Littlefield & Griscom Shame Chattanooga?

The Chattanooga Times Free Press (well, the Times side of the paper, for those who don't realize our local newpaper has two heads) published an editorial today (quoted after the boop) that expressed what I suspect a lot of people in Chattanooga have been thinking since our mayor tried to pull a Karl Rove on the city's press corp. I have not encountered a single sane person who has even tried to defend Littlefield's behavior — it's simply not possible to do so. And because the story is so cut and dried — the mayor was out of line — it should have ended with an apology on his part.

But the story continues to grow. Why? Well, to start with, because the mayor hasn't apologized. And as George W. Bush repeatedly demonstrates, just pretending your screwups don't exist doesn't make them go away.

But there's more to this story than a man who stubbornly refuses to admit he was wrong. Littlefield also made some remarkable revelations in his ad hominem attack on reporter Michael Weber. As Joe points out, while some of us have privately wondered about Littlefield's slur, the Times editorial was the first to directly comment on his anti-Yankee and anti-Semitic remarks. How sad that a story which was picked up by both national and international news outlets would cast our city in such a negative light.

And for Chattanooga, it doesn't end there. As Joe also points out, the pulseblogger and subsequent commenters to the PulseBlog's earlier coverage of the story bring into question the Times Free Press publisher's offical response to Littlefield's sad attempt to intimidate the press. Or rather, his lack of a response.

As every Chattanoogan knows, the Chattanooga Times Free Press is published by Tom Griscom, who is also the Executive Editor. The paper has two editorial pages, the Times side and the Free Press side — this is a remnant from the days when Chattanooga had a morning paper (The Chattanooga Times) and an afternoon paper (The Chattanooga Free Press), which merged a number of years ago, and Griscom, who used to be with the Free Press, ended up in charge of the new, two-headed, beast. When he expresses himself, it is on the Free Press side of the paper.

The Free Press side of the paper has yet to comment on the Littlefield story and Griscom's only public commentary was a very brief and cautious "wait and see" response when asked about the story by Editor & Publisher. He did call the ban "draconian," but he also failed to make any move to defend his reporters. Contrast Griscom's slow and muted reaction to the events with the way Ronnie Agnew, executive editor of The Clarion-Ledger was out in front when a similar situation occurred in Jackson, Mississippi. Agnew said, "We will continue to aggressively cover this mayor no matter what roadblocks he establishes to stop us. We don't work for the mayor, but we do have a responsibility to the public. He is powerless to control the flow of information. That, it seems, frustrates him." Griscom, on the other hand, said, "We are a very aggressive paper in terms of requesting documents. But I have to make sure I know all of the facts."

What does this say about our paper's commitment to its reporters, and to great journalism in general? I am not encouraged.

(Thank goodness for Harry Austin (the Times Editorial Page Editor) and especially for Michael Weber, who has guts and a demonstrated belief that journalism should extend beyond mere stenography.)

Publication: Chattanooga Times Free Press

Date: April 21, 2006 EDT

Section: Times Editorial (Page:19)

The mayor’s wrongful ban

The paramount role of a free press in this nation is to serve as the public’s watchdog and to speak truth to power — particularly to the political elites and bureaucratic lords who control public policies and taxpayers’ dollars. Unfortunately, Mayor Ron Littlefield either does not understand that, or wishes to subvert and chill press coverage of his administration.

There’s little other reason to explain why he so rashly and wrongly attempted last week to intimidate a reporter for this newspaper — and by extension, all other members of the media in this community — by publicly announcing that he was "banning" Times Free Press reporter Michael Weber "from interaction with city officials or employees."

Of course, Mr. Littlefield cannot really ban a reporter from covering his administration. He can only attempt to embarrass or intimidate the media by saying those words. The mayor has no real moral or legal authority to forbid a reporter from entering the city’s public facilities and asking questions. Reporters, like all American citizens, have a constitutionally protected right to public access and to public records.

City employees also have a constitutionally protected right of freedom of speech which entitles them to speak to reporters, as well as a public responsibility to treat all reporters, and all citizens, equally and fairly under the law. Mayor Littlefield is wrong to pretend the authority to nullify these public rights and responsibilities. Small wonder that India’s Hindustan Times, for example, was one distant newspaper that took note of the obtuse anti-democratic gambit by Chattanooga’s mayor.

So why would Mayor Littlefield issue such a public edict, particularly one that used such defamatory and inflammatory rhetoric and that depicted such deplorable bias against the person and background of Michael Weber?

Well, it could be because Mr. Weber was seeking records to document the lobbying contract by which Mayor Littlefield has managed to steer a $90,000 sweetheart fee to an old friend, Duane Smith, under a $180,000 contract to the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm of Akerman Senterfitt, which the city hired last September.

There’s nothing wrong with the city hiring a lobbyist. The previous two city administrations spent about $50,000 annually on lobbying contracts. There is reason, however, for this newspaper to report how much Mr. Littlefield is spending on lobbying, what his lobbyists are doing for that money, why the city’s lobbying-related spending has gone up so much, and how and why the mayor’s friend ended up getting what appears to be an insider, sweetheart deal.

Mayor Littlefield may not like such questions. But he should be prepared to deal with them forthrightly. Trying to kick a reporter out of city hall, and attempting to do so in such a humiliating fashion, was not the correct response. It reveals more about Mr. Littlefield’s character and judgment than anything it says about our reporter.

Mr. Littlefield’s news release announcing the "banning" of the reporter, broadcast by local television and radio stations, notably came without any prior consultation with this newspaper’s management over the conduct alleged by the mayor against Mr. Weber. The mayor’s news release said his office had tried to accommodate the reporter’s various requests for information and records but that he thought it was "time to stop taking Mr. Weber’s threatening and accusatory phone calls."

He said he had "instructed city personnel they are to have no further contact" with the reporter, whom he said was "obviously on some personal mission and is chasing ghosts and goblins that don’t exist except in his own mind." He deplored his reportorial methods by crudely citing Mr. Weber’s background: "Perhaps this is a tactic that worked for Mr. Weber in Brooklyn, but it won’t work here; it won’t work for me. My guess is that it really didn’t work for Mr. Weber in Brooklyn, and that is why he is here in Chattanooga." He then went on to allege that Mr. Weber wished to publish "irresponsible and inaccurate information," and suggested that "when (he) learns to behave in a more professional fashion as a journalist in the future, I’ll reconsider this ban."

Yet it is not a reporter’s, or this newspaper’s, pursuit of facts that is unprofessional. Rather, it is Mayor Littlefield’s defamatory public statements and his egregious reference to Mr. Weber’s work "in Brooklyn" (Mr. Weber worked once at Newsday in New York) that are wholly unprofessional and contemptible. That slur can be read both as anti-Yankee and anti-Semitic, since attacks on the Jewish community in New York traditionally referred to the acts of people "in Brooklyn."

Mayor Littlefield’s action managed, in a single stroke, to offend all responsible journalists here, to draw coverage to the anti-democratic attitude and thin skin of Chattanooga’s mayor, and to demonstrate his bias against northerners and Jews.

Unprofessional, over-the-top, abrasive, threatening, unmerited conduct? Yes. But far more so by Mayor Littlefield than by Mr. Weber. Indeed, the reporter’s subsequent story with Times Free Press Nashville correspondent Andy Sher on Tuesday revealed Mr. Littlefield’s well-hidden sweetheart lobbying fee for his friend. Mayor Littlefield owes a public apology not just to Mr. Weber and news reporters generally, but to the city’s residents. The mayor should behave less abrasively and more professionally, and leave public access for all uninhibited.