamer even before the waves of larger trouble in the economy began battering down on the goodship Sun-Times. Could it be that he's being kept around to execute the $70 million in cuts this year? Or could it be that the new board of directors needs time to unravel the severance agreement sneakily agreed upon by the previous board that gives Surkamer (and Cyrus) undeserved extra payments and bonuses if the new board fired him? Either way, Halbreich has a lot of work ahead of him to both restore confidence in this company and embark on a defined strategy.