PULITZERS LOST, WHAT A COST - Sixth in a series on the impact of thousands of job cuts at America's newspapers

How best to get at the cost for society, for journalism and for journalists of the loss of thousands of jobs at American newspapers? This is the sixth in a series that tries to do it by asking journalists who have shown themselves capable of producing work of the highest caliber - winners of the Pulitzer Prize who are no longer at a newspaper - for their reflections on what happened to them, what it's meant and how they view the future. It's a sign of how serious the times are that even people with this type of track record are now on the outside, without a newspaper to support their journalism.

The series continues today with an e-mail interview with Paul Giblin, whose story truly is incredible. Here’s a journalist who was laid off - and then won the Pulitzer for work he’d done before he was cut from the staff of his newspaper. Paul and Ryan Gabrielson of the East Valley Tribune, Mesa, AZ, won the 2009 award for local reporting for "their adroit use of limited resources to reveal, in print and online, how a popular sheriff’s focus on immigration enforcement endangered investigation of violent crime and other aspects of public safety."

To read previous installments: Deborah Nelson, Andrew Schneider, Kim Komenich, Janet Reeves and Jerry Kammer. More to come...




1. Name, age, final paper.

Paul Giblin, 46. I was laid off from the East Valley Tribune in Mesa, Ariz., in January 2009. At the time, I was the paper’s federal affairs reporter, which was a terrific position. Since then I co-founded the on-line political news site The Arizona Guardian with three other former East Valley Tribune journalists and a fifth partner.

2. What work did you winner Pulitzer for, when?

I worked with a talented and driven reporter named Ryan Gabrielson on a series of stories about Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his high-profile illegal immigration efforts. The series dealt with the program’s threat to civil liberties and it’s consequences to taxpayers in the forms of high costs and reduced law-enforcement services. We worked on the project for six months and published in July 2008. We were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Local Reporting in May 2009.

3. Why did you leave your newspaper? When?

The East Valley Tribune laid off half its newsroom staff in January 2009. I was part of that group. There was a ton of talent in that group, people with skill and insight and experience and humor and institutional knowledge.

4. What are you doing now? Any reflections on life after newspapers?

I am one of five co-founders of The Arizona Guardian, www.arizonaguardian.com, an on-line newspaper that covers Arizona government and politics.

5. What do you hope to do going forward? Will you stay in journalism? How?

For now, I’m working with my partners to build the Guardian. I certainly would like to stay in journalism. I enjoy the craft. I love the idea that my work serves a greater purpose.


6. What has the downsizing of your former newsroom or closing of your former paper meant to the quality of journalism in your community? For example, are there types of stories not being told? You could use your own experience to provide examples here.


Since January, the Tribune has gone from publishing seven days a week to three days a week. The number of sections has been reduced two. During the past year or so, the paper has shrunk from broadsheet to tab. And, as I mentioned before, the news staff has been chopped in half. In fact, nearly everyone who touched the Pulitzer project at the Tribune is no longer with the paper – graphic artists, photographers, Web designers, editors, others. Those are factual matters. I’ll let others make value judgments about what those changes have meant to the overall quality of journalism in the region.


7. What, if anything, do you think your newspaper should have done differently to prevent the downsizing or closure that cost you your job?


That’s the million-dollar question, isn’t it? I believe newspapers in general failed and continue to fail to market their best assets. Why don’t newspapers buy billboards to promote their top news columnists, sports writers and movie reviewers? Why don’t more newspapers do Q&A’s with those types of staffers and readers? Why are newspapers’ marketing efforts limited to giving away pens at country music festivals? However, I’m not sure any of that would have mattered in the era of Craigslist.


8. What would you advise young people wanting to pursue a life in journalism today?

At the speed at which the industry is changing, I’m not sure about the value of advice from me or anyone else for the next wave of aspiring journalists. With that said, I would suggest trashing the idea of distinctions between print journalism, radio journalism, television journalism and Internet journalism. It’s just journalism now. Still, old school, hard-hitting journalism has real value. The trick is figuring out how it fits in an industry that’s changing so quickly. So be prepared for anything, including layoffs.


Finally, is there anything else you'd like to say about your experience or journalism's future that we haven't covered in these questions?


Concerning one particular aspect of journalism’s future, my resume is available at www.paulgiblin.net. Thanks for asking.

-- Paul Giblin

Editor’s Note: If you know of others who should be interviewed for this project, please let me know. Thank you. John Temple.

Pulitzers lost, what a cost: Fourth in a series on the impact of thousands of job cuts at America's newspapers

Janet Reeves was the force behind the extraordinary photo department of the Rocky Mountain News. It was my privilege to work with her for 17 years. She led her staff to three Pulitzers: one for Columbine, one for the worst summer of forest fires in Colorado history, and one for "Final Salute," perhaps the most powerful story the paper ever told. (Final Salute also won the Pulitzer for feature writing.) Anybody who worked with her would tell you that her drive and commitment, her passion for excellence, made it happen. Now she's out of a job. I don't believe there's a newsroom in America she wouldn't make better.

This series explores the impact of thousands of journalists losing their jobs by asking some of those who have shown themselves capable of producing work of the highest caliber - winners of the Pulitzer Prize who are no longer at a newspaper - for their reflections on what happened to them and how they view the future.

1. Name, final paper.

Janet Reeves, Rocky Mountain News

2. What work did you winner Pulitzer for, when?

2000 Pulitzer for Breaking News Photography, coverage of "Columbine tragedy." Staff award

2003 Pulitzer for Breaking News Photography, coverage of "Colorado wildfires." Staff award

2006 Pulitzer for Feature Photography, editor on Todd Heisler's "Final Salute," for which Jim Sheeler was also awarded the Pulitzer for feature writing.

3. Why did you leave your newspaper? When?

The Rocky Mountain News was closed Feb. 27th , 2009.

4. What are you doing now? Any reflections on life after newspapers?

It would be nice or even poetic to write how I'm enjoying my time away from journalism, exhaling a bit and re-discovering myself on my induced sabbatical. But I can't and won't. I do resent being put on the sidelines of a career I cherished and thrived in. Having said this, I can truthfully say that about four months after the closure I indeed recognized within myself how rested and fresh I felt and so ready to jump back into the game. Recognizing that the game has many new looks and moves to it. I also feel like I have grown, living this unemployed experience along with so many others. I guess since I am a trained observer of people it is no surprise that I watch folks in all walks of life (even more so than before) and wonder how they exist, what they do for a living, could I do that? Are they happy? What would make me happy and fulfilled? I have enjoyed and been inspired by my former colleagues at the Rocky, trying new paths and taking chances.

5. What do you hope to do going forward? Will you stay in journalism? How?

So what am I doing? I am like a one woman job fair. I have traveled the country, chatting with the wonderful colleagues and friends I have come to know over the years. I have attended photo festivals, judgings and conferences where I seek advice, throw out ideas and look at great images and listen to the journalists' stories......reminds you that what we do as photojournalists and journalists is alive and necessary. I truly hope that I can weather this storm and find my new direction and remain connected to journalism. I feel I have so much left to give to our profession and to learn. I feel like a hungry bear coming out of hibernation.

6. What has the downsizing of your former newsroom or closing of your former paper meant to the quality of journalism in your community? For example, are there types of stories not being told? You could use your own experience to provide examples here.

I know the community of Denver, Colorado and journalism mourns our passing. They have told me, and not just to pass on false sympathies but to express the loss of the voices, photos and news that they trusted. Why was it that so many Americans trusted Walter Cronkite? The 150-year-old Rocky Mountain News had the same effect for many readers. They came to us to learn, experience and forge their own opinions from our stories and photographs. The Rocky is gone and many readers believe they lost something personal that day. Yes, they will move on to other venues just as the nightly viewers of Walter Cronkite had to, but an era of trust and familiarity dies.
Denver will, no doubt, never be a two-newspaper town again. Competition is a wonderful thing that keeps all involved sharp, accurate and driven. I hope that the online news of today's media markets can keep Denver's traditional news media (papers, magazines, radio and TV) on point.

7. What, if anything, do you think your newspaper should have done differently to prevent the downsizing or closure that cost you your job?

I find fault with the publishers and owners of American newspapers, not just currently, but 10-15 years ago. They demonstrated little foresight or vision for the future. If they did hold workshops for themselves and employees on how to survive and re-invent themselves before they became outdated, they certainly didn't listen or care much past their profit margins. That group demonstrated in the last few years how little American journalism and the whole Fourth Estate theory means to them.

Having said this, my own experience tells me that at the Rocky we were trying very hard for years always to reinvent. Design, voices, technology, web, online multimedia, Yourhub.com, Olive (e-edition) and even the experiment in the late 80's early 90's with an online version known as the a la carte edition. We used so many different vehicles to try to stay ahead and meaningful to our readers. The fickle reader has some blame here as well. Take something for granted and it will disappear.

8. What would you advise young people wanting to pursue a life in journalism today?

The new trends on how we gather, distribute and communicate information are just the pipelines. We are in phase, a really major sea change, but I optimistically believe people will seek out the unbiased truth, the storytelling images that shape our world and realize that they will not be satisfied with what they see from their neighbor's cellphone or an unknown twitter or blogger. In fact they will demand it. So my advice to a young person considering a life in journalism is go for it, but don't replicate the past. Create your future. Guess I'll try to listen to my own advice!!

Final note: If you know of others who should be asked to participate in this series, please let me know. Thank you.
John Temple

Pulitzers lost, what a cost: Third in a series on the impact of thousands of job cuts at America's newspapers

The loss of thousands of jobs at American newspapers comes at a cost for society, for journalism and for journalists. This series explores the dimensions of the loss by asking journalists who have shown themselves capable of producing work of the highest caliber - winners of the Pulitzer Prize who are no longer at a newspaper - for their reflections on what happened to them, what it's meant and how they view the future.

Today's subject, Kim Komenich, won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography for his coverage of the fall of Ferdinand Marcos. He left the San Francisco Chronicle in April.

1. Name, age, final paper. Kim Komenich, 52, The San Francisco Chronicle.

2. What work did you winner Pulitzer for, when? The Philippine Revolution, 1987, Spot news photography.

3. Why did you leave your newspaper? When? I left my job as staff photographer/videographer on April 3, 2009. In 1987 Ken Light asked me to teach a documentary class at the San Francisco Academy of Art. I really enjoyed it and I decided that I'd try to dedicate one of my days off to teaching. In 1998 I took a two-year academic leave from my job at the San Francisco Examiner to work on my masters and to teach the picture story class at the University of Missouri. When I returned in 2000 I knew that when my newspaper days were over I'd probably move into teaching. I assumed that like those who had gone before me I'd put in 30-35 years shooting at the Chron before hanging 'em up. Then things started to implode.   I wasn't able to finish my master's project while I was in Missouri. Looking back at it, I'm happy things worked out the way they did. Had I finished it in 2000, I would now have a masters with an emphasis on print photojournalism. Because I finished it in 2007, the emphasis is on multimedia photojournalism.  I was "tapped" for a Chronicle buyout in 2007. I was over-scale and probably a bit spacey after defending my masters. Dollar for dollar, I wasn't the most productive member of the staff at that point. I called some friends, and one comment came up again and again-- "you're a fire horse. You wouldn't know what to do with yourself if you didn't have a deadline and the satisfaction of seeing your work in print the next day." This round of conversations served as a gentle wake-up call. My friends urged me to turn down the buyout, but work toward the next step in my career. I did.  Over the course of the next year I began to build a current teaching portfolio. I carefully collected the evaluation forms from classes and workshops I was teaching. I kept the thank-you letters from organizers of conferences and workshops where I had taught. Until then, all of these evaluations and thank-yous hadn't mattered because I still had my day job.  It all hit the fan in mid-March. The Guild voted to give back 150 jobs and eliminate seniority. It was time to go, and I can honestly say that I enjoyed every bit of it - even the bittersweet final weeks. Of course I would have loved to have finished my career at the Chronicle, but it wasn't possible. The Guild had negotiated a great buyout package and, with a couple of signatures, I agreed to go  Earlier in the year I put feelers out for possible full-time teaching jobs in the Bay Area. Dr. Michael Cheers mentioned that there was a tenure-track assistant professorship in multimedia at my alma mater, San Jose State University. The same weekend of the Guild vote I emailed my CV to the chair of the search committee. They asked me to come in for an interview on April 2. On April 3, I took my last staff picture for the Chronicle- a portrait of an Oakland Raiderette. A few weeks later I was offered the job at San Jose State.  I've always told students that it's healthier to think of yourself as a photographer who happens to work for a newspaper, and not a "newspaper photographer." When I first said it I was stressing the preservation of the photographer's vision and spirit in the face of daily assignments. At this point in the evolution of photojournalism it might be that photographers who value their long-term projects might consider moving way from newspapers and into academia. Universities throughout the country expect their professors to "publish or perish," but some schools offer "creative research" as an alternative to publishing traditional scholarly articles. This means that at some schools you're teaching for nine months and producing documentary books films and exhibitions the rest of the year.  

4. What are you doing now? Any reflections on life after newspapers? I gave myself the summer off from assignment photojournalism. In addition to teaching a video storytelling class, I  worked as a sound recordist on a movie, I wrapped up the shooting on a basketball documentary, I shot a crowd-funded piece on childhood asthma for Newsdesk.org and did my best to wear out a pair of Tevas. I'm gearing up to teach classes in multimedia and visual journalism and I'm spending a fair amount of time preparing 30 hours of lectures for each class. I'm teaching workshops and I'm taking workshops. That's the one constant. 

5. What do you hope to do going forward? Will you stay in journalism? How? Until now, I've founded my career on a circle of three things: practice journalism professionally, then teach what I know, then go to schools and workshops to learn more so that I can practice journalism more effectively. This summer has differed in that it's more of a blur without the 40-hour-a-week journalism job, but I am finding that I'm still doing, teaching and learning. I suspect the journalism I do now won't be driven by assignments and "problem solving" for an editor. For the first time in my life I won't be making a living as a photojournalist. I'll be able to fund my work through my teaching and in the process, I hope, I'll be able to move more sincerely into documentary photography and filmmaking. 

6. What has the downsizing of your former newsroom or closing of your former paper meant to the quality of journalism in your community? For example, are there types of stories not being told? You could use your own experience to provide examples here. When you think about it, newspapers are a lot like any industrial-age industry. In our case, the "factory" is the newspaper and the printing plant. For a long time, newspapers were the information technology. Then came radio, then television, then the internet, the Web and now social media. It's possible that the idea of a daily newspaper has run its course - I hope not, but what if it has? Will there come a day when ink-on-paper delivery will actually be considered an obstacle to getting the highest quality journalism into the hands of the greatest number of people?   Every newspaper journalist has to be mourning their own golden era of journalism, a time when they really hit their stride. In my case it was a time when the readership, and by extension, the advertising base, would support the time and the travel for the stories I would pitch that would put me in a zone where I could put the puzzle together in a way that I could surprise myself.   This era coincided with a time when newspapers were thought of as a community institution - a part of daily life. Not only would they inform and entertain us, they would sponsor community events and charities. They would show us the way, or get us mad enough that we would find our own way. Newspapers were a daily source of motivation. I think they still serve that purpose, but with smaller news holes and fewer reporters and photographers in the field, they can't be as thorough or as thought-provoking.  

7. What, if anything, do you think your newspaper should have done differently to prevent the downsizing or closure that cost you your job?  I came into the business at the height of the "offset revolution." I was a disciple of W. Eugene Smith and Henri Cartier-Bresson, who thought he had missed the boat when Life Magazine ceased publication. My generation channeled our energy and our vision into newspapers at a time when new offset printing technology allowed newspapers to publish brilliant color advertising. This expansion created a hunger for a new photojournalism, a bigger way of telling stories, in color as well as black-and-white, that became my Life Magazine.  A confluence of things - the economy, an exploding cable TV market, a shifting reader demographic and internet news - formed a perfect storm that began unraveling the newspaper's role as town crier. To those of us in the trenches it was a matter of applying new technologies to our storytelling with the hope that we'd help save our papers.  This doesn't really address the question. Of course there were missteps. The news has to pay for itself. The idea of a wire service is industrial-age, print-era thinking. In the digital age, as we have seen, such a service can be used by competitors who will use your own stories to drive you out of business.  My experience is that downsizing was inevitable, and that at the point I left the Guild and the Chronicle had came up with the most compassionate way to reduce the staff.   With time I've come to see that my experience with the downsizing at the Chronicle wasn't traumatic. If anything, it was the kick in the pants I needed to move on to my other passion. In looking back at it, I realize I've been preparing to teach for nearly two decades and through the buyout, I've been able to move on.  

8. What would you advise young people wanting to pursue a life in journalism today? I'm shifting professions so that I can be of service to those who know they must be journalists. As a student, I found there were always two kinds of "veteran" journalists - those who wanted to share everything with you and those who wanted to discourage you in the hope it would save you some pain. I found that it was valuable to listen to both sides of the argument and then to spend additional time with those who expected you to stand on their shoulders.  Will the next generation of journalists go to work at a "factory" like I did? A few will. I expect that many of them will become much more self-sufficient than I ever was. I think the era of sustainable journalism is here. The stories will be told in more dimensions than ever before thanks to emerging technology. New ways of paying for journalism are being invented every day. It's a matter of entrepreneurship from here on.

Final note: If you know of others who should be interviewed for this series, please let me know. Thank you.

PULITZERS LOST, WHAT A COST - Second in a series on the impact of thousands of job cuts at America's newspapers

What is the cost for society, for journalism and for journalists of the loss of thousands of jobs at American newspapers? This series tries to answer that question by asking journalists who have shown themselves capable of producing work of the highest caliber - winners of the Pulitzer Prize who are no longer at a newspaper - for their reflections on what happened to them, what it's meant and how they view the future.
Today's subject, Andrew Schneider, felt particularly uneasy about being singled out because he had won two Pulitzers. He stressed that he didn't think those awards made him any more worthy of coverage than any other journalist who had lost his job. I respect his view. But I think the loss of people of his stature shows how serious- and troubling - these times are. The fact that even people with track records like his are now on the outside, without a newspaper to support their journalism, tells us that individual communities and our entire nation are worse off because of the job losses in America's newsrooms.

Andrew Schneider won two Pulitzers in the 1980s. His newspaper, The Pittsburgh Press (now closed), was honored with the Public Service award in 1987 for reporting by Schneider and Matthew Brelis, which revealed the inadequacy of the FAA's medical screening of airline pilots and led to significant reforms. In 1986, Schneider and Mary Pat Flaherty won the Pulitzer for specialized reporting for their investigation of violations and failures in the organ transplantation system in the United States. Today he writes a blog at coldtruth.com.

1. Name, age, final paper.

Andrew Schneider, Far too old to be breaking in a new editor, Seattle Post-Intelligencer

2. What work did you win Pulitzer for, when?

1986 Specialized reporting – with the brilliant writer Mary Pat Flaherty, for a series on abuses in the organ transplant system. We documented that hospitals and surgeons moved wealthy foreigners to the head of the kidney transplant waiting list in exchange for new buildings, money and jewels.

1987 Public Service – with the outstanding photojournalist Vincent Musi and Matt Brelis for a series of stories on hundreds of commercial airline pilots who were being permitted to continue flying by the FAA’s Federal Air Surgeon over the objections of flight physicians, airline doctors and panels of medical specialists. We also examined drug abuse, smuggling and pilots who clandestinely went to fly-by-night addiction clinics so their airlines wouldn’t find out they had a problem as they were trying to resolve it.

3. Why did you leave your newspaper? When?

Hearst Newspapers closed it down Mar. 18, 2009

4 What are you doing now? Any reflections on life after newspapers?

I am studying the health effects of exposure to nanotechnology. I also created a public health blog called Coldtruth.com. My young public health intern, who bosses me around, e-mailed me with great excitement telling me that coldtruth.com made its first dollar from Google Ads. (We’re now up to about $10. Needless to say, our business model needs work.)

Being unemployed is a new experience. And now that I’ve experienced it, I’d like a job with another newspaper with an imaginative, gutsy editor who wants to do important public health investigations that are not being done elsewhere. I don’t think that’s going to happen.

5. What do you hope to do going forward? Will you stay in journalism? How?

I have lapel pins I was given several years ago. One says, “So many stories, so little time.” The other counsels: “Write til you die,” with a skull and crossbones over a keyboard. Yes, I hope to stay in journalism.

How? You always ask good questions, John. I think the days of getting a single paycheck from a single source are gone for many journalists. There are reporters, writers, editors, artists and photographers who will be collecting a bit from grants and donations to keep their blog alive, from miniscule ad revenue from Google, Yahoo and maybe some businesses, and adding a few bucks from the surviving newspapers, TV networks or national blogs that pay you for the work they use.

6. What has the downsizing of your former newsroom or closing of your former paper meant to the quality of journalism in your community? For example, are there types of stories not being told? You could use your own experience to provide examples here.

Seattle is fortunate. Like Denver, it had two newspapers; like Denver, the feistier, more edgy of the two was killed. The Seattle Times has a staff with some dynamite reporters, writers and photographers but, like all papers, there are certain types of stories each newsroom prefers.

There are now more than 160 fewer journalists covering Seattle. No one covers the port, for example, which has huge public health implications, not to mention security issues. Moreover, readers only get one version of a story so coverage is less nuanced. And without competition to push it, the Times faces the risk of becoming complacent.

7. What, if anything, do you think your newspaper should have done differently to prevent the downsizing or closure that cost you your job?

We cut the budget, the staff, the news hole, travel, research capabilities, the size of the pages and everything else that could be slashed, eliminated, gutted or downsized.

John, in the case of our closure, the paper would be alive today if the president of Hearst Newspaper division hadn’t retired. He was a journalist and he loved and respected the paper, and fought to keep it open. It wasn’t a week after he retired that the new top dog – a man who hated the PI for various reasons, especially demands by the guild, announced that the century-and-a-half old paper was no longer worth keeping alive.

8. What would you advise young people wanting to pursue a life in journalism today?

If you do not have a burning, all-consuming passion to use your talent as a reporter, writer, photographer or graphic artist to force needed change, keep corporations and government responsible, honest, effective and ethical and protect those others ignore, don’t even try.

God love ya if you do decide to give it a shot. There is great journalism that must be done. But bring your sense of humor and flexibility, because this is no longer your father’s journalism. At the Seattle marathon, a senior producer for seattletimes.com ran the 26 miles, filing reports for the blog, sending twitters, shooting and transmitting audio and video and still finished the race in less than six hours. Let’s hear it for journalism 2009.

Respectfully,

Andrew Schneider

Coldtruth.com

To conclude: If you know of others who should be interviewed for this series, please let me know.

PULITZERS LOST, WHAT A COST - First in a series on the impact of thousands of job cuts at America's newspapers

How best to get at the cost for society, for journalism and for journalists of the loss of thousands of jobs at American newspapers? This series tries to do it by asking journalists who have shown themselves capable of producing work of the highest caliber - winners of the Pulitzer Prize who are no longer at a newspaper - for their reflections on what happened to them, what it's meant and how they view the future. 

It should be emphasized that this series does not mean to underestimate the importance of the loss of the job of any journalist. But to get at the meaning of the departure of thousands of journalists from American newsrooms, I thought it best to focus on just a few, in the hope that doing so would be the best way to illuminate the story. To me, it's a sign of how serious the times are that even people with this type of track record are now on the outside, without a newspaper to support their journalism.

The series begins today with an e-mail interview with Deborah Nelson, co-winner of the 1997 Pulitzer for Investigative Reporting (with Eric Nalder and Alex Tizon) for a Seattle Times report on abuses in HUD's Indian housing program. As an editor, Nelson worked on two other Pulitzer-winning projects, a series on the deadly accident record of the Harrier jump jet at the Los Angeles Times and a series at The Washington Post on children who died while in the District's child welfare system. In her last newspaper job, Nelson was the Washington investigative editor for the Los Angeles Times.

 

Last paper: The Los Angeles Times

Pulitzer:  I shared the 1997 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting for a Seattle Times series on waste and corruption in the federal government's Indian housing program.  I also was a project editor on two series that won Pulitzers in 2002 and 2003: a Washington Post series on child protective services and a Los Angeles Times series on the Marine Harrier jump jet.  
 
Reason for leaving:  I left my job as L.A. Times Washington investigative editor in the fall of 2006 for a faculty position at the Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland.  I left for a mix of reasons.   First, mid-life crisis:  I was ready for something new after 30 years in newspapers -- at the LAT, Washington Post, Seattle Times and Chicago Sun-Times, among others.  Second, radical changes in the industry: I wanted to have a hand in shaping the future.  I didn't see the newsroom as the best place to have an impact at the time.   

My friends think I was prescient. Within a couple years, the LAT bureau was drastically downsized and eventually absorbed into a single, compact Washington bureau serving all Tribune papers.  The 8-person I-Team that I ran is gone, and so are all the reporters and researchers who were on it- - including three Pulitzer winners, only one of whom is still in newspapers. 
 
Now / life after newspapers:  I am teaching full-time and recently finished my first book, The War Behind Me: Vietnam Veterans Confront the Truth about U.S. War Crimes (Basic Books, 2008).  I'm often asked if I miss being in the newsroom.  Well, the newsrooms I knew are fast disappearing, so I try not to look back.  It's a strange feeling.   

 
Future:  From my foothold in academe, I hope to help create the new newsroom, which likely won't be as rooted in a physical place or at large institutions. I hope to help retool journalism education and to prepare the next generation of journalists -- by training them in the best of both traditional and emerging reporting techniques, by teaching them to be critical thinkers and encouraging them to be entrepreneurs.  We’ve got a new dean, Kevin Klose, who has ambitious goals for journalism education, so I’m in a good place to have an impact. 

I haven’t entirely abandoned the old world.  I'm starting work on my second non-fiction book and have a third on the runway.

 
Impact of downsizing on the quality of journalism: The downsizing of the L.A. Times Washington staff and collapse of other bureaus comes at a time when power has never been so concentrated in Washington, with significant direct impact on people’s lives.  Corruption will fill the vacuum. There are some excellent reporters still working in and around the nation’s capital, but not nearly enough to fulfill our watchdog role in a democracy.  So there’s urgency to the search for new models.

 
What could have been done differently to prevent the downsizing/closure that cost you your job:  Downsizing didn't cost me my job -- although it might have, if I'd lingered much longer.  And it certainly cost many of my talented LAT colleagues their jobs. Where did the news business go wrong?  I’d start with the growing obsession over the past couple decades with short-term earnings, and a corresponding neglect of the long view.  I remember feeling unsettled back in the early 1990s with how near-sighted the corporate financial model had become.  I didn’t have a business degree, but anyone with a driver’s license knows the importance of keeping one eye on what lies ahead.  Eric Nalder wrote this great lede on the Seattle Times’ Pulitzer series on oil tanker safety after the Exxon Valdez disaster.  He described standing on the deck of an oil tanker “as long as three football fields” with the lone crew member assigned to watch the distant horizon for small boats and icebergs – and discovering that the guy couldn’t see, that he suffered from double vision.   That kind of describes the last 20 years of the newspaper industry.  The iceberg was in view long before we hit it, but no one with any real vision was looking that far ahead.

 
Counsel for young people about pursuing journalism:  Do it-- but only if you are passionate about journalism, turned on by challenge and not averse to financial uncertainty.  I think we’ll see that sort of self-selection process in the coming generation of journalism students.  As a result, I predict future graduating classes will be more committed to their calling than any in our lifetime. From a purely journalistic standpoint, we’ve never had more exciting options for reporting and presenting news. The challenge, of course, is to develop effective and economically viable delivery systems.  They’ll have to/get to play a big role in creating those models. 

Final note: If you know of other journalists who should be interviewed for this occasional series, please let me know. The following are the questions I am asking all the participants in this series.

1. Name, age, final paper.
2. What work did you winner Pulitzer for, when?
3. Why did you leave your newspaper? When?
4 What are you doing now? Any reflections on life after newspapers?
5. What do you hope to do going forward? Will you stay in journalism? How?
6. What has the downsizing of your former newsroom or closing of your former paper meant to the quality of journalism in your community? For example, are there types of stories not being told? You could use your own experience to provide examples here.
7. What, if anything, do you think your newspaper should have done differently to prevent the downsizing or closure that cost you your job?
8. What would you advise young people wanting to pursue a life in journalism today?
Finally, is there anything else you'd like to say about your experience or journalism's future that we haven't covered in these questions?

Thank you. 

John Temple