Congratulations to the Rocky Mountain News for being the first of the two dailies to publish anything on specific actions that the Justice Department might take if the Rocky were sold.

The Rocky asserted as fact that Justice would review any sale of the Rocky, and it offered two views on whether Justice might force MediaNews to accept a new partner in the JOA.

Here’s what today’s Rocky story had to say: 

“The Justice Department, which approved the 2001 JOA between The Post and News, would have to review any sale transaction. Tracy Simmons, administrative officer of the Denver Newspaper Guild, said Wednesday, “I’m no attorney, but my understanding is that you can’t separate the newsroom from the (Denver Newspaper Agency) without being in violation of the JOA. “The rationale for the JOA was to preserve two independent editorial voices, and any move to compromise that raises questions for the Justice Department.” Mark Fitzgerald, editor-at- large of newspaper industry trade publication Editor & Publisher, had a different take. “I don’t think Justice would have much to say about it,” he said. “It approved the agreement that allows MediaNews right of first refusal. I don’t see any standing (by Justice) to say that you’ve got to be a partner with somebody you don’t want to.” Fitzgerald cited the case of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, which wanted to shut down in the mid-1980s. Although Justice told the newspaper’s owners that they had to look for a buyer, regulators didn’t force the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to accept that buyer as a joint operating partner.”

But the St. Louis Globe-Democrat could operate as an independent daily without the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

In Denver, the new owner of the Rocky probably wouldn’t be able to print the newspaper, unless it’s part of the JOA. So Justice, whose goal would be to preserve two newspapers, might take a different approach here and force MediaNews to accept the new buyer.

SquareState.net accurately summarizes previous references in the Post and the Rocky to possible actions by the Justice Department here.

I’ve been trying to convince journalists to post comments on the discussion boards under their articles online.

If more journalists would comment, we’d probably see more people opining there, with different points of view. This could raise the level of the debates on these discussion boards, and help educate people about journalism and the issues. It would also educate journalists, who need to hear more from citizens and interact with them more.

But journalists seem to have a snotty attitude toward the folks who use the discussion boards. I don’t blame them, to a degreee, but they should comment anyway. I know some journalists read them, but they don’t comment.

I also know a lot of people who read the discussion boards–but never leave a comment.

So I was surprised to find someone claiming to be Gunny Bob, a talk radio host on KOA, commenting on the discussion board under a recent Rocky column of mine. I’ve never seen a mainstream journalist’s name the discussion boards of the daiies? Have you?

I don’t mean to imply that Gunny is a journalist, but here’s what he had to say:

“Jason, during the campaigns you called into my show to express how gleeful you were that so many liberals “hate Bush.” You did this as you rode around in a farcically pedantic and sophomoric truck hauling statues of Bush and McCain embracing. You were giddy with intolerance, venom and loathing. That same embarrassing attitude comes across in your columns, as it does in Littwin’s, Campos’ and so on, as well as the paper’s frequently laughable editorials. When hate becomes the life blood of a media outlet, like Air America that outlet will fail. And you were a part of it. Your own bigotry, arrogance and hate has cost you your job and now you are blaming Scripps rather than yourself in any way. The truth hurts, Jason, but pain builds character.”

Now, it’s possible this wasn’t really Gunny, so I emailed him. He confirmed that he was the author. He seems to be a bit of a regular on the Rocky site. See his online comments in response to a blog by Rocky Editor John Temple.

I respect Gunny for commenting, even if his remarks don’t raise the quality of the online debate and even if his comment is ridiculous because he doesn’t explain why I’m a bigot.

In fact, if you’ll allow me to digress, Gunny appears to be a bigot himself, or completely clueless, judging from his recent comment spotlighted by Colorado Media Matters. Gunny said that if gays serve in the military, then more soldiers will be exposed to the HIV virus. CMM points out that HIV-positive military applicants are rejected and those who become HIV-positive during their service cannot serve overseas. Gunny’s comment sparked a national campaign asking KOA to reprimand Newman.

Oh well. My point is that it’s pretty pathetic that Gunny might be the only representative of the mainstream media who’s commenting on online articles.

Rocky Mountain News Editor and Publisher John Temple described on Friday a scenario under which the government might intervene to save the Rocky Mountain News.

During Friday’s 5 p.m. hour of the Caplis and Silverman show on KHOW, co-host Dan Caplis asked Temple whether The Denver Post’s owner, Dean Singleton, “would have the right of first refusal on any offer on the [the Rocky]?”

Temple responded, “First, you know I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that Dean Singleton of MediaNews Group, the company that owns The Post, would have the right not only to match the offer but also to say that the proposed partner is not a viable partner. But then, as you can imagine, both the Justice Department and Scripps lawyers might argue otherwise. And so that’s one complicated scenario, if there were a buyer.”

This is the first time, as far as I know, that a journalist from either newspaper has identified a specific action that the Justice Department might take to save the Rocky.

Stephen Barnett, a law professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley, told me in a recent interview that if a “capable buyer” emerges for the Rocky, it would be illegal for Dean Singleton to reject the buyer, based on the intent of the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970. He says the Justice Department could intervene to force Singleton to accept the buyer. He believes, however, that Singleton’s right to match the offer of a buyer, the so-called right of first refusal, is in fact legal.

It’s been widely reported (as it turns out, probably erroneously) that Singleton can reject any buyer for the Rocky. For example, The Post reported categorically Dec. 5 that Singleton “can reject a buyer it considers unsuitable.” 

Dan Caplis deserves credit for asking Temple about this “fact,” because if it were true, it makes the Rocky’s plight look completely hopeless, given that Singleton has said he wants the Rocky to fold. But it’s likely not true, which is good news for the Rocky. And the Rocky needs any good news it can get at this point.

Transcript of a portion of John Temple’s interview on the Caplis and Sliverman Show Jan. 16, 2009

Dan Caplis: Can we ask you about some of the eye-glazing technical stuff because it may tie in to some things. First of all, obviously there’s a joint operating agreement here. And, if I remember, I may have read this in your paper, Dean Singleton would have the right of first refusal on any offer on the paper? And beyond that don’t the feds have to step in and approve? Would the feds have to approve Scripps folding up the Rocky or just a sale of the Rocky? How does all that intersect?

John Temple: First, you know I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that Dean Singleton of MediaNews Group, the company that owns the Post, would have the right not only to match the offer but also to say that the proposed partner is not a viable partner. But then, as you can imagine, both the Justice Department and Scripps lawyers might argue otherwise. And so that’s one complicated scenario, if there were a buyer. As it relates to your other question, regarding the Justice Department, again, I don’t want to pretend I’m an expert because, as you know, with matters of legal issues, there are often differing views on the same question. But I would say that Scripps said when they came here on Dec. 4 that they could have closed the paper that day, if they had wanted but that they didn’t’ want to. They wanted to find a way for the Rocky to survive, but they felt it needed to survive with new ownership with new ideas and, frankly, with a different capital structure, you know, with more money.  So, I think what they said on Dec. 4 is the best answer to your question, Dan. I think they were saying, yes, they could close the paper.
 

I wrote below in my last post that I’d write more about the column situation later. I think these two recent blog posts cover the issue well enough.

Posts on Westword’s The Latest Word and SquareState.net cover the essentials.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at jason@effectcommunications.com.

I know I’ve written some bad columns for the Rocky Mountain News over the years. But I didn’t think the column I submitted Thursday was so bad that it would be rejected.

In fact, I thought the column was one of my better efforts, pointing out a serious omission in local media coverage of a major story.

But Rocky Editor and Publisher John Temple thought otherwise, and he rejected the piece. It was the only time that’s happened since November 2004 when I started writing the “On the Media” column every other week. My editors at the Rocky have been fair during my years of freelance service. I respect them, and Temple did not fire me.

After much thought, I decided I should publish the rejected column on my own blog. That’s what any self-respecting independent media critic would do.

Also, I want to air the ideas I wrote about in my column. These ideas, from credible sources, should not be ignored at a time when any strategy to prolong the life of the Rocky, no matter how far-fetched, should be explored.
Below is the column I submitted. Its headline might have been: “Dailies Ignore Long-Shot Government Role in Saving Rocky.”
 

When a 149-year-old institution looks like it might die, you want to know what can be done about it. You count on journalists to provide this information.

But in the case of the Rocky Mountain News, which is up for sale and facing possible closure, we’ve seen no reporting about what the government could do to help the daily. It turns out that even though the Rocky is owned by a private company, the federal government can conceivably play a role in saving the newspaper.