Every newspaper gets scooped from time to time. Happened to us recently, although the way it happened was particularly upsetting.
A couple of weeks ago, we were all startled to see an architecture column in The New York Times discussing the fact that the Parrish Art Museum in Southampton had unveiled (apparently, solely for this particular columnist) plans for a scaled-back new museum in Water Mill. Fund-raising has been sluggish, as is to be expected in the difficult economy, so the museum decided to shelve its ambitious, roundly praised $60 million plan and replace it with a $20 million-to-$25 million proposal that is much more modest, but has the benefit of actually getting built sometime in the next couple of years.
We were stunned--mainly because this is not a story we had been less than diligent on. Just a couple of months back, we took a run at the Parrish, asking exactly that question: With the economy slowing, is it possible that there might be an alternate plan in the works? They stonewalled us, saying they were staying the course. Not a hint of a plan to scale back.
Now, let me take a side path for a moment.
My standing policy--and I feel very strongly about it--is that we will never ask the subject of a story, either news or feature, to block another publication out. That is, if another publication calls to ask questions that we've already asked, and are planning to answer in print, I would never suggest to the source that they decline to answer those questions just to protect our story. I don't think that's fair, and I hate when it happens to us (obviously), so I'd never ask, and when sources sometimes helpfully offer to do it, I politely decline. (Full disclosure: We certainly would prefer that the news source not actively promote the story to other outlets if we have something of an exclusive, and we might say that. But that's entirely their choice in the end.)
We've been on the other end of this before--we have been told repeatedly that one of our competitors has been known to threaten the subjects of stories not to cooperate with us, or risk being shut out of publication by that paper. And we've gone down this path before with the Parrish and The New York Times: Currying favor with the Gray Lady and its readers is important to the Parrish, and they sometimes seem oblivious to how that affects us, the paper that provides them with more coverage than any other.
What was particularly upsetting in this case was the fact that we had been actively chasing a story that was obviously fed to the Times later. Also, the timing was the worst possible: We received a press release officially announcing the new direction of the project--at about noon on Wednesday (right about on our weekly news deadline), a day after the Times article appeared.
We expressed our displeasure with the Parrish--again, not merely about getting scooped by the Times, but about being actively deflected at the same time it was happening. (After all, just a few months ago, there had to be some idea that this was going to be the direction the project was taking--you don't get brand new architect's drawings in just a couple of weeks.) To the Parrish's credit, they seemed to grasp the point and were apologetic. More importantly, we're hoping the local media--not just us, by the way--will get fair consideration with the metro paper when there's news to be reported. We're not looking for special treatment--just a level playing field.
Ultimately, it just reminds you about the business we're in, emphasizes the highly competitive nature of it, and drives home the point that you can't celebrate your own scoops too heartily, because that scoop can dig out your heart just as easily.
Now I want some ice cream.
Press story from August 19: http://www.27east.com/story_detail.cfm?id=228459
"When Creativity Diminishes Along with Cash," New York Times, August 12, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/arts/design/12parrish.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Parrish&st=cse
No comments:
Post a Comment