By Tracy Dingmann

The Journal published a letter today from a reader who made an excellent point about a recent story involving a former Albuquerque Public Schools official.

The official, former chief financial officer Dupuy Bateman, had been placed on paid administrative leave May 24 after APS Superintendent Winston Brooks announced he had “lost faith” in Bateman’s ability to do his job. Less than two weeks earlier, Brooks had hired a new chief finance officer at an annual salary of $165,000. Up until May 24, Brooks had said he intended to keep Bateman on for “special finance projects,” while paying him his annual salary of $125,000. Bateman’s contract had been automatically renewed on April 1, meaning the only way the district could have gotten out of paying his salary would be to fire him with cause.

The unorthodox and unfortunate personnel situation, coupled with recurring and serious money management problems at APS, had prompted the Journal to publish a series of front-page stories and editorials over the past few weeks that were highly critical of APS.

The paper singled out Bateman for particularly harsh criticism in its coverage of the issue. (I had noted it as part of the tried and true Journal editorial technique of picking one public employee and holding him or her responsible for a complicated, long-ranging and systemic series of problems.)

On July 24, the Journal wrote a story saying Bateman had reached a $68,900 settlement with the school district to end his employment there.

The story recapped a list of serious financial errors that occurred at APS over the last few years and included this passage:

“No one from the district has publicly blamed Bateman for these errors.”

I saw that sentence and wondered why it was there. According to past Journal stories, didn’t Bateman – a former UNM finance official – join the school district in the spring of 2009, after those errors were committed or set in place? In fact, wasn’t he even credited with discovering and rectifying some of them?

Reader David E. Stuart, an associate provost emeritus at UNM, picked up on it too. In his letter to the editor, “APS Budget Woes Predate CFO,” he wrote:

The sentence…leads the average reader to believe Bateman could have some how been responsible for the seriously off-base bookkeeping, and that is utterly irresponsible per the Journal’s earlier reporting which made it clear these basic havoc-causing financial errors occurred before Bateman went to work for APS.

The Journal argued loud and clear in a series of pushy editorials that Bateman be cut loose on financial grounds. You got your way, so why pile on and imply that he might have been part of the problem. Not fair. Not clear and not true. A clarification is in order.

I have to say, I agree. Intimating that Bateman had anything to do with the colossal errors that predated him is not only unfair – it’s just plain wrong.

So what about it, Journal?

By Tracy Dingmann

So many times we at ABQ Journal Watch have written about the particularly good work done by various individual reporters at the Journal.

It’s time to do it again today.

Given the topic, the July 23 UpFront column “Thieves Hit Kid’s Graves,” by Joline Gutierrez Krueger could have been rendered in overwrought and sensationalistic tones.

I mean, people stealing flowers, vases and toys from babies’ graves? A story about this could have really gone over the top.

But Gutierrez Krueger, a writer with a real gift for writing about children and about victims of crime, dealt with the topic sensitively and informatively.

In telling the sad tale, she avoided the obvious tactics of tear-jerking or outrage and instead mixed parent’s poignant quotes with some pretty hard facts.

This included the craziest fact of all.

From the story:

But if the thieves thought their graveyard bounty would bring in a nice profit, oh how wrong they would be.

The vases are made of a low-grade material commonly known as pot metal that goes for about 10 cents a pound.  Aluminum such as those found in soda cans, by contrast, goes for 45 cents a pound.

What great use of a simple detail to so deftly illustrate the ultimate cruelty and futility of a heartbreaking string of crimes.

By Tracy Dingmann

There was some interesting pushback in the paper today. It came from Albuquerque Public Schools superintendent Winston Brooks, who is lucky enough to have a regular column in the paper.

I say lucky because in his July 13 column, Brooks got the opportunity to directly address some pretty pointed criticism that came his way last week – in a news story, no less.

The provocatively-titled July 6 story was called, “Sorry, Not For You, Kids,” and here was the lead:

For much of the past year, Albuquerque Public Schools officials have touted the benefits of getting Promethean white boards into classrooms.

But nine of the boards, which cost about $5,000 each, are either installed or soon will be in the district’s administrative buildings, where they will be used to train teachers.

The story went on to examine the benefits of white boards, which have been shown to increase student achievement when used by a well-trained teacher.

The story noted that APS is in the process of installing 500 boards this summer as part of a three-year plan to install a total of 3,000 boards. About $17 million in capital funds, which will include training and installation expenses, has been budgeted to pay for the boards.

But here’s the apparent genesis of Journal’s snippy headline:

Of the nine boards that won’t be in classrooms, five are or will be at APS’s Uptown headquarters and another four are at the Montgomery Complex teacher training facility.

The boards were installed in training rooms instead of classrooms because teachers and others who will use the boards have to be trained on how to use them, the district’s director of technology told the Journal.

That seems to make perfect sense. And remember, it’s a total of NINE boards that won’t be in classrooms – nine out of 500.

So I guess I thought the headline was a little harsh. And misleading.

Perhaps Brooks thought so, too.

Six days later, Brook’s regular column in the paper’s “Schools” section was called, “White Boards: The Future is Now.” It began with him telling us how excited he is that training for the first wave of 620 APS teachers who will use the boards in the classroom has begun. The rest of the column was an advertisement for the white boards and what they will be able to do for APS students.

And so, in that way, Brooks was able to use his column as a direct way to address the criticism raised in the news story.

Interesting. All the more power to him, I guess. Most people who get slammed in the Journal have to be content with writing a letter to the editor.

By Tracy Dingmann

Former city councilor and county commissioner Steve Gallegos made the Journal this week for a bizarre protest on Civic Plaza in which he burned copies of the paper.

Gallegos said he was angry about the Journal’s news stories and editorials over the past month that he felt did not properly represent the character of his friend and colleague, former deputy county manager John Dantis. The paper had run several stories and editorials that hit Dantis hard over allegations of nepotism and favoritism toward his son, who had worked for the county before resigning under threat of termination last month. In the face of the widely-publicized allegations and a related investigation, Dantis announced he would retire effective July 30.

On July 6, Gallegos led a demonstration of about 20 people who shredded and burned copies of the Journal to protest what they called the paper’s harsh treatment of the longtime jail chief. (Read “Ex-County Official Decries Journal Coverage” here.)

Why Did Gallegos Burn The Paper?
Gallegos said he was protesting the Journal’s stories and editorials, including a story on July 1 that raised alarm about the prospect of Dantis claiming his unused annual vacation leave and sick time (read “John Dantis Could Walk With $160,000” here). The paper followed the story with a strident editorial on July 5 (read “It’s Time to Make Over the Extreme Payouts” here) decrying city and county policies that allow deputy department heads and others to accumulate unlimited amounts of leave.

From a Journal story about the protest:

Gallegos said Dantis is a caring man who’s worked hard to help people, especially those struggling with addiction.

“If someone makes a mistake, are we going to knock ‘em to the ground” over and over? Gallegos asked. “That’s not who I am.”

Front Page Scandals

It is undeniable that the Journal has a relentless focus on pouncing on the misdeeds of certain public employees – whether the “perps” are stopping an empty and out-of-service Rail Runner to grab a quick lunch at LotaBurger or embezzling millions of dollars from an impoverished rural school district.

Many longtime readers of the Journal have noted that there seems to be nothing the paper loves more than parlaying these scandals (of widely ranging actual importance) into front-page news stories and fodder for stern editorials. Oftentimes the focus of the criticism ends up leaving his or her post in the face of the publicity storm.

I have heard from many Journal readers who strongly dislike that kind of coverage from the Journal and think that, in some cases, the deluge of stories and editorials aimed at one person or agency can be unfair.

I am not sure, however, that Dantis is the best example for those who complain about the Journal’s apparent vendettas against certain people or groups. There are a number of troubling aspects about the Dantis case that seem to have warranted the close scrutiny he has received.

Taking Gallegos To Task

As for the bizarre paper-burning in the public square – it is clear that, in his protest, Gallegos was reacting emotionally to what he perceived as unfair criticism of the character of his friend…and not so much about the county’s leave policies or the specifics of the allegations against Dantis.

In an UpFront story on July 8, Journal writer Leslie Linthicum strikes the right tone in talking Gallegos to task for the rather silly method he chose for his protest (Read “Putting the Torch to the Town Crier” here).

But what I found the oddest about this whole saga wasn’t anything Leslie noted in her excellent piece.

It was the quote from Journal Editor Kent Walz in the original story about the paper-burning.

From the story:

Journal editor Kent Walz noted the county’s own investigation findings and that a key supervisor recently was charged with bribery in the house arrest program.

“Given these developments, it is interesting that Steve Gallegos seems more interested in the Journal’s reporting than the problems,” Walz said. “His statement sounds like a longtime county political insider trying to change the subject and blame the messenger.”

Never, Never Quote an Editor

Ok, so here’s the real problem.

Editors are, simply put, supposed to stay out of news stories.

Here’s why.

Newspapers have a news gathering side and an editorial side. Traditionally, newspapers observe a healthy separation between the two, in order to increase the credibility of their claim to present unbiased news.

It’s an old fashioned idea, but it’s one the Journal talks about – A LOT.

Certainly the Journal pays huge lip service to this principle, by calling itself the state’s “Paper of Record” and positioning itself as an objective reporter of fact.

But here’s where that principle breaks down. At the Journal, one guy – Walz – runs the news operation and the editorial page. To put a finer point on it, he both dictates the news coverage and opines every day on the editorial page.

Speaking as a newspaper purist – that’s bad enough. I don’t need to see him popping up as a source for news stories, too.

If the Journal wants to cover a news event and present comment on that event, shouldn’t it find actual people to quote, instead of spoon-feeding readers canned quotes from the editor of the paper?

Lacing a “news” story with a quote from the editor – literally, giving him the last word – violates the Journal’s own internal policies of keeping Journal employees out of the news.

In this case, allowing Walz to inject his point of view into a news story was apparently more important than maintaining the paper’s journalistic principles.