COCONUT RESUME ID 174 905 CS 204 973 AUTHOR Dyer, Carolyn Stewart: Soloski, John TITLE The Right to Gather News: The Gannett Connection. POE DATE Aug 79 ROTE 60p.: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the * Association for,Education in Journalism (62nd, Houston, Texas, August 5-8, 19791 !DRS PRICE MFOI Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Business: *Court Cases: Court Litigation: *Freedom of Speech: *Journalism: *Legal Aid: *Newspapers. Publishing Industry IDENTIFIERS *Ownership ABSTRACT Is part of an examination of whether newspaper chains help member papers with legal problems, this paper reviews a series of courtroom and court-record access cases involving thelargest newspaper chain in the 'United States,the Gannett Company. The paper attempts to determine the extent to which Gannett hasfinancially and legally helped its member pipers bting law suits involvingfreedom of the press issues, whether the cases discussed represent a Gannett policy concerning the seeking of access to courtrooms and'court records, what the nature and purpose of that policy are,its consequences for the development of mass medialaw, and the potential benefits to Gannett. (FL) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** 1 U $ DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH. EDUCATION I WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OP EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO- DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN- ATING IT POINTS OP VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE. SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OP EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY The Right to Gather News:The Gannett Connection by Carolyn Stewart Dyer and John Soloski Assistant Professors School of Journalism University of Iowa "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Carolyn Stewart Dyer John Soloski TO THE EDUCATIONAL RLSOURCA INFORMAtIoN C.ENTF (ENG, ttr) Presented to the Law Division,Association for Education in Journalism Annual Convention, Houston, Texas,August 1979. As more and more newspapersin the United States fall under the control of fewer and fewer individuals andcorporations, newspaper chains have come under close scrutiny. In this paper we willexahline the relationship between the Gannett newspaper chainand mass media law. Supporters of newspaper óhainsoften point out that one of the major advantages of being a chain-owned newspaperis that the individual paper consist can draw on the resourcesof the chain. Most often, these resources of the ability of the chain topurchase newsprint and othermaterials in with volume at considerable savings. Chains also provide member papers the capital to purchase labor-saving,computerized technology.Chains also purchase for use by their paperssyndicated columns ari other feature material; some chains provide their ownwire services for member papers. help But Ole of the major resources achain provides is specialists who can member papers solve production,advertising, circulation, management and editorial problems. The question this paper addressesis: Do newspaper chains alsohelp member papers with legal problems? And, if so, how?Specifically, the paper examines a seriesof courtroom and court-record access cases involving the largest newspaperchain in the United States, Gannett Co, Inc. nine Since 1976, Gannett and itssubsidiaries have been involved in at least courtroom and court-reeord access casesthat have been pursued toappellate i f any, level courts. This paper attempts todetermine to what extent, 2. Gannett helps--financially andlegally--its papers bring law suits involving freedom of the press issues. The paper elso attempts to answer the following questions: Does the collection of casesdiscussed in this paper represent a Gannett policy toseek access to courtrooms and court records? If so, what is the nature of thepolicy? What is its purpose?What are its consequences for the development of massmedia law?And what a e its potential benefits to Gannett? With the exception ofKnight-Ridder newspapers, Gannett newspapers have been the plaintiffs in morereported courtroom and court-record access cases than any othermedia group, individual medium orjournalistic organization since the U.S. SupremeCourt's 1976 decision in Nebraska 1 Press Association v. Stuart. Gannett newspapers were also theplaintiffs in the largest number of reportedstatutory access cases br.ught under state 2 open-meeting and open-record statutesbetween July 1976 and March 1979. The initial question thatstimulated the research was why or how a Gannett newspaper publisherwould undertake potentially expensivelitigation if his or her primaryobligation to the parent corporationis to maximize author's findings in a study of profits. The question was provoked by one 3 the impact of chain ownership onthe nature of news and the other's observation that Gannett newspapersseemed to be involved in a number of similar cases, the most significantboing Gannett v. DePasquale, which was awaiting decision by the U.S. SupremeCourt when the research began. Gannett v. DePasquale is thefirst substantial media law casebearing the name of the largest newspaperchain--in number of papers owm.d--in the United States to reach the Supremerout t. At this writing, Gannett owns t. 3 . 4 80 newspapers in 30 states and othermedia businesses. Another reason' for foc ig on Gannett ca.sesis that Gannett newspapers have voluntarily initiated the lege]. actions as distinguishedfrom most other significant media law cases--such as New YorkTimes v. Sullivan or Time v. Hill--in which the mdia have been drawn intolitigation as defendants. That is, Gannett could have continued itslongstanding practice of defending itself in libel and other cases when they aroserather Chan taking the legal offensive, but it did not, and wewondered why. Our findings and conclusions arebased on the analysis of reported opinions, Gannett briefs, interviewswith and statements and speeches bY Gannett officials, Gannett financialreports, Soloski's dissertation research and news and featurearticleson the company andits business operations. The paper is not intended as athorough analysis_ of the decisions in Gannett v. DePasquale,although that case is the central focus of the legal section. Some of our conclusions arespeculative, being based on inferences from our primaryand secondary sources. We have chosen 'to engage in speculation because we believe thatassessments of the role of larger newspaper chains in the developmentof media law should not be postponed until its impact can beclearly seen in historical perspective. Our speculations may befound in the future to have been untenable,but we believe they are supported by thecurrently available evidence. Along with consideration of the effect ofconcentration of media ownership on news, editorial opinion, advertising andthe public's access to an audience, it seems that the continuingdiscussion and debate in Congress and among medi., observers should include recognition ofthe effer7t of chain ownership on media law, an issue that has notbeen addressed previously. 4. Corporate Financing and Legal Aid Before discussing Gannett'e cases, it is necessary to examine the 5 corporate relationship between Gannett and its newspapers. Gannett Co, Inc., itself, owns very few newspapers directly; rather it owns subsidiaries that 6 own newspapers. The newspapers are organized into five regional groups, each headed by a group president. The ultimate, day-to-day authority in each of Gannett's newspapers is the.individual publisher.But the publishers report directly to one of the regional group presidents, all of whom serve on the corporate Operating Committee, which handles day-to-day 7 management matters. Thus the publishers are in frequent and direct 8 contact with one of two policy-setting bodies in the corporation. In order to insure local autonomy in the selection of news, most chains are primarily concerned with the "bottom line."That is, publisheis are reviewed on how well they meetthe financial goals set for the papers by th chain. Gannett, according to one executive, looks at among other things profit-loss statements, productivity and man-hours. Publishers are required to report this information regularlyto the corporation. The publisher of a chain-owned newspaper is an employee of the chain, and how well he or she meets the profit goals set by the chain may determine what kind of future the publisher has in the chain. Publishers and several other individual newspaper management staff persons are included in both individual newspaper and Gannett profit-sharing programs, another incentive 9 to devote attention to the newspaper's profits. David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times quoted one Gannett executive as saying: "How good a Gannett paper is is really up to the individual editor. Al (Neuharth) doesn't have time to keep close tabs on all 77 (c.q.) papers, and if you're 5. content to let your paper slideby and just txy to make money soyou'll be 10 promoted to a bigger paper,well, he's sure not going to complain. ." Gannett recently concluded a10-year program a stated purpose ofwhat was profit growth from to demonstrate to WallStreetthat its annual profits and year to year wereregular and predictable, making Gannett asound 11 operated under these incentives investment. Since Gannett publishers have and pressures to keep profits up,it seems unlikely that apublisher would corporate