Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37
Post-Gazette columnist Ruth Ann Dailey has taken a buyout deal offered by management of the cash-strapped paper.
Dailey’s fans need not despair entirely. For now, at least, she will continue to file her column on a freelance basis. (UPDATE: I’m told this assertion is a “bit premature.”) But she has already cut down on her contributions to the paper: She recently announced the end of her weekly “Suburban Living” column, which ran along with an every-Monday column. And when combined with the simultaneous departure of P-G columnist Samantha Bennett, the number of female columnists in town is rapidly approaching zero.
At the P-G, the only regular female columnist is Sally Kalson, who has been writing every other week (and who recently announced she is undergoing chemotherapy). The Tribune-Review brings us Salena Zito, who focuses on politics. And your own City Paper brings you a weekly dose of Frances Sansig Monahan’s riffs on local TV news.
By comparison, the Trib‘s roster of regular columnists features at least nine regular contributors who are male. A half-dozen of the P-G‘s regular opinion contributors are male. (I’m not including sports commentators in these counts.)
CP isn’t immune from the trend either. In the past year, we’ve cut the female-penned column “Revelations” alongside a column by John McIntire. These cuts, made to reflect tightening page counts, have left yours truly as CP‘s only regular columnist. And I’m just doing it in a desperate attempt to justify my salary.
Bennett and Dailey took advantage of a recently expanded buyout offer made by P-G management. Insiders say the paper was trying to move as many staffers off the books as possible before year’s end. Other staffers have taken the buyout as well: We’ll provide names as we’re able to confirm their departures.
On a personal note, I hate to see anyone leaving journalism, or losing a full-time paycheck. But I have special reason to hope we see Dailey’s byline for some time to come. I disagreed with her far more often than not, and sometimes did so vocally on blogs and on that Off Q TV show no one except my dad watched. But if I often found Dailey aggravating, it was only because she was consistently more provocative, and a more interesting thinker, than other rightward columnists like Colin McNickle or the cartoonish Jack Kelly.
My best wishes to Ms. Dailey, and to everyone who has left the P-G in recent days … as well as to those who are sticking it out. I hope 2009 is a better year for you all.
This article appears in Jan 1-7, 2009.
I’ll miss Ruth Ann. Despite our ideological differences, she was one of the only columnists that gave a damn about local politics, and we were in total agreement on several things. Plus, her writing style was affable and maybe even a little hip.
Nice form on the strikethrough and the update.
“Nice form on the strikethrough and the update.”
I confess: I had to consult an html cheatsheet to get the coding right.
But like I say, don’t despair. There seems like a real chance, at least, that she’ll continue as a freelancer.
I too had a different opinion than Ruth Ann most times, but always enjoyed her writing style and learned a bit from her on several topics. I haven’t watched in a while but always loved her appearances “on Q.” Imagine pairing her with Lynne Cullen. I always thought after I sent the kids off to college I would steer the careers of people like Lynne to national fame. Not that I have any talent for that, but a strong belief gives you drive when skills are lacking. And a goal is a good thing.
Ruth Ann’s column on non-partisanship being a prerequisite to Democracy was a classic!
Bram – I’m curious, what exactly were you and RAD in total agreement on? Was she also for the renaming of the city of Pittsburgh?
Schultz, she came out huge against the Grant St. LED on its merits very early (most MSM types may have found the process to be odious but think getting worked up over billboards is “silly”) and she railed against the land giveaway to the Steelers for development just because “it’s there”. Though she is a conservative, one gets the impression she’s a romantic first.
What sane person wouldn’t be against the land giveaway? Dan Rooney is one for obvious reasons. Who else?
I was just commenting on another blog and referenced Ruth Ann’s frequent citing that Republicans helped pass the Civil Rights Act (the party of Lincoln). You (or I, at least) *need* the Ruth Ann’s of the world to bounce against, to point out when ideology fails. Fortunately I am obscure enough that no one says that about me (they do say it about Joe Biden and Al Sharpton, unfortunately). But Bram is right, Ruth Ann was one of the few columnists for the PG that spoke much about local politics, and because of the opposition point of view she brought, she will be missed.
It is ironic how RAD’s last column has “lowered expectations” in its title, because it sounds like you guys have low expectations for your local columnists. There are better, more thought provoking columnists out there than RAD, which is why I won’t miss her column in the PG. I don’t mind reading the work of those who I don’t always agree with. George Will is a good example of a conservative columnist who I enjoy reading despite not agreeing with him most of the time. I read some conservative blogs and other bloggers whom I don’t always agree with (TWM was a perfect example and is missed), so it’s not about me not liking to read the work of those who I don’t agree with – but it is about the quality of the author!
You guys are acting like RAD wrote about local politics often, but it didn’t seem that way to me. Most her columns were about her confusion with things such as modern technology, or about how liberals are evil, and when it came to analyzing national politics she was just terrible.
Here is a list of her columns from the last half of the year. Unless you count her column about deer as local politics I think this is proof you are overstating her importance to the local political news scene :
* Hope? Change? Try lowered expectations (12/29/2008)
* A Christmas Story you can believe in (12/22/2008)
* The frugal generation is back in vogue (12/15/2008)
* Suburban Living: Cleaning out a cabinet, finding new priorities (12/11/2008)
* Viewpoint: Democracy depends on nonpartisan news (12/8/2008)
* Suburban Living: Corner of virture and vanity meet at street level (12/4/2008)
* Viewpoint: Stand apart from the herd, but carry on (12/1/2008)
* Viewpoint: When reality strikes, take a bitter pill (11/24/2008)
* Viewpoint: The life-affirming power of human excellence (11/17/2008)
* Suburban Living: There’s just no keeping up on high-speed road to future (11/13/2008)
* Viewpoint: So, what will change? And how? (11/10/2008)
* Suburban Living: Why not let property owners decide what to do about deer? (11/6/2008)
* Suburban Living: Is she about to cross the line between sanity and sanitary? (10/30/2008)
* Viewpoint: Integrated pews without political diversity? (10/27/2008)
* Suburban Living: How to help economy land on its feet (10/23/2008)
* Viewpoint: Democrats playing the guilt card again (10/20/2008)
* Viewpoint: The next step in post-racial politics (10/13/2008)
* Suburban Living: Let’s not get clipped in this contest (10/9/2008)
* Viewpoint: Conservative funk? Here’s the way out … (10/6/2008)
* Suburban Living: Sprucing up is everyone’s business (10/2/2008)
* Viewpoint: Sorry seems to be the hardest word to say (9/29/2008)
* Suburban Living: Smoking ban has campuses fired up (9/25/2008)
* Viewpoint: Political press corps jumps the shark (9/22/2008)
* Suburban Living: Every silver lining has its little cloud (9/18/2008)
* Viewpoint: Play partisan politics, but play nice (9/15/2008)
* Viewpoint: Sarah Palin vs. feminist mystique (9/8/2008)
* Suburban Living: Palin family needs space and grace to live an honorable life (9/4/2008)
* Suburban Living: Like summer, the chance to make memories is fleeting (8/28/2008)
* Viewpoint: Boost biking with bilateral respect (8/25/2008)
* Suburban Living: The most important rule for do-it-yourselfers — Don’t (8/21/2008)
* Viewpoint: At Saddleback, the wall stands firm (8/18/2008)
* Suburban Living: Summer days are strictly for the birds (8/14/2008)
* Viewpoint: Popping the kernel of our energy mess (8/11/2008)
* Viewpoint: Race card? What about the ‘racist card’? (8/4/2008)
* Viewpoint: Nothing funny about liberals’ sensitivity (7/21/2008)
* Viewpoint: Barden’s loss should be Pittsburgh’s gain (7/14/2008)
* Suburban Living: Sedentary life brings me to my knees (7/3/2008)
* Viewpoint / The power of 250: Party on, Pittsburgh (6/30/2008)
* Suburban Living: Life on Earth … It’s all a fluke (6/26/2008)
* Viewpoint: A song for the city, alive and kicking (6/23/2008)
I remember when she used to do radio years ago. I didn’t think she was all that interesting then, either (though her divorce given her conservatism was kind of amusing).
My friends, can we all at least agree on one point?
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN JACK KELLY.
Billboards clearly were an issue of special concern to Dailey — and not just in Pittsburgh. I seem to recall her writing about some issues going on out in Monroeville too. And obviously, one particular electronic billboard became the subject of a huge amount of discord in 2008, less for what it was than what it represented. (Speaking for myself, I wrote a column suggesting the whole thing was like Watergate — a bit of farce that could yet lead to the dismantling of an administration. And I’m actually pretty sympathetic to the billboard in question, because it would help advance my pet cause of making the future as much like the movie “Blade Runner” as possible.)
But beyond that, I’m hard-pressed to see where Ruth Ann trumps, say, Brian O’Neill when it comes to writing about local stuff. (Though I’m sure neither columnist would thank me for pitting them in a head-to-head competition.)
Perhaps this may be a place to revive a topic Bram mentioned a while back on his blog — about the role columnists can and should play on the local level. Given the dwindling number of columnists, though, maybe that’s so much whistling past the graveyard.
Like Ed, I found some of Dailey’s writing about Democrats and race pretty tiresome. She kept repeating this canard about how Democrats opposed civil-rights legislation a half-century ago … without ever acknowledging that the Democrats who fought hardest against civil rights went on to become Republicans.
All that said, I still think she’s an interesting thinker, especially on matters of religious faith. I often found her writing to be more nuanced than a lot of thoughtless faith-based dreck we’re exposed to. And she walked it like she talked it too.
Finally, I’ll reiterate that Dailey’s column may very well continue, at least on a freelance basis.
O’Neill writes far more often about State issues, doesn’t he? I mean, it’s good that somebody does, but that’s also a lot easier to do if you don’t want to displease people that you might actually bump into on the street / in your advertising hole.
As for local issues, he seems to stick to transit and the Promise — and his premises usually boil down to, “My, these are difficult issues!” I don’t recall him ever coming down on one side of a controversial subject. Even in the “Luke is smart for stealing from Peduto” column for which he became famous in the blogosphere, there was obviously no position taken vis a vis the mayor’s race.
Of course, it seems to be problematic for ANY print outlet to do less than laud a mayor for Bold Initiatives if they merely back a third of the way into doing the right thing under immense pressure.
I only wish the mayor’s office shared your sunny assessment of the paper I work for, Bram.
Agreed with Potter – why wasn’t it Kelley? I understand that the PG wants to provide a perspective from the right, the far right, but his columns are so lacking in originality, they are just basically a reiteration of that week’s ranting on the Rush and Hannity shows.
Regarding O’Neill, I recall a column of his during last year’s mayoral race titled something to the effect of “City is hungover from one party rule.” It was excellent, one of the best unendorsements of the mayor and the status quo here in Pittsburgh. His columns are heavy on the transportation/energy issues side but with Mr. Grata’s departure I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing.
As for “why not Jack Kelly,” remember the P-G is governed by a union contract that has seniority provisions. I’m not sure exactly who got hired when, but I AM sure Dailey had fewer years on staff than Kelly. If the paper had to do layoffs, she would have more to fear than a lot of other veterans. Choosing the buyout was a better deal, I’m sure, than a straight-up layoff would have been.
Re: Brian O’Neill, I only brought O’Neill up as an example, to say I wasn’t sure Dailey raised local issues that much more often than her peers did. Maybe such distinctions are a little arbitrary anyway. For example, O’Neill has written repeatedly about how unresponsive the state is to the needs of municipalities like Pittsburgh. Even if the action is in Harrisburg, that has a lot to do with the local scene.
If the objection is that O’Neill (or I, or anyone else) aren’t tough enough on Ravenstahl, that’s a different discussion. But I certainly don’t think O’Neill is governed by a fear of who he might encounter in the street or any of that. I read Bram’s post to mean that O’Neill — and perhaps by extension other local columnists — choose topics out of political cowardice; if that was Bram’s meaning, I think it’s unwarranted.
Maybe it was too much to tag a specific writer with that insinuation. I have long noticed however that there is a strong correlation between distance from the object of a columnist’s (or radio personality’s) criticism and the clarity, forthrightness, and general wallop of that criticism. Or there is an inverse correlation between distance and the willingness to be circumspect, generously philosophical, and allusive. Combine this trend with the poor frequency with which opinionators deign to discuss the city politics, and one winds up with the general impression that I have.
It may not help that a prominent local columnist straight up informed me when I met him/her that he/she was staying away from one of my big issues because of an affiliation of his/her spouse — which is again very much a function of distance. We may be too small a town to muster a truly vigorous press.
I hear where you’re coming from to some extent, Bram. Speaking for myself, I probably wrote more about national stuff last year than ever. Then again, I think I also wrote three LED-billboard-related columns last year, which may not seem like much until you realize I did fewer than 30 columns in all. (The low number being largely due to space constraints, moving that stuff online, etc.) And after all, there WAS a historic election taking place, and Pennsylvania has never been more important. I mean, this is the first time in my adult life that our presidential primary actually mattered.
That said, as a general rule I don’t see much point in local media outlets focusing on national level stuff.(That’s one reason there’s far less Bush-bashing content in my paper than in many other alt-weeklies.) While I have a lot of respect for Tony Norman, say, I wish he’d turn his fire on local stuff more often. After all, some of his best stuff has been about suburban-area policing outrages.
Of course, you’re probably right that it’s easier to slam the Bushies when you know they don’t care about what you say. But Harrisburg is a lot closer to home, and I think a columnist has to cast a wider net in terms of how they think of “local issues.” Some local bloggers, by contrast, have a pretty laser-like focus on the fifth floor of the CCB. It makes sense for blogs to have niches like that … but less so for a columnist writing for a larger audience.
Your post about this stuff was titled “columnists drool, bloggers rule” or something like that, but I’m not sure it’s helpful to judge either by the other’s standards. I mean, it’s been pretty obvious that one or two local bloggers are carrying water for one political faction or another. So I can’t say it bothers me TOO much if columnists show less zeal in tearing Ravenstahl a new one than a blogger who is, or will be, working for a political rival.
In any case, it’s actually a nice change of pace to be accused of being too circumspect. Now I just have to decide whether this is a sign I’m getting wiser, or just old.
For the most part, I wasn’t talking about you Chris — as you know we are still unsure to which species and genus you belong. Though I guess I took a rare swipe at your paper for its recent description of “bold ethics initiatives” (and our wonderful, promising, totally legitimate CBA). And for the record, “Bloggers Rule, Columnists Drool” was a lighthearted rejoinder to a pretty bruising Mike Seate column against bloggers that had just come out.
Carrying water? I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m always honored to pass along interesting, useful, and truthful information no matter where it originates. To suggest it’s good that MSM columnists balance out zealous anti-Luke blogging is a little like saying it’s good that Israel levels Gaza in response to glorified slingshot attacks. (Or pick your own metaphor that’s more accurate and less distracting).
Lest we forget.. JK was also one of the pioneering local msm types who blogged prolifically for years. Way out ahead of some of us and well ahead of his employer for that matter. He had quite a following too, especially for back then.
“JK was also one of the pioneering local msm types who blogged prolifically for years”
… though arguably Kelly is a cautionary tale about life on the wild frontier of the Information Society. I’ve picked on him for this before —
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A26424
— but his reliance on bloggers to “prove” his points has resulted in some of his most cringe-worthy assertions.
Kelly’s success at blogging, I think, is a sort of “long tail” phenomenon. The vast majority of people know that he’s a damned fool, but there’s always that tiny percentage who really believes journalists hate America and so on. Thanks to the miracle of the internet to reach across the country, you can aggregate that tiny majority into a decent-sized readership of yahoos. They link to him, he links to them, it’s all one big happy family.
The problem is that it becomes a sort of self-reinforcing cycle, and I think that has hurt the right-wingers over time. Brian O’Neill made this point himself after the November elections — the right-wing echo chamber (as practiced on talk radio, etc.) has made conservatives tone-deaf to anyone’s voices but their own. I feel the same way about Kelly, who has just become a parody of himself, to the extent that I no longer do anything more than glance at his column before moving to the crossword.