Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Looking for Campaign Exposure?
Next Post: Hynes decision at 1 o’clock - UPDATED x10: Hynes says “No!” - Alexi says “Leaning in favor” - Quinn shoots back - Raw audio of Quinn
Posted in:
* You’ve often seen me complain about the Peoria Journal Star’s political coverage - mainly their silly columnists who don’t seem to know much about politics.
But you’ve never once seen me complain about Adriana Colindres, the PJ Star’s Statehouse bureau reporter. Colindres is top notch all the way. She’s one of those real reporters who gets down to the nitty gritty. She’s not flashy, a bit on the quiet side (OK, more than a bit), and her stories are always solid.
Colindres’ paper laid her off yesterday.
What a stupid, stupid move, but all too common these days. Sacrifice state coverage for local puff pieces.
Best of luck, Adriana. If there’s anything I can do, just ask.
* Meanwhile, if you want to learn more about Mother Tribune’s new CEO, take a look at this Salon piece from 2001. I’m not gonna excerpt it because it’s kinda racy, and if your employer would frown on that sort of thing you might want to wait until you get home. When you do look at the piece, search the page for “Behind the mike.” The juicy part starts there. Or, click here and scroll down to the excerpt. I’m sure all Trib Co employees are super proud this week.
* And speaking of embarrassments to Illinois, I give you Sen. Dick Durbin…
Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin are attempting to narrow the definition of a journalist in the federal shield law under consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning. Their amendment would limit protection from testifying to professional journalists working for “a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical.” Not included: student journalists, amateur bloggers, or even freelancers working without a contract.
Markos Moulitsas had the news last night. I’ve been on the phone this morning with people who have worked on the bill, and the consensus is that Feinstein and Durbin are introducing the amendment out of national security concerns: If the shield law is too broad, they reason, it could afford protection to criminals and terrorists who claim the mantle of journalism. Neither senator’s office has returned my calls, and it’s not clear if the amendment will be adopted at today’s committee meeting.
The version of the shield law already passed by the House (H. 985) defines a journalist in monetary terms, covering only those who gather and disseminate information “for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain.” The Senate has waffled between a similarly professional definition and one that would cover amateurs. The White House, which had dragged its feet on the shield law over national-security concerns, is said to support the broader definition.
A number of news-industry groups, including the Newspaper Association of America, are also supporting coverage for amateurs. Kevin Goldberg, general counsel for the American Society of News Editors, told me today: “There are already exemptions for national security in the bill. If the concern is that the guy holding the video camera for an Osama bin Laden tape is not going to have to testify, that’s a little far-fetched.”
So, Durbin’s not worried that terrorists will strike Illinois if we move Gitmo prisoners to Thomson, but he’s actually fretting that a terrorist will be shielded as a journalist, even though there is already a provision in the bill that forbids shielding terrorists? Give me a break.
Frankly, I don’t want the government taking any role in defining who a journalist actually is. They’ll just screw it up and make life difficult for too many people.
Contact Durbin’s office by clicking here. The amendment is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 11:44 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Looking for Campaign Exposure?
Next Post: Hynes decision at 1 o’clock - UPDATED x10: Hynes says “No!” - Alexi says “Leaning in favor” - Quinn shoots back - Raw audio of Quinn
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Durbin-I really like these free speech liberals or did you say that?
You know I don’t know Adriana but I bet if she was covering the Tiger Wood she wouldn’t have been laid off. It’s really sad we don’t have enough people covering real news I wonder why no one reads these papers any more. Sounds like they need more Adriana’s not less.
Comment by Dnstateanon Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 12:03 pm
Proving once again that in journalism as in many other endeavors, no good deed goes unpunished.
More “hyperlocal” emphasis from Gatehouse, which last time I looked, was trading for pennies a share?
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 12:08 pm
Wow. The Salon article was insightful.
How do I snag an invite to this year’s Tribune Company’s Holiday party?
Comment by Area 2 Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 12:22 pm
Adriana is among the best! Very sad to see her be laid off. We need way more like her.
Comment by PEORIA Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 12:23 pm
Rich: I had the pleasure of interacting with Adriana when she worked for the Register Mail in Galesburg. She is a true professional in every sense of the word. More indication that the newspaper industry is a in a serious state of decline.
Comment by One of the 35 Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 12:30 pm
So who defines what is a “newspaper” or a “periodical” in the digital age? if I only reads news stories on a computer or a kindle, is it still a newspaper?
What about TV journalsists cracking stories over the air waves….
Comment by Ghost Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 12:44 pm
Adriana is one of the best in the business, a no-nonsense reporter who is most interested in getting the story right. I hope someone picks her up soon. We need more like her in Springfield.
Comment by John Herath Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 12:44 pm
The Tribune has always been the conservative paper in town, are they trying to change all that with Randy Michaels?
I feel for the Tribune employees.
Comment by Third Generation Chicago Native Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 12:45 pm
A good statehouse reporter canned, while the populace wanders about, dazed, in its reality-show world. I weep for my country and my profession.
Comment by Ray del Camino Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 12:52 pm
This is just another example of Gatehouse’s dumbed-down dunderheadedness.
They just don’t get better than Adriana. She’ll be missed, but I bet we see her again; she’s too exemplary to just disappear.
Comment by David Starrett Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 1:15 pm
Well that’s one way to protect the Democrats from conservative bloggers…
Penny wise, pound foolish
Comment by OneMan Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 1:23 pm
Another interesting way to look at the Jacor/Clear Channel/Tribune story - Zell has never been a great executive. He has primarily made his money on changes in regulation and on toeing the very edge of legality in his interpretations of tax law.
He’s not exactly Madoff, but in a similar way, he could look like he was making money while the markets were going up, but as soon as the market declined, his poor management decisions come into clearer focus.
Comment by irv & ashland Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 1:28 pm
The Trib stuff is really hard to believe. I kept looking for the punch line. Truly bizarre. Zell must have found a nice outdoor balcony to, um, ruminate, at Trib Tower.
Sometimes, Sen. Durbin, you should put your hand down and leave things alone. This would be one of those times.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 1:32 pm
The status quo without a shield law is that the federal judge weighs the interests of the First Amendment (protecting journalists) and the need for the information.
It’s not a clean-cut rule-based approach, but critics of the status quo have failed to show any compelling cases that justify enacting a federal shield law.
I talked to Durbin’s staff when this issue first came up. I explained that I was both a former federal whistleblower and a journalist and I had serious reservations about a shield law.
What stops bad actors in the government from defaming whistleblowers if there’s a federal shield law?
Durbin’s staff member thanked me for calling (as opposed to writing). She indicated that Durbin’s preliminary leanings were that a shield law was unnecessary.
Now Durbin is sponsoring a harmful amendment to a bad bill and justifying it with scare tactics and slipshod logic.
Thanks, Sen. D!
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 2:00 pm
All Durbin is doing is finally showing us how far left he is.Wait till election and he will come back and pretend he is middle America.We like the dumb creatures we are will vote him back in.
Comment by Mike an Ike Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 2:24 pm
=Frankly, I don’t want the government taking any role in defining who a journalist actually is. They’ll just screw it up and make life difficult for too many people.=
This is all the comment Durbin’s endorsement of this policy needs. In fact, this comment would be appropriate if one substitued any word for the word journalism.
My sympahties to Adriana…like one commenter said no good deed goes unpunished.
Comment by Really? Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 3:32 pm
The Durbin-Feinstein bill, if accurately described herein, would not give protection to Rush Limbough and other “commentators and entertainers” who slant the news.
Hanratty and Rush and Karl Rove would have to disclose their sources, or admit to Congress that they made up their facts out of the thin air.
Adriana - seek out Illinois Issues as one option for the immediate future.
Comment by Capitol View Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 3:55 pm
Il Issues is cutting back, too.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 4:02 pm
===Il Issues is cutting back, too.===
In the wrong places I might add. Letting Bethany go was moronic.
Comment by Obamarama Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 4:20 pm
Bethany quit on her own. Don’t spread rumors, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 4:22 pm
You’re misunderstanding me. I said “let her go” not fired her or laid her off. I would’ve done everything I could do keep her around–she was great.
Comment by Obamarama Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 4:24 pm
I find it interesting and sadly ironic that after spending so much energy pushing for ethical reforms this past year, that the Peoria paper and Gatehouse empire would choose to layoff what would appear to have been the reporter who spent the past year covering all the reforms they wanted.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Friday, Dec 4, 09 @ 6:10 pm
Illinois Issues is not cutting back, but the University of Illinois Springfield does have a hiring freeze. After many discussions with university administrators, who are sympathetic but under tremendous financial pressure, I received oral permission two weeks ago to hire a visiting Statehouse bureau chief whose position will be funded at least until Aug. 15, the beginning of next school year. I immediately set the necessary paperwork into motion, and because we desperately need to have someone in place as soon as possible, I sought to waive the normal search process, which could take months, and included a tentative offer to a reporter. I expect the paperwork to clear soon and will post more when everything is final.
Bethany left of her own accord — on very friendly terms on both sides — to pursue a new career as a business consultant. She did a tremendous job for us, and she will be greatly missed. I wish her the very best, and I’m deeply saddened to see someone with such talent and enthusiasm leave our shaky and shrinking profession, as so many other friends and colleagues have over the past several years.
On another front, as many of you know, I was Adriana Colindres’ editor at the Copley Statehouse Bureau for many years. She is a talented, experienced reporter with a well-earned reputation for diligence, accuracy and professionalism. Her supposedly “quiet” demeanor belies a finely tuned sense of humor and an enthusiasm and positive approach that is difficult to maintain in the often-cynical Statehouse press room. She is a dear friend and colleague, and I am confident that she will continue to do well. I, too, am astonished that three major downstate newspapers — in Champaign, Rockford and Peoria — have chosen to abandon Statehouse coverage in the past couple of years. Their readers are missing out on essential “local” state government news that goes to the heart of what they expect from their regional newspaper.
Comment by Dana Heupel Saturday, Dec 5, 09 @ 8:48 am
Just to clarify the above (nobody contacted me, but I don’t want to leave any misimpressions): The University of Illinois Springfield is filling essential vacancies, such as ours, but because of the current financial condition of state government, administrators are requiring tough justifications for any hires. “Hiring freeze” was probably too broad of a term.
Comment by Dana Heupel Saturday, Dec 5, 09 @ 9:53 am