[CERTIFIED MAIL]


[CERTIFIED #7002 3150 0005 5609 3152]



The Tampa Tribune
200 South Parker Street
Tampa, FL  33606



To:    Gil Thelen, Publisher and President
       Donna Reed, Managing Editor
       Donna Manion, Director of Human Resources
       Nick Pugliese, Deputy Sports Editor


From:   Matt Lorenz, Tribune Sports, May 2002-August 2003


Re:     Editing errors, exit and rehabilitation


Date:     12/10/03      





[CERTIFIED #7002 3150 0005 5609 3152]

Dec. 10, 2003

Dear Tribune People:

Almost four months have passed since transposed identities near the end of a sensitive story severed my working relationship with The Tampa Tribune. Though it is important to move forward, the unfortunate event requires a look back, because forthright examination is the best hedge against recurrence. We owe it to ourselves and our organizations, current and future, to learn from the situation. Mistakes demand thoughtful adjustments, or at least a sincere, thoughtful look at possibilities.

Working up the courage to re-examine the fatal page, 3 Sports from Aug. 15, took weeks. Upon reviewing the printed version of [a reporter's] Florida State rape-acquittal story, I found the problems obvious and appalling.

Story Background and Breakdown

IMPROVEMENTS

The FSU story arrived in the Sports Slot computer basket about 10 p.m. Aug. 14. No editor entered it until I did, more than half an hour later. I spent time incorporating key facts from the previous day's story, attempting to clarify and balance the information. Without access to the electronic record, I recall making these enhancements:

Paragraph 1: Invoking writer's previous description, changed "female FSU athlet" to "female FSU track and field athlete." Ironically, I hoped to keep readers from confusing her with the volleyball player mentioned lower in this story. I also considered "field athlete" crucial to the story and hence the lead, because female weight-throwers, like their male counterparts, are big, strong and likely capable of fending off a football player who has a wounded shoulder. "Track athlete" connotes runner, and female distance runners are especially slender.

Paragraph 3: Substituted "the junior defensive tackle" for a third name reference to [male A; deleting name for public record]. Class is basic to a college sports story, even though five-year football programs render the levels ambiguous. In a college sports crime story, the athlete's academic year also measures maturity and level of accountability. [Male A's] position seemed a more important addition, however. Defensive tackles are among the biggest and strongest football players, whereas cornerbacks and wide receivers are likely to be smaller than female field athletes.

Paragraph 12: Added [male A's] weight right before the mention of the accuser's, providing a key comparison. Inserted "a shot putter" into the who clause where the accuser's weight is given. Citing the specialty of the "track and field athlete" gave a clearer picture: Her 235 pounds contained much muscle.

Paragraph 16: Substituted "the prosecutor" for "him" in a sentence mentioning [male B; deleting name for public record] and two FSU men, removing an unclear pronoun and specifying a role implied in Paragraph 5.

UNREPAIRED OMISSIONS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS

Ages: The "junior" inserted into Paragraph 3 told readers defendant [male A] was well into legal adulthood, but aren't the ages of the parties germane? Years lived could say something about a football player's social development -- or lack thereof -- relative to that of a shot-putting accuser and a volleyball-playing "friend." And aren't ages fundamental facts in crime stories? How could the first copy editor, readback person and desk chief/night editor/proofer all have missed that? The absence of ages may not have jumped off the computer screen, but it jumps off the page.

Language of victimization: Paragraph 2, a description of the courtroom reaction, refers to "the alleged victim." In paragraphs 6, 7, 11 and 12, she is "the victim" again. She also was twice in Paragraph 15, where misidentification stemmed from efforts to replace "the victim" with more neutral terms. Our persistent use of the loaded term in coverage before and after the verdict suggests we are convinced of the accused's guilt and are trying to bend public perception to that view.

Though attempts at repair made the phrasing worse, it already was unacceptable for an article that begins by saying the only possible defendant was acquitted. Did we all really overlook "the victim" four times that night? The reporter's language of victimization made the piece unfit for publication, even without the first editor's mangling of identities in paragraphs 14 and 15 of a 17-paragraph story.

BAD ALTERATIONS

The victim references led me to seek more appropriate attributing phrases, and the case's bizarre circumstances led me to add background for the reader. Conscientiousness apparently outstripped concentration, hastening rather than heading off crisis:

Paragraph 14: Drawing from the reporter's Aug. 14 story, inserted a clause conveying critical facts: "who acknowledged a physical relationship with [male A] but said she discontinued it after Jan. 13." Correct description, wrong antecedent. The clause should have been placed next to an adjusted reference to "the alleged victim" or "the accuser," possibly in the next paragraph. Instead, it wound up modifying [female A], the volleyball player who acknowledges giving Johnson baths but disavows any sexual connection.

We faced a scenario possibly unprecedented on news beats: a girlfriend who wants to remain a virgin bathing a young man who is not an invalid but merely has a surgically repaired shoulder. (At least we euphemized sexual to "physical" on the first reference to the relationship.) I apparently was duped while trying to explain her bathing of that naked football player; I assumed she had "seen him" during a previous physical involvement, one that broke down a barrier normally existing for all but mothers, intimate girlfriends and nurses. Surprised to encounter multiple clothesless episodes in one story, I may have subconsciously melded them, turning three principals into two. I failed to question my assumptions, recognize my confusion, and seek help. The oddity should have been enough to make one of the story's three copy editors question the reporter, and it should have been enough to prompt the reporter to check in. The titillating tale certainly merited a look from the story assigner, a department head, or a more senior Tribune editor.

Even without full communication or senior oversight, the mislinking of the who clause was detectable to anyone who saw the story from the night before or had followed the case. It probably was detectable to anyone reading the "girlfriend" (not "former girlfriend") reference immediately to the left on the page.

Paragraph 15: Improper phrasing compelled action: "had sex" in connection with acts one party said were not consensual; and two references to "the victim" in the passage detailing the incident. Worked around the sex problem by leaving the phrase in the statement attributed to [male A] -- from his perspective, it was unforced and thus met the stylebook definition -- while changing "forced the sex" to "forced the contact" in the statement attributed to his accuser. An improbable sequence seems to have fooled an old copy editor, however, reinforcing the mismelding so that one "victim" reference became "her" with an incorrect antecedent: [female A], whose name begins the paragraph. [Female A] says she bathed [male A] at 8:30 p.m. Feb. 6, yet he says he had sexual contact a few hours later with another woman at another (unnamed) friend's apartment. That woman entered our system with the wrong legal status, "victim," and left it with the wrong name, [female A].

A moment of inattentiveness sent a well-meaning editor sailing into the rocks. Yet the red rescue flag was up. While catching the misplaced who clause in Paragraph 14 might have required some case knowledge or certain presumptions about girlfriends, catching the bad pronoun and proper noun in Paragraph 15 required just rudimentary journalism, and perhaps just basic awareness of precedent and context. We named an accuser in a rape case. Right name or wrong, I should have wiped the identifier from my screen. Just as obviously, the second reader -- an editor unburdened by shuffling facts -- should not have missed it. Even more obviously, a desk chief/night ed/proofer with the whole page in front of him should not have let it go.

DEMOGRAPHIC SAVING GRACE

It's of little journalistic consolation, but it's legally and commercially helpful that the case and the principals were outside the Tribune's main readership area. We can only hope the Tallahassee copies bypassed those involved and people who know them. Similar editorial botches with the Bucs would have been far more damaging. But then, Bucs stories probably would have received more scrutiny coming and going.

Contributing Institutional Factors

SYSTEM OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

In my years of directing the Tampa Bay Devil Rays' publications, I edited entire magazines single-handed, becoming a master of grinding, persistent, ruthless self-proofing. I welcomed the Tribune's team concept, the premise that the burden of accuracy is shared. That concept, along with constant criticism and minute-to-minute newspaper pressure, strongly influenced my editing approach Aug. 14 and throughout 15 months on South Parker Street.

Responsibility is cumulative in Trib Sports. The first copy editor is responsible for his own work and the writer's, sometimes sharing that burden with an assignment editor. The second copy editor is responsible for their work and her own. If a reporter errs, the copy editors assume some -- or most -- of the responsibility if the error reaches print. The night editor is responsible for everyone's work, including his own -- the work of four people, more if senior and assigning editors are involved earlier in the process.

The idea of shared and cumulative responsibility is put into practice when Matt Lorenz and a news intern scrutinize the deputy sports editor's photo correction and the pictures involved, call AP, substitute "Julio Lugo" for "Hector Lunar," and save the paper the embarrassment of running a correction for a correction. The idea is implied, if not overtly invoked, when the desk is held accountable after [a sports columnist's] "John" Gruden works its way into print. The idea is vividly manifested when a new designer picks up a mis-archived mug, the picture circumvents two copy editors, the senior editor for sports fails to notice the discrepancy while proofing amid the Super Bowl fray, and Herman Edwards becomes Tony Dungy in the next day's paper.

With no involvement from our new colleges team leader and apparently none from our new desk chief, the Aug. 15 FSU story permitted less than the usual opportunity for catching and fixing. If I'm the colleges editor and a major trial is ending on a major beat and a somewhat imprecise reporter is filing late, I'm either in the office when the story arrives or logging on from home (or from vacation). If I'm the desk chief and a sensitive story comes through, I read and discuss it before and after and have others do the same, up to and past deadline, rather than making a hasty midnight exit.

Copy editors' unique burdens make them receptive to the collective concept, and the reasonable expectation of support helps them press on. Backing each other up is a team responsibility, and failure to do so is a team failure. When a department at a major newspaper limits story rechecking and proofing to one individual each, excluding from final quality control those involved in the planning, writing or primary editing of the story, and when the night editor/proofer goes on vacation a half-hour before deadline and the desk shuts down 15 minutes from deadline, a failure of this magnitude constitutes a betrayal of trust on all sides.

Where was the assigning editor on this story? Where were the department head, the deputy, the desk chief, the night editor-proofer, the readback person? Where was the gung-ho team?

QUALITY-CONTROL ISSUES

If the printed rendering was how I left the Florida State story, it constitutes the worst set of errors in my 22 years as an editor. Yet the obvious, appalling problems should have been obvious and appalling to anyone reviewing the story or the page, and they would have been to me -- immersed in details from the previous paper -- had I seen a proof during production.

Long quality-control experience had made me sufficiently wary of miscues to press for proofs throughout my first year at the Tribune, earning the evaluation that I didn't "buy into the system." Not wishing to antagonize the single-proofer system further, I had resolved to hustle my first-read stories along to the next two editors to give them time for quality control. I had all but given up on begging for proofs or fishing them out of the garbage, as I often did during those first 12 months to check the section and my own tightly rewritten roundups.

Concerned about the time I had spent on research and rephrasing, I rushed out of the FSU copy near 11:30 -- an hour from deadline -- to allow thorough review by the readback person and thorough proofing by the night editor, our new desk chief. In spite of the department's superb deadline and page-flow record, I often felt pressured to leave stories and roundups before I was comfortable with them. There was no badgering here, but the backdrop of deadline and rigid quality-control hierarchy prompted a too-hasty exit and, obviously, inadequate review of the story's final paragraphs by its first reader. Had I known the story would receive so little secondary scrutiny, I would have worried less about time and more about rechecking. Despite the longstanding institutional opposition to shared proofing, and despite the risk of further accusations about not "buying into the system," I would have demanded my own proof.

UNHEEDED WARNINGS

I spelled out several quality-control ideas in a Feb. 5 memo left in [the senior editor for sports'] Coyote basket, then passed along to him in hard copy as I applied for the vacated NFL/hockey/autos assigning-editor job. Barred from my computer Aug. 15, I could not print another copy from my Coyote basket to include here, but foremost among the concepts was having the whole desk or a designated late person check the section past deadline, to the last moment possible for repairs -- as Tribune News does.

Management ignored my ideas and the attendant warnings, as it ignored those in my quality-control memo of March 13 (see Addendum A), in my self- and company evaluation of April 19 (Addendum B), in my evaluation responses of May 2, May 4 and June 30 (Addendum C), and in workplace conversations. During his administration, [the] desk chief criticized [the] Sunday slot for circulating Page 1 proofs and reacted indignantly when I suggested the night editor leave me proofs upon going home.

Though I did not intend to become a self-fulfilling prophesy or a case study, I always have lived in dread of mistakes -- my own and others'. The night of Aug. 14, I clearly could have done more to avoid a problem, but did the organization do all it could? The lack of follow-through and quality control allowed for a damaging situation. To head off accusations of neglect, management must assume some responsibility beyond kicking out one individual, especially when that individual repeatedly has advocated more troubleshooting before stories reach copy editors and more backup after.

COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES

A conversation with the reporter might have sparked a review sufficient for me to catch and repair the discrepancies remaining in the passage. But unlike most newspapers, the Tribune does not have a policy requiring writers to check in for questions, the discussion-jogging that often brings problems to light. (When Trib Sports reporters do check in, they talk to designers, who generally have not read the story and thus are less likely to make a remark alerting the writer to an editor's misinterpretation.)

In the absence of a call-in policy, I routinely hunted down writers, sometimes to their annoyance. To quote the Year 1 evaluation: "Matt is very good about calling reporters with questions." I made exceptions if, as in this situation, I thought I had a story under control and was eager to get it to readback and pick up other slugs as deadline neared. I had the sense of having carefully added information from the reporter's Thursday story to complete the Friday one, and I was waiting to see whether the next two readers asked questions. I mistakenly thought readback would fall to [copy editor 1; deleting name for public record], a rimmer rather than the night ed that evening and an editor known for great catches. I also may have been inhibited by the midnight hour and a spouse whose tone sometimes suggested she prefer we not bother the reporter at home. My self-evaluation mentions building rapport with writers as a goal, but late calls fielded by wives tend to work against that end. (I did talk to [the writer and wife] the next night, when I called to apologize for the mis-editing.)

Another impediment to story-saving discussions: The desk often must try multiple numbers to ask a simple question. Some writers and assigning editors tell us later that they leave their cell in the car when at home. Others ask later that we call only their cell, or some other number. And some writers, including the primary Bucs reporter, almost never return desk calls.

DISPROPORTIONATE RISK, LONG-TERM BURDENS

Even when others contribute checks and balances, the cumulative Tribune system exposes copy editors to unique dangers not reflected in their pay -- to a nightmare scenario, or at least a cornerback scenario, of invisibility broken by occasional glaring failure. Extreme responsibility and lack of authority constitute a stressful, destructive mix, combining with workload, deadline pressure and worker-unfriendly machinery to wear down editors to the point they may make uncharacteristic errors even on "easy" nights.

One does not see many old copy editors. Trib deadline eds who survive to middle age without career changes or catastrophic mistakes suffer deteriorating eyesight (mine degenerated badly in 15 months); joint trouble, particularly in the wrists (I developed tennis elbow); back trouble; and, at least on the sports desk, heart trouble and digestive-tract trouble severe enough to merit surgery. The problems are not unique to the Tribune, but they are especially pronounced in a culture of high-volume, high-intensity editing, often of weak or otherwise problematic stories.

With long experience informing my assessment of working conditions, I sought to mitigate my own stress by working at least some of the time as a designer (see my 2002 proposal in Addendum D), then sought to address editors' stress institutionally as a member of management (note addenda E-G). Any of the three roles proposed would have left me, and possibly the organization, less vulnerable the night of Aug. 14. None of the bids succeeded.

ABILITY MANAGEMENT

While pursuing conditions that optimize product quality, productivity and worker longevity, an organization must account for the individual abilities -- or disabilities -- of its members. There's more to management than pressuring staffers and discarding them if they fail. The good manager puts his pitchers and hitters in position to succeed.

In my newspaper playing career, I've always been able to make numerical calculations quickly (a fundamental design skill; see below and Addendum D) but have felt impeded verbally. Perhaps owing to a trace of dyslexia, I have had to correct transpositions and "sounds like" spellings in my own work. The problem helps produce a better editor; it's one reason I'm fastidious about double-moving -- as opposed to retyping -- names from text to headlines, and about checking the computer screen, the dictionary ("CQD" notations characterize my stories) and the stylebook (ditto "CQSB" notations). Yet the problem carries greater risk in an environment emphasizing volume, as Trib Sports does. Downsides accompanying talent point, again, to the need for balance and backup.

The Future: A Proposal

With this detailed review of the events of Aug. 14 and 15 considered, with the institutional issues addressed, I ask that The Tampa Tribune examine its interests and options. Please reassess the talent that remains, for now, at your disposal.

Rigorous, honest appraisals of myself and the organization leave me confident in requesting that the Tribune reopen the sports copy editing position to me, or place me in a position exploiting my design and production experience (see addenda D and G), or find an appropriate position in another department or division. As my business background illustrates, I have the skills to help Media General in almost any managerial, budgetary or print-communications capacity, including operations, marketing, public relations and general administration (see addenda B and E-G). Who better to sell a newspaper than one who has seen journalism from both sides? As my perspectives published in the St. Petersburg Times and The Chronicle of Higher Education show, I also can push ideas.

Specifically, reinstatement is in The Tampa Tribune's interest because:

1. Editing, fact-checking, headlines, subheads, cutlines and general section quality improved when I joined Trib Sports. My work displays creativity, balance, and a rare ability to represent the story freshly, thoroughly, accurately and without repetition.

Even on the Day of Inaccuracy, the Day of the Tragic Passage, most of my editing was of the type to bring credit and readers to Tribune Sports. I converged a Buccaneer's name with an apt image in the headline "Corner Barber Central To Bucs' Success." I meticulously called the NFL writer at two numbers to be sure a business writer's story accurately conveyed league cross-ownership policy.

2. I go above and beyond for excellence. I routinely stayed overnight Friday to give Sunday stories editing and checking time away from deadline, and the section benefited. Despite the absence of institutional late-night checking in Trib Sports, I usually reviewed the newly printed daily paper at 1 a.m. (or whatever proofs I could find before 1), sometimes making catches and -- with News' help on the Harris system -- corrections. I brought something the department lacked and, frankly, discourages: an all-out, determined, involved approach to editing. My Year 1 evaluation acknowledges conscientiousness, an exceeding of expectations by a professional "very concerned about accuracy, thoroughness and consistency." While some reporters consider my constant checks a nuisance, most seem to value my caution and care. Writers such as [A, B] and those of the Pasco crew sound pleasantly bemused after they recognize my extension on their caller ID.

3. My quality-control ideas, reinforced by this unpleasant experience, promise to make the Tribune better. I never claimed to be without editorial sin. Two decades of seeing my own and others' flaws has made me wary, nearly fatalistic. Knowing one's capacity for error engenders an obsession with quality control, with increasing our odds of fixing the inevitable X percentage of pieces with residual reporting, writing or editing problems. So I believe in using every available minute to perfect the product and am exceedingly uncomfortable not seeing completed stories on the page. My background told me we were missing a major phase of quality control, driving without a seat belt.

Had I been desk chief and put in the system I planned (outlined in addenda A, B, C and E and the unsaved Coyote memo), the Aug. 15 problem would have had a much smaller chance of getting to and through the print run unchallenged. Had the story-assigning editors agreed to make reporter call-ins mandatory, the piece would have undergone greater review; the writer could have helped the editor realize his misunderstanding and grievous misrendering. Even without that change, my system would have assigned a more zealous person to readback. A second zealous me almost certainly would have caught the transgressions of the first, who in seeking quality let an old attribution instinct run amok.

4. I consistently help the team. There is not a writer or editor in the department whom I haven't saved, and I've saved some many times. In this case, I was the one in need of saving, but no help came.

5. My management ability and experience, like my editorial ability and experience, could serve in an array of ways (see addenda B, the self-evaluation; and G, the resume). An outsider with a decade of managing staffs, systems, projects, budgets and brands naturally threatens incumbent managers and their routines, and threatens even more a new manager succeeding a close friend. Yet an organization ought not squander these resources, ought not dismiss a mind like this. And it should remember that a follower asking troubling questions possesses the first prerequisite of a leader.

6. The mistakes I made, as well as my failure to fix some of the story's existing errors, were out of character. They constituted rare exceptions to strengths cited in the annual review: "He is a careful editor and won't mind making extra phone calls to get it done right. He'll go back and double- and triple-check his own work. . . . does a good job of looking things up if he's not sure. . . . always eager to challenge copy and make every story better. . . . always thorough in regards to confirming facts."

I admit to editorial aggressiveness, but that pays far more than it costs in the long run. Passive editors live in Teddy Roosevelt's gray twilight, risking fewer bad insertions while abdicating their primary responsibility: to make stories better. Mediocrity might not hasten disaster, but mediocrity precludes the active steps needed to avert disaster. Perfectionist editing undermines itself occasionally, whereas ineffectual editing constitutes a chronic problem. Editors should not be judged by their best cases and worst cases, but by the net good they impart.

A more passive editor might not have added errors to the FSU story, but such an editor also did not catch the errors and would not have fixed the piece's pre-existing problems. That editor would not have excised the abortion hearsay from the weekend Pasco story I cited in our Aug. 15 meeting: "He almost didn't make it out of the womb." That editor would not have made all the catches and fixes I made over 15 months -- and over 22 years.

7. I committed myself to the Tribune, its integrity and quality. I was prepared to do so throughout the two years I promised the senior editor for sports when I passed up other opportunities and joined Tampa's newspaper. I remain prepared to do so indefinitely, but, barring general incompetence or dereliction, I had a reasonable expectation of mutual commitment. There was no warning of difficulty in this case, and alternative ways of meeting the institutional obligation were not explored. It's not too late to fulfill the shared commitment and return that passionate focus to our product, The Tampa Tribune.

8. My departure interrupted a universally acknowledged improvement. Though the first-year evaluation was based on limited exposure (less than two days per week out of the evaluator's three or four in the office; see Addendum C), though the evaluator had personal motives to discredit my managerial background by minimizing contributions and exaggerating weaknesses, and though I found the evaluation unduly negative, "meets expectations" and "exceeds expectations" accounted for 90.2 percent of the scoring. The desk chief and senior editor for sports both said problems cited were concentrated in the early months of my tenure. The desk chief stressed that the review constituted a summation of the first year, not where we were at the end of it. The department head spoke of a re-evaluation (implying a raise) in six months, citing reports of improvement. I said it was merely a case of perception catching up with reality. Regardless, building on progress serves the paper better than throwing progress away.

9. Reinstatement recognizes the disproportionate risk assumed by editors who take on difficult or sensitive stories. Copy editors face more danger -- without corresponding influence or compensation -- than do designers, assigning editors, budgeteers and administrative editors. Those among them inclined toward hard tasks face a special peril: "Matt isn't afraid to question sensitive topics and work on coming up with the best way to handle sensitive issues." Again, awareness of this double vulnerability was one reason I asked to help as a designer or the night editor, who does as few first reads as comfortable. These efforts to diversify and to relinquish some of the content burden were rejected. Yet while others shied away from all but second reads, I persisted in editing the tough stories. Conditioned by often poor raw copy and spotty quality control at each end, I went on aggressively challenging, calling and enhancing.

10. This lapse redoubles my determination to push already elite editorial standards higher and apply them each day, each story, each word. The published version of the FSU story did not meet anyone's standards. My attempts to institutionalize higher standards (addenda A-C, E, Coyote memo) were rebuffed, so I was unable to get into place the procedures that prevented such disasters at the Devil Rays, or even the backups and fail-safes used at the St. Petersburg Times, which re-edits the sports section up to 2 a.m. Yet my work raised the standards of editing, writing and accuracy at the Trib.

I have seen "Tribune standards" rise dramatically in my 18 Tampa Bay years, especially recently, but they are not to the point where an editor of this experience, talent and dedication can be sacrificed to a no-tolerance policy. While I can understand why the paper saw the move as preemptive legal protection, permanent separation would hurt the organization and department, actually increasing the chances of problems in print.

11. Reinstatement mitigates a drastic action that wrongly suggested chronic incompetence or negligence, and that thus unduly damaged the professional and personal reputation of a 22-year editor. The unwarranted implication that my editing is substandard undermines my employment prospects and earning potential.

The final two readers' cursory review of this sensitive story demonstrates that the department did not view inaccuracy or recklessness as recurring problems with me. My in-house reputation for precision diminished scrutiny. As happens with "clean" writer/reporters, editors' out-of-character mistakes get through the process easier than do anticipated, habitual ones. Those known for caution are less likely to find diligent backup. (So are those perceived as socially undesirable newcomers; I might fit into both groups.)

12. Mitigating the drastic action eases the fear, even the paralysis, of editors facing problematic stories. This dismissal's chilling effect on an already tentative group outweighs any deterrent advantage. Overturning this dismissal enhances the confidence, morale and goodwill of the Tribune sports desk.

13. I possess deadline experience difficult to duplicate -- up to eight a day for the past 22 years. Less battle-hardened, more panicked colleagues tend to misinterpret my cool under pressure as obliviousness to the clock, but I learned long ago how to manipulate tasks and my own speed. Not only am I more eager than most to take tough stories, I am more willing than most to dive on them at midnight. Far from being a drag on the operation, I thus can claim a large share of our outstanding page-flow record. For quality and accuracy, I will put my under-the-gun headlines, subheads, cutlines, catches, checks, fixes and trims against anyone's.

14. With multiple stages of writing, editing, designing, flowing and proofing stories, and with at least three computer systems involved, some question remains as to who changed what text when. I was not given the opportunity to review the problem page's stages. Trying to reconstruct my involvement from memory, I have trouble believing I did not rectify the victim references beyond the second paragraph. The Harris pagination system has a history of deleting, mis-adding or otherwise garbling text sent from Coyote, in one case mangling a USF conference basketball tournament story three times to omit key writer-editor collaboration from the published version. The person who designed 3 Sports for Aug. 15 has a history of flowing stories before they are ready, of failing to flow corrections, and of flowing in his own changes without consulting the night editor or anyone else involved in the process.

15. While individuals' sins of commission and omission created difficulty, management's longstanding pattern of risk sent those offenses to the fore. Breaking the pattern of risk through enhanced staffing and training, by truly focusing on reporting-writing-editing, by making accuracy a priority and giving sensitive stories more attention at each phase, would do more to preclude future problems than ousting one or more of the principals involved in a particular case.

16. The involvement of the publisher in the decision raised the specter of conflict of interest. As the chief money-making officer and the focus of business contacts, a publisher traditionally recuses himself or herself from newsroom staffing decisions; advocating or ordering a dismissal there is akin to an executive editor's advocating or ordering a dismissal in marketing. Reinstatement for a period of review by senior editors would reinforce the principled division between the commercial and journalistic sides of the paper, strengthening newsroom autonomy, another area where the Tribune lags behind the Times.

17. The loss of a Trib-trained veteran and supreme grammarian presented difficulties during a busy season, and the return of that veteran promises to ease busy seasons ahead. I felt for my colleagues this fall. It was painful to know that an extreme reaction to my editorial missteps forced more hurried, less thorough work from the remaining editors, increasing the possibility of further errors and sloppy sections. General diminution does more damage to credibility, hence readability and salability, than even catastrophic single incidents; it affects the general audience. Adding an established, able editor when the opportunity presents itself has a similarly pervasive effect: general improvement. That's true even if other deskers also have returned.

18. Reinstatement removes a damaging precedent. Because the problem was an isolated incident rather than part of a pattern, the move committed the Tribune to no-warning firings based on single errors. That in turn compels dismissals for more chronic incompetence and negligence. Such changes and the accompanying morale impact destabilize a staff. They also provide a strong disincentive for taking on challenges.

Eliminating a good editor does not eliminate the institutional problems that permit good editors to put bad sentences into print. Amid thousands of stories -- 15 per night for this editor -- and millions of words, a newspaper must take care to keep its personnel moves numerically reasonable, in proportion. Lowering the odds of trouble through better systems yields more constructive results than does staff subtraction.

19. If the dismissal stands but is not followed by those of other erring copy editors, reporters, clerks, designers, assigning editors, budgeters and department leaders, the Tribune opens itself to accusations of selectively following standards. If a comparable problem originating with the reporter gets all the way through, is the reporter fired? Or are standards lower for writers, some of whom inject mistakes into copy every day, generally to be rescued by one of the more observant members of the desk?

Reinstatement removes the objection that the newspaper focuses rigorous, unyielding scrutiny on certain people and situations but not on others. It removes the objection that when The Big One comes, the copy editor is tossed to the wind, not backed and protected as a valued member of the team.

20. My return can help effect a culture change on the Tribune sports desk. With the same passion but more diplomacy, leading by example if not by title, I will continue the effort to eradicate the run-for-the-door mentality.

21. Despite this editor's age, reinstatement constitutes an investment in the future. I have a history of professional commitments far longer than the two years agreed upon when I started at the Tribune. More crucially, reinstatement constitutes an acknowledgment of veteran editors, their wisdom, their sacrifices and burdens, and the stability they lend. Decades of troubleshooting, editing and Q-controlling [seven lesser writers, names rendered in plural form; deleted for public record] cause road fatigue for even the most clear-headed desker. (What of [copy editor 1] in 14 years?) Yet the know-how and knowledge of older eds usually prevent and solve problems. Occasionally, well-honed instincts misdirect themselves. Should a paper then cast out the editors, despite all past, current and potential contributions? Doesn't the long-term quality of the staff require an environment that encourages proven professionals a newspaper can build around?

22. The organization bolsters its credibility by negating a move made in a few hours, a move made without hearing or review. Far from showing an absence of leadership, going back on a hasty decision conveys a thoughtful, courageous integrity, a determination to head off any hint of institutional negligence, corruption or malfeasance. A reconsidered decision shows a management willing to adjust when its people and systems fail -- especially when one proponent picks another to continue a system with demonstrated flaws. A reconsidered decision renounces the sad self-preservation that skirts challenges -- or, in the case of certain supervisors, a self-preservation that comes late, leaves early or doesn't show at all. The inspiring, reassuring effect on the staff could benefit the paper even more than regaining a strong editor.

23. A good ending means good advertising. People like happy conclusions: rehabilitation, restoration, reunion. Morale advantages accompany practical work advantages. More to the point, professionals long will tell this cautionary tale. Whether they recount a constructive educational experience and an honorable advance for the organization depends on outcomes. Shop talk, trade publications, classes and books can portray The Tampa Tribune as enlightened, progressive, growing in wisdom. Mattmedia seminars on Avoiding The Big One -- no mere mea culpa -- can further elevate that esteem. Throughout the professional and corporate circle, inside and outside the newspaper realm, the Tribune increasingly becomes a story worth covering.

Terms and Schedule

While it is in the paper's interest not to permanently lose one of its best, most seasoned editors in the face of an unrelenting schedule, I am open, as indicated above, to alternative assignments. Work status itself is negotiable, possibly including a contractor, transitional or trial arrangement.

If precedent, logistics and record-keeping are concerns, I'm flexible concerning the timing and public presentation of a re-transition. My move back in could inaugurate a second, distinct period of employment. Or it could be rendered as the end of a lengthy unpaid suspension imposed for mistakes we all regret.

Thank you for considering all the facts and my proposal. Regardless of the last words in this case, I fervently hope the organization and I both will use it to learn and progress.

Sincerely,

Matthew S. Lorenz

5121-D Coquina Key Drive SE, St. Petersburg, FL 33705
C (813) 817-3339; H (727) 898-9053; mattmedia@tampabay.rr.com; lorenzrays@aol.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum A

IMPROVING QUALITY AND QUALITY CONTROL

ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITY
Accuracy must be the highest priority for a newspaper. Our readers and our credibility depend on it. Reporters, assigning editors, stringers, clerks and slots must share the responsibility for getting things right; they must be as accountable for their own content as the night and copy editors are for the section's. To the extent there is a hierarchy, it should reflect impact on, and responsibility for, accuracy: management, editors, reporters, designers, clerks, stringers. Right now, the levels of editors and designers seem inverted in our hierarchy. Slot 1's should not be considered in charge of content or editors unless they take charge of quality control. That option is explored below. So is the idea that everyone on the desk perform, or at least learn, every role and can view quality control from that angle. But it all starts with management's fostering a culture of accuracy, valuing accuracy in practice as well as in its absence, and making accuracy a priority in the allocation of time and resources. There's more to management than getting good people and leaning on them. We must put them in a position to succeed.

CULTURE CHANGE
"Finish and go home" is a prevailing attitude on our desk. We should mix in a little "keep checking as long as you can, because you might wind up with a better section tomorrow." Only a few people have zeal for perfecting the product. We need more fanatics, especially if they can do the work of two, like [copy editors 1 and 2], or are willing to go far into the night to perfect a publication, like me.

Institutionally, we should encourage people to keep thinking about the product and give them time to do it. With more people available on deadline [see my staffing proposals], perhaps we could expand the 5-minute meeting into a session that puts desk members and available writers at a table, flipping through pages to make sure we digest what we've published and think ahead. Not to make excuses for anyone, but often people rush through the day, rush here, and (because they didn't linger until the papers came upstairs the night before) rush through items without being sure of their context. It's great if our journalists digest this and other papers on their own time, but some people's time is freer than other people's, and, frankly, newspaper people need to spend more of their own time reading The New Yorker, Harper's, The Atlantic, political commentary, history, novels, poetry and sports record books. Our continuing newspaper education should be official, on the clock, sanctioned and sponsored.

ALLOCATION OF TIME AND RESOURCES
If we are not already doing so, we should account for job vacancies, special projects, non-production work, vacations, illnesses, special talents and diversity hires in setting weekly hours for the staff. Upper management at newspapers seems to assume full strength and normal load, failing to consider, say, that 49 weeks of accrued vacation is the equivalent of one staffer. The Super Bowl was a staffing exception for us, but we seem to be making up for it by banning overtime despite a vacancy of more than two months. Now, the number of editors needed to do a section properly is subjective . . . which leads us to the question of whether the hours we use could be allocated better. I say they can.

[Supervising editor; deleting name for public record] bristles at this, but the ratio of slot hours to editor hours seems too high. Some nights, we've actually had more designers than editors, and I maintain that editing a story or page demands more time than designing and processing a story or page. Overburdened slots do impact editors by providing late specs and lengths, but we often get them late anyway, because of live art and certain slots' deliberate approach. We improve quality control by enhancing opportunities for it, and we do that by committing more hours to the problem. If we can't increase or alter the staff, we can take those hours from long Slot 2 shifts. No one would argue that Slot 1 should be less than 10 hours, even if some do most of their specking near the end. But since Slot 2's work depends on Slot 1's preparation, communication and decisions, a 10-hour S2 would seem to do a lot of waiting. Slot 2s who scrupulously work 2:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. in accordance with their 4-day weeks experience dead time that could be enlivened to serve our newspaper and our readers.

I propose increasing the number of deadline shifts by turning 4-day slot weeks into 5-day weeks mixing 6-, 8- and 10-hour shifts. Slot 1 would remain a 10-hour shift: 2:30 (or earlier) to 12:30 (or earlier). Primary zones would remain 8, and slots/zones 2-4 would mix 8- and 6-hour shifts. The four deadline shifts we would gain each week could be devoted to crisis management and quality control -- free safeties covering our backs.

[For an hour breakdown, see my schedule mock-up.]

A fully 5-day-a-week desk also would eliminate a morale problem: more off days and more desirable shifts for people whose work is, if not easier, certainly less dangerous. The burden of accuracy falls disproportionately on copy editors -- and on their eyes, wrists, elbows and backs. If they can't get additional days off to recover, they can at least share that burden. [Supervising editor] says everyone below him is equal, so we must eradicate unequal treatment -- unequal benefits on the one hand, unequal scrutiny and blame on the other.

OTHER QUALITY-CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS

Increase number of late shifts among "day people," splitting the shifts if needed:
The reporters' team leaders offer an inspiring example of long hours and being there, in the office or on site, to enhance and process their people's material. Among designers and editors, possibly excepting those who have ground away on a project all day (and maybe all the previous night), people should be available on deadline. So, normally, should the desk supervisor. The supervisor need not edit and read back all night if there's administrative work to be done, but being there to review the front and the major credibility items enhances the section and motivates deskers. The effect is even more pronounced if the department heads get involved. Especially when we are in a slump, it could ease your mind and head off trouble if you, Nick, team leaders and even reporters with Coyote access check material in SPORTS SLOT, SPORTS PAG and LIBRARY OUT. Personal deadline appearances, perhaps on a rotating basis, also could have a huge impact on morale as well as quality. Bureaucracy and meetings may consume the day, but at the end of the day we're all evaluated by our product.

Seek a better pagination system:
Harris seems clunky, demanding individual attention for each item, and is not even compatible with the machines editors use. We're constantly going back to fill out or cut items that measured to the exact length on the Coyote. Often slots do this on their own, restoring unedited or duplicating info to lengthen a piece or making hasty, undesirable cuts. This wastes everyone's work and diminishes quality. Remember how we paginated individual slugs in Coyote at the Times and everyone could see the breaks, indents and oversets as they edited? We need to get everyone on the same system so we can do that here. Barring that, we need to standardize the screen and output fonts of all our machines, including vertical and horizontal distortions, so everyone's lengths match. And we need real quote marks, real hyphens and real dashes on our screens so we can stop asking people with failing eyesight to spot cosmetic problems on miniature pages. This is a system problem, this is a management problem, and solving it will make our desks better and our newspaper better.

Everyone on the desk must be an editor:
My experience with magazines and advertising convinced me the world is full of people who can perform optical tricks on a page but are likely to send it out with the biggest word misspelled. Our designs are more basic, stressing production over visual impact, and everyone who desires should get a chance to do them. The best design/production people emerging from that group should handle most pages but should keep their hands in editing and quality control. No one should be permitted to think of himself as a graphic specialist.

Keep editors off the phone:
When work neighbors joke about my tendency to comment on the text in front off me, I respond that I always have to listen to their family dramas and often take their messages. Though I tell my girlfriend not to call, since I don't like my concentration broken while I'm pushing it, I don't expect people who can't be home evenings not to keep up with their families. However, the phones seriously infringe on editing time -- hence quality control, hence quality -- when 800 calls, general business calls, prep call-ins, complaints and sports lonely hearts funnel through a few editors. Before, it was me, [editors 1-3; deleting shortened names for public record], with [editor 4] eager to site the call and pick up, [editor 5] sometimes, [agate editor] seldom. [Editor 1] usually doesn't mind, entertaining long-winded fans and even taking a lot of prep sums, but [editor 2] and I are naturally slower and feel compromised by the minutes lost.

[Designer 1's] move to the [designer 2] desk exacerbates the problem, since these calls don't ring at the slot desks. During call-ins, we've taken to trying to position one of the clerks at a live phone, but few live department phones have live Coyote/Decade computers. Using one more strategically placed call-taker during peak times would help clerks funnel to each other, rather than editors' funneling to clerks. Publicizing the 7-11 call-in times and designating a prep line would hopefully lessen the burden on editor/receptionists. Outside of those times, the best options are an automated answering system (though someone would need to check the messages quickly), a phone system that rings every general incoming at every desk (this gets the slot desks involved, though ignoring rings can become a test of wills), and staffing the phones throughout the hours we want to answer them. The last would involve a low-wage investment, but it would protect the investment in higher-wage professionals engaged in mentally -- and optically -- unforgiving work.

More front-end training and hard editing by "daytime" assigning people:
The sports desk still spends a disproportionate amount of time filling in gaps, checking facts and calling reporters who turn in weak raw copy. This leaves less time for honing/enhancing the big stuff and quality-controlling the section.

Stop the machoness/secretiveness with proofs:
Kyle Clifton, the singular-possessive mismatch in the FSU head over the summer, the big misspelling in the NASCAR section, a lot of my own errors -- woulda caught 'em if I saw 'em. The night ed soloed on the proofs, or at least didn't share with me. Our specialization and our pride hurt the product. EVERY editor and designer working should sign off on Page 1 and their own pages before leaving. We should make extra copies of pages as they close and have clerks read them between call-ins, rather than doing homework on company time. She may know the tennis player spells her name differently. He may know the game is Sunday, not Saturday. Anyone who can see has a chance to spot bogus X's and stray type, and any literate person can spot misspelled words with a lucky glance.

Pre-press and platemaking continue to inspire legends with their catches, but full pagination at the Tribune carries a hidden cost: the loss of a big chunk of quality control, the composing room. At the Times, it gave us a whole floor of clearheaded proofers. Some compositors were among the company's smartest and most knowledgeable people, particularly in specialized fields, and they often saw a page longer than anyone on the desk did. And we had swarms of editors passing through and hanging around, sometimes making catches on each other's pages, sometimes making catches as type came out of the processors. We need to use EVERY AVAILABLE SET OF EYES to make up for the lost quality-control filter of the composing room.

[For more ideas about seeing and catching, see my February note in your Coyote basket.]

-- Matt Lorenz, 3/13/03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum C

Dissent and improvement:
This evaluation stresses conformity. That emphasis on "fitting in" conflicts with the organization's stated goal of diversity. Do we just want people to look different or actually BE different? I offer the capacity for critical, unconventional thinking that looks for new, better ways. To squelch that is to squander an unusual talent, a resource. I always try to support the leaders and follow the system, but does the company not want me to challenge any aspects of the system? Our mission is to be the best damn newspaper. We WOULD be a better paper if we devoted more staff and more staff development to editing and quality control. We WOULD be a better paper if we all checked proofs, especially of our own work, and signed off on Page 1 before leaving.

We all, individuals and companies, can improve and should strive to do so. We all, individuals and companies, should value criticism as an aid to betterment. In this regard, the "What would you change about the Trib" question is the best one in the evaluation. It conveys value, respect, acknowledging the evaluation as an excellent opportunity for employee and company to exchange feedback. But it's a question that should be part of daily life at the newspaper, not a subject to be feared as subversive.

Organizational paradoxes:
Companies and other organizations express reverence for leaders, but they tend to value and retain followers. They speak of high standards but often are threatened by them and discourage them in individuals. Mediocrity is disinclined to "upset the apple cart," because it wants a pay check. Excellence is more inclined to do so, because it brings aspiration, vision, passion, and a keen awareness of bad apples.