The other side.

Further to my three prior posts that made reference to the still-unfolding story of Pierre Ruhe's employment status at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, that paper's managing editor Hank Klibanoff posted the following note in the comments field of my June 6 post. I believe it deserves greater visibility than that, and reprint it here verbatim (apart from replacing a lengthy URL with a simple link and italicizing publication names for clarity) and without additional comment.

From Hank Klibanoff
Managing Editor for Enterprise
Atlanta Journal-Constitution

I never want to turn away praise extended to the newspaper where I am a managing editor. So while I thank you for recognizing the wisdom of continuing Pierre Ruhe as an arts critic at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, I do want to quibble with the assertion that it’s an about-face.

Allow me to clarify some points, debunk some wild myths and introduce the truth into the dialogue about the AJC’s plan for arts criticism and coverage.

Like you, I am very happy that Pierre will continue to bring our readers superb criticism and coverage. Same with Cathy Fox and Wendell Brock.  They’ve done brilliant jobs for us, and are a pleasure to work with.

The AJC has been going through a bold, exciting and, at times, challenging structural reorganization.  To meet the needs of a digital audience that is growing and a print audience that loves a sophisticated and lively newspaper, the entire departmental structure, the flow of news and many job responsibilities are changing.

Because we are creating some new jobs, closing old ones, merging some and modifying others, we decided to go with the most fair and democratic job placement process we could find, one that allowed everyone to apply for jobs.

As we went through that process, Pierre and our others probably weren’t too excited about it, and I don’t blame them. But they were professional about it, understanding that this was about something bigger than any group of reporters. I also imagine that if they had had their eye on another job in the newsroom and were blocked from applying for it, they might have felt the deck was stacked against them.

So it was a difficult few weeks. We were prepared for that.

But we were not prepared for the way myth and misconception took root in some sectors of the media, especially the blogosphere, as irresponsible arts advocates and bloggers sent their misguided missiles through cyberspace without any regard to where they were aimed, whether an attack was justified or who got hurt. Truth and reality became twisted beyond recognition.

Some said we had eliminated the critic positions; they were wrong. We never did such a thing, and you’ll not find any evidence to contradict that. Some said we removed the people holding the critic positions; they were wrong. We never did such a thing. One email from the Woodruff Arts Center in Atlanta went so far as to say we planned “elimination of arts coverage.”

Those who participated in spreading these falsehoods have hurt us, have hurt the credibility of the arts blogosphere, and have hurt themselves – because there was not a word of truth to it. And any misinterpretation of the truth could have easily been corrected with a simple conversation.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution remains committed to vigorous and comprehensive coverage and criticism of the arts. Even as we, like most newspapers, have reduced and reorganized our staff, the AJC has maintained the level of its staffing for the arts – as it promised it would from the outset.

Pierre and Cathy will continue in the two arts critic/reporter positions in the enterprise department. Wendell remains as theater critic/reporter. Mark Davis and Kirsten Tagami become cultural affairs news reporters, Sonia Murray becomes the music scene reporter, Rodney Ho becomes the local TV and radio reporter, Bob Longino becomes the local movies reporter. Also, David Graves has been named to another new position, leisure reporter, covering weekend events of all kinds. Most of these staffers are remaining in the positions they already held, or in positions that have been modestly modified from what they held.

From the beginning of the reorganization, as the AJC drafted and wrote job descriptions for its staff members who cover the arts, the AJC built into three job descriptions a requirement that the staff members holding those positions provide arts criticism; the three critic/reporters who held those positions before the reorganization (Ruhe, Fox and Brock) are the same three who will hold those critic/reporter positions after the reorganization.

The requirement, in the job description, that these staffers provide criticism was memorialized in writing the entire time that bloggers, reporters, the Woodruff Arts Center and the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra erroneously claimed the jobs and criticism were being eliminated.

This means that anyone who wrote or said we were eliminating criticism or critics was flat out wrong. Remarkably, those who were most vocal and heated in decrying our alleged elimination of critical writing abandoned all critical thinking when it came to assessing whether the rumors about us were true. And, oh, how easy it would have been to avoid that; all any of them had to do was call and ask us. We’d have told them.

Here’s what one Atlanta writer said today when the Boston Globe asked why he didn’t try to call the managing editor who knew more about the situation than anyone before writing the falsehood that the arts critics jobs were being eliminated: “If it turns out to be wrong, I would rather not have gotten it wrong and that would have entailed making a few more phone calls. You have to understand, there were a lot of positions changing. And in most cases, when I did make phone calls to staffers, they were not returned. Especially to people I didn’t know. I don’t know Pierre Ruhe.” (LINK)

Keep reading that Globe story and you will see that the vice president for marketing at the Woodruff Arts Center, also apologized to us for spreading falsehoods about the AJC’s actions.

So, while I appreciate the praise we’re getting for coming to our senses and “reinstating” Pierre, or reversing course and “retaining” him, or for responding to public uproar, I must say that none of those are true.

Pierre, I am happy to say, will continue as an arts critic/reporter, but that represents no change of course.

I love the passion of the arts communities, and I, along with the other leaders of the AJC newsroom, appreciate and share their deep concern about arts coverage and criticism. Because of that passion, arts communities remind me of the newsrooms I have chosen to spend my professional life in. We at the AJC state emphatically that we believe that the arts play a vital and positive societal role. We will continue to do our best to reflect that in our coverage in print and online.

Comments

[Marc Geelhoed]

This is the sound of spin, petulant and just so hurt that people could possibly think ill of a corporation that just asked its employees to reapply for their jobs. Yes, it could have been reported better, but the AJC could've saved itself a lot of trouble, too, by being transparent with its readers and not inviting criticism by saying arts criticism would not be affected in this reorganization. Why bother reorganizing if nothing will change?

[Lisa Hirsch]

What Marc said.

[Steve Dollar]

Kinda reminds me of the 1950s heavy petting etiquette. When they say "No," they mean "Yes," unless you get too forward and then it's "No, well ... sorta." I'm glad I got my cracker ass out of their when I did. It was bad enough *before* the current gang took charge. That said, I never worked with anyone in the current management, and haven't done any freelance work for the AJC in a long time. I ran a fair bit of hearsay past Bert Roughton, who refuted or clarified, and went with what he told me – though even he admits in my original piece that the paper could do a better job of explaining itself and, of course, could reasonably expect to get confusion and flack in return.

I hope it all works out. Atlanta's a much livelier city than it was in 2000, and it deserves better than the AJC has given it in some regards. Unfortunately, the paper has never had valid competition creatively – especially from the alternative sector.

[Steve Dollar]

"their"= "there"

posting-itis.

also, WEHT Nick Marino? He was the pop music critic (my old gig), on par with Cathy Fox, Pierre Ruhe, Wendell Brock and Eleanor Ringel (RIP). Hank forgot about him.

[MIchael Hunter]

Actions speak louder than words. I recently sought out a copy of the Friday "Movies & More" section of the AJC to see what my local peeps would have to say about "Paris Je' Taime" which just opened. Lo and behold, the review was by Stephen Holden of the NYT, which I had read already that morning. In fact, with exception of the one blockbuster opening that day, every review was by Stephen Holden. Sadly, most of us gave up on the AJC about the time Dollar decamped (Yo! Steve) and couldn't threaten to cancel our subs. With a world-class conductor like Spano, it was inevitable Ruhe would be re-hired to his old position or else just used freelance.

[steve dollar]

Hey Hunter ... kind of you to say ... that's perhaps the bigger, sadder issue regarding the arts at the AJC is that they already lost a lot of its urbane readership to the Times (online or print), and so now if it's only going to recycle wire reviews, there'll be even less reason to pick up the paper for original commentary. Although, who knows, maybe they'll be running some Steve Smith bylines!

Turns out Marino is moving to Paste (in nearby Decatur) so I'll actually be working with him. Ironic! Or something.

Here's the rub, though: He was the guy who had the chops to cover the pop music fare in a suitably critical fashion, so the fact that he's gone really weakens the paper in terms of it's non-classical music coverage. Right now, if the AJC was a pony, I wouldn't bet on it.

[Snozz]

I just would like to point out that Klibanoff says: "Some said we had eliminated the critic positions; they were wrong. We never did such a thing, and you’ll not find any evidence to contradict that. Some said we removed the people holding the critic positions; they were wrong. We never did such a thing.". He goes on to talk about "three critic/reporters positions" implying that this proves his petulant "they were wrong... we never... they were wrong... we never..." blithering.
For the record 12 months ago there were many more than 3 "critic/reporters" at the AJC; Klibanoff pouts but ignores the fired book critic, 3 film critics, music critics, etc.
Remembering Klibanoof's early comments specifically cite "critic positions" and mentally delete the off-topic listing of the paper's "reporters", and his entire essay cites only three remaining part-time critics: "critic/reporters".
Summation: self-righteous indignation aside, his claims are simply false: people were fired and every critic position was eliminated. Three "critic/reporters" and reviews from wire services are all we have. Sadly, the three part-timers are easily bested by the weeklies & alternative outlets here, and no one needs a piece of paper to read wire reviews. The baby has been thrown out with the bath water... and as we say here in the south the AJC is useless as tits on a bull.