Arkansas Blog

When I first saw her picture, I thought this blog was a joke of some sort and that the picture was of a man in drag. It wasn't until I read the response that I realized this was legit.

I'm just glad I have a low key profile and don't write (well don't send anyway) any emails that I couldn't stand to see aired out in public.

Nice attack on the DemoZet Max. I guess you're going to argue that its gone down hill since your departure.

ARK. BLOG: Never worked there.

'Tis funny that most of the good writers I know outside of journalistic circles are women. Why aren't there any in LR? Okay, I like Mara Leveritt.

But we don't see them as editors or if we do, its like the Food section or some fluff. Women make up the majority of law school students which will, in about 10yrs I guess, totally change the face of the business.

We're trusting women with probate and divorces, but it seems like people don't want to get their news from a woman....

Wading slightly into the breach here, don't know enough about the situation at hand to pass judgment on what really happened. But it's undisputed fact that the City Editor is such a prick that Gandhi would strangle him, and the Managing Editor has the people skills of Frankenstein's monster. Many good and some great reporters strive to do their jobs with little support from a top-heavy cadre of generally clueless editors who, with a few notable exceptions, demonstrate the news judgment of idiot savants...without the savant.

Sorry, Max, you're out of line on this one.

Airing the unreliable rantings of a disgruntled and possibly incompetent employee not only lowers your usually reputable blog to a despicable gossip sheet, it probably will result in the firing of whoever supplied you with the juicy tidbit.

It's a sucker punch. Hope it felt good.

Thanks, Max. As someone who keeps up with what's happening with local media, I find this newsworthy. Gossip? Hardly.

"Women make up the majority of law school students which will, in about 10yrs I guess, totally change the face of the business." Posted by: Basil

And since a large number of politicians are lawyers we should expect more women in politics and in higher offices.

Editorial Opinion Columnist - that's a far cry from "respectable reporter" which is what Max used to be.
I agree with 24fps. This story knocks your credibility down a notch.

Ark Blog may not have worked there, but max Brantley did. Brantley is a former Gazette staffer who lost his job as a result of the merger. It makes since that he would post this story.

ARK. BLOG: You're wrong. I worked at the Arkansas Gazette, not the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. The Arkansas Gazette closed, putting all employees out of work. The Arkansas Democrat purchased its assets and adopted the name. Gazette employees -- and anybody else -- were free to apply for jobs at the newly named Arkanass Democrat-Gazette. I didn't. Ask Walter Hussman if there was a "merger."

Classy lady, that women, Mrs. Mitchell.

I'm not sure a squabble at the Dem-Gaz deserves this much ink or megabites or whatever, but I'm also not sure why Max is getting trounced over posting it. In this day where a credible female candidate for president is about to get beat by a credible male candidate, in large part just because she is perceived as a "bitch," sexism is a timely topic.

And, not that I'm defending Max's journalistic professionalism or that it needs defending, but regardless of the way the Democrat-Gazette was born from a business dealings standpoint, there was a huge difference between its original component parts. I like to think of it as the difference between good and evil. The Dem-Gaz may have been a merger of names, and of assets, but many fine journalists from the old gray building at 3rd and Louisiana were never a part of the "merged" entity and I respect them for it.

Accusations of sexism, racism, and croneyism at *the* state's leading paper is absolutely newsworthy. If you don't believe it, spend some time reading what's reported on www.Poynter.org/Romenesko, which is respected by every writer I know as the arbiter of what's newsworthy in the media biz, as well as an important source on journalistic ethics.

24fps, I also question why you would imply in your comment that Marilyn Mitchell is "incompetent"...unless you have an axe to grind with her yourself. I don't know her from Eve, but your indictment seems as gossipy as anything else on this page.

"And since a large number of politicians are lawyers we should expect more women in politics and in higher offices."--HM

Here's hoping they're cut of the Joyce Elliot cloth rather than that of Shirley Walters!!! I'll be so glad when AR voters pass the amendment to get rid of term limits so we can get rid of incestuous seats...

Notice that Mr. Simmons rebuttal was that "most" editors at the Dem-Gaz believe that the term "w-tb-cks" was derogatory. In this day and age, I don't know of any newspaper in America besides the Washington Times and Dem-Gaz who would even have such an internal debate about such a reprehensible term for people of Hispanic origin.

But hey, no one should not be surprised that a newspaper -- which refers to black school board members as a gang, celebrates Robert E. Lee's birthday as a holiday, has rewritten the history of the Central High School crisis, and whose editorials and letters-to-the editor read like a KKK manifesto -- is a retirement home for incompetent good ol' boys.'

Ms. Mitchell's letter only confirms what everyone already knows about Hessman's Hezbollah rag.

My apologies, Max. I guess I should disregard Webster's definition of the word "merger" and think of it more as a business "proposition".
Ark Blog is a better suit for you. I would much rather read the rants you post here than your work back at the AR Gazette. At least here I read knowing the words are a blatant disregard for journalistic integrity as opposed to the Gazette where they were masked staff opinions.
Keep up the good work at the Ark Blog. Its entertainment value is right up there with the Enquirer. That's why I keep coming back.

Didn't you love the way Simmons did the official denial. Do they use the "n" word and "wetback."

We all know where a bear shits.
.

"24fps, I also question why you would imply in your comment that Marilyn Mitchell is "incompetent"...unless you have an axe to grind with her yourself. I don't know her from Eve, but your indictment seems as gossipy as anything else on this page."

I have no ax in this fight, but you sure done gored my ax.

What I do have is experience with workers who blame anyone but themselves for not doing their job. They lash out in irrational anger like a wounded animal. Such vitriol can't be considered credible, except as evidence of the worker's state of mind, and based on past incidents at my office, that appears to possibly be the case here.

If conditions at the newspaper were really the way this note claims, those who here are seen as the noble few (surely the person who supplied this blog with the damning evidence) would have spoken out before. That Max chooses to air this disturbing diatribe proves his judgment is not reliable when it comes to all things Hussman.

Max, you guttersnipe, regain your class.

Newsroom bombast aside, I'm still waiting for Mr. Greenberg's lecture to the E-STEM on why the public's business should be conducted in public. Mr. Greenberg's boss is using a clinton clause to dodge the FOI. I take from Mr. Greenberg's silence that he condones this.

Too bad most of this DoG "background info" can't be put in Wikipedia!

"I'll be so glad when AR voters pass the amendment to get rid of term limits" - now THERE is an idea whose time has LONG ago come - sorta like the Bushites... Except James' term is DEFINITELY up - even when he's wrong he's right; Max must have kicked his dog - or worse...

James - go back into your hole so we don't have to listen to you rant about shadows that you see. All you seem to do is denigrate Max with worthless ad homenem attacks and disparaging remarks. It's a Blog fer Christ's sake and one doesn't need to hang foo-foo journalistic integrity ideals all over the place like some sanctimonious ass. When Max writes for the Arkansas Times he passes the test for journalistic integrity and skill. You may not agree with his permises or story slants, but he follows all the rules of the journalistic courses I attended in college.

24fps - your attempt at very vague analogies based on some distant recollections just doesn't cut it in any argument. Others may have simlar or different experiences to recall, but none of them make the rule or prove an exception. They're just anecdotal and not research based opinions. Don't rely on them as a foundation for proving your point unless you have evidence to support them. The only one proving their "incompetence" is you in making nasty statements about someone you haven't had dealings with or know personally. Give us a break from such lousy reasoning and personal attacks.

At worst, the story might smack of tabloid gossip and glee over trouble with a rival; nonetheless, it presented both sides of the disagreement and it is using a source that is becoming more common in the media: e-mails. Considering that Congress is in session to hear baseball players lie (or tattletale) about steroids and that this has mainstream focus at its most intense level, then this brouhaha over at the Dem-Gaz is equally meritorious under said circumstances.

A legitimate question from your perspective would be to wonder what evidence exists to back up said claims by Mrs. Mitchell. Simmons' reply has some mighty big loopholes that suggest all that Mitchell criticizes is not without merit and that it is more a matter of degree than definition. He offers excuses rather than denials. But, again, if taped evidence exists or corroborating testimony surfaces, then maybe some rotten habits will be brought out into the public arena and shamed into remission.

When I first saw her picture, I thought . . . the picture was of a man in drag. -Posted by: dowserdave
********
And I thought it was Blanche Lincoln. Not sure how to tell the difference without the caption.

Slithering up on the sexist soapbox, I must confess that in the many quarters of the good ol' boy locker room and (later) business network, insults tend to (sadly) be the conversational style. Man A insults Man B . . . and Man B's parentage . . . and B's masculinity (or lack thereof) . . . and his ethnic heritage . . . and those he hangs out with.

Man B returns the courtesy, point for point.

Then A & B go get a couple of beers, shoot a few more ducks, talk some bidness and then continue on.

You learn to (1) join in and diminish yourself or (2) proceed on a higher road without engaging in this bull****.

The alternative is one chosen by many ladies like this - throw a huff, stomp your little feet and make a scene as you go out the door.

Maybe these hissyfits will eventually fix the system. Or, maybe it will make you hard to employ. Or both.

Who knows. There are cooler kitchens elsewhere.

Everything I know about the internal machinations of big city newspapers I learned by watching "Lou Grant" about 30 years ago, which makes me as qualified as most AT bloggers to comment on this subject --- especially you, James. This is a blog, goober, and a damn good blog, too. Wide open and fun. You can continue to take your asinine swipes at Max, but the majority of AT bloggers will write you off as a semi-literate dolt. My philosophy is that anyone who kicks the DoG in the 'nads is a friend of mine. Go get 'em, Max.

Semi-literate is high praise for James.

Pavel, Pavel, Pavel -
What you clearly do not understand is that Max needs people like me to come in here and rattle cages. Scroll up and look back at the number of threads that were prompted by my entry. I lit a fire on this post at approximately 12:02pm. Since then several issues (other than Max's previous employment) have popped up as a direct result. If you think I expect real reporting out of a blog you are sadly mistaken. This is, for most of us, entertainment. The Ark Blog is serving its very small role in the media very well. It is a role that provides us a place to go to express our opinions and not have to worry about legitimacy.
Most people butt heads in here all day leaning on the "copy & paste" method. They don't have real views they just spend too much surfing political sites and have allowed analysts to shape their views and respond by copying and pasting another's words.
So Pavel, don't think for a minute that anyone here takes this blog seriously...sorry, Max.

I'll have to admit that this (1) surprised me and (2) interested me and (3) it matters. Take those three things and you have the formula for what belongs in a newspaper. And since blogs(to me at least) are allowed much lower standards (either 1 or 2 is good enough to qualify or a blog posting in my opinion) there's no question that this item belonged on the blog.

But my gosh a mercy, the woman - and I don't know her either - doesn't exactly present her case in the most elegant way with her e-mail. So, if I'm allowed to use what I see to make up my mind about someone, she may not be the brightest penny in the jar.

Then, to make things more interesting, the rebuttal e-mail (and others have noted some of the faults with that) isn't exactly a piece of high intellectual art either.

And finally, Max? I once competed against Max - he's a good guy, was a terrific editor at the old Gazette and still seems to be doing fine. (And this is coming from someone who doesn't agree with him politically most times).

Max can't get over the fact that he had to go to work for a free weekly with only city wide readership somewhat a kin to the Free Press. Bitter is the word.

3. I suppose some males will discuss penis size in the news meetings (boys
being boys), and I have heard in long ago meetings some remarks that were
offensive. But this hasn't happened in any recent news meeting that I
attended and it is not appropriate to convey the idea that this is standard
practice in the meetings. --Bill Simmons

I am a man in my 50s who has never worked at a newspaper. I have nevertheless worked many places, some of them rather masculine in culture, but never, ever, did I witness "boys being boys" by discussing penis size. Or discussing penises at all.

Is there something about newspapers we should all know?

If you're familiar with the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution one will recognize the legitimacy of "cut and paste" that James so foolishly derides. Both documents had sections that appeard previously in other documents both here and abroad. Both have been copied by other nations -- "cut and paste" if you wish.

To brag that you cause more entries when the cause is merely to protest the ignorance of your writings or to express incredulity at your egotistical admiration of your own vomitus, such is emptyheaded vanity. Sounds like some lawnchair philosopher bragging about the born-on-date for his beer to prove he has some class.

James' arguments have all the charm and responsiveness of a half-inllated sex doll with crusty orifices. That he proffers such as entertainment and edification doesn't mean either option is fulfilled by his endeavors. It does make us question his values and judgment.

Although not as crude as the "good ol' boys" do it, isn't that how it's supposed to be done between us menfolks, 24fps?

BTW, since when is it all right to engage in bad boy trash talk and ribald humor in a mixed workplace? Don't make excuses for uncouth and boorish behavior.

Well, I can't add anything to the validity of this article, but I will comment on the article itself.

As a woman, there are certain concessions you have to make from time to time. There really is a fine line a woman walks in being considered a bitch and being considered a whore. And, I do not mean that as feminist rhetoric, it really is the truth.

I was blessed to have fallen into a job during college that ended up being one of the greatest jobs I will likely ever have. The male to female ratio was like 10-1, and now working with women-there are times I truly miss my guys.
I developed a thick skin really quick. When you work with the same people every day, there is a level of comfort that develops. I mean come one...we spend more time with our co-workers than we do our spouses.
I can remember only one time being offended and it was not by the men I worked with. It was the HR guy who called me in for some "inappropriate" emails I had received from a superior. They never made me feel uncomfortable or threatened, just a bit creepy. HAD I felt threatened, I would have discussed in private the situation with the superior. Well, this HR guy questioned my integrity and that was pretty offensive.
I am in several community organizations and most of them are filled with men. Actually, I find myself being the only woman in many group settings, and usually I prefer it that way. But, I do think a sense of humor and thick skin helps, as I am sure I hear things numerous times a day, that many women would find "offensive".
I don't think Mitchell handled herself well at all. Let it be a lesson to her-she needs to build a better sense of humor and a tougher skin. Not that she was not valid in her complaints, I was not there so I don't know. Let it be a lesson to men, be careful around women. You never know WHAT might offend her and a funny joke about penis size could land you in court.

Neither I nor any of my male colleagues have ever behaved in the manner set forth in this hallowed harangue, and I would not condone that kind of talk in a work or social setting. There have been fights. There has been blood.

My guess, based on years of managerial headaches, is that this irate employee would not have lived up to Max's expectations either and would have fired similarly nuclear parting shots in his behalf had he been her boss.

Some of y'all know what I'm saying.

The Dem-Gaz sexist?! Tell me it's not so.

I'll never forget reading a column by that distinguished publication's deputy editor a few years ago and being stunned when the gentleman casually referred to Leonardo DiCaprio casually by some phrase like "that little sissy."

Since I had been away from Arkansas for some years before reading that scintillating observation, I was surprised to discover that borderline homophobic slurs (which trade on assumptions of macho-man superiority and female inferiority) are still right out in the open in AR, including in our "leading" paper.

We do such an outstanding job of embarrassing ourselves that I wonder why we bother with the perceptions of anyone outside the state....

One wonders how we would perceive Jesus if he had talked about his penis size or what a great tart Mary Magdalene was. Would it be OK for your wife and mother to be treated with contempt and ribald humor and you just blithely tell them to suck it up. Surely the Democrat-Gazette office, this bastion of the Southern Gentleman and the honorable Marse Robert, hasn't tarnished its reputation which such hypocritical behavior?
There is a cost for sexism, whether overt or secretive, and it is both financial and personal. Click on name to find out.

In the meantime, you may want to check your Bible for any parables about penises, blonde bombshells, wetbacks, or them folks they said it was OK to own as slaves.

Disgruntled employee.

Grunting employer?

Isn't the DoG the same paper that last year referred to some of LRs leaders as "a good ole boys' club"? Touche'

Just for a moment pretend this e mail had been written by a state employee at DHS about management there.

You would never debate whether it was news. It would just run.

How can anyone associated with a newspaper that FOI's e mails from all manner of public people even suggest that a newsroom e mail is not fair game for a blog?

Why do media people get so wierd and wimpish when the story involves one of their own?

The utter hypocrisy is that if Simmons had such an e mail from a state employee he would fight to keep it on the front page. He would write stories about why the governor is allowing this etc etc

Memo to the DG...the next time a state employee does something offbeat that you consider huge news....think about this e mail. It's not much more than a diatribe from an angry employee headed out the door.....just like so many stories you unfairly ran over the years. For you DG insiders reading this...just remember...Simmons and Mary Hargrove lived for e mails exactly like this.

I know in the age of political correctness, it is always touchy to comment on appearance. Still, the woman looks like a cross between Blanche Lincoln and Stacy Pittman dressed as an Italian sailor.

excellent observation/analogy strangetimes.

if i missed it, i apologize, but it seems that the comments so far have honed in on the sexism/journalistic standards portion of the "story" and have not yet touched upon the idea that her resignation missive puts her husband and his employment status/enviroment in a most difficult position.

why would somebody/anybody do that?

I'm going to saw this once and once only. More than half of what she wrote in that email is true. They can sit on this board and deny it all they want. But the people who were there know the truth. And I'm sorry ADG, but the truth hurts. Suck it up and drive on.

strangetimes/jj hargrove was an excellent newswoman. you are turning green

Marilyn:
Sounds like the same thing you said when you were a little girl, trying to force your way into the games the little boys were playing. Your departure probably will have the same effect.

Don Kehotay, I have rarely agreed with anything you've posted in the past, but this time, I think you're on target.

I think you're right that Ms. Mitchell's departure will have "the same effect" it had when she tried to force her way as a girl into the "games the little boys were playing."

The little boys just keep on playing their games, don't they?

Muddling:
Every once in a while there is an agreeable middle ground . . .

(I have to admit - my first girlfriend was discovered when she joined in the boys game - and did not leave in a hissy fit - she just kept playing and got me distracted . . .)

Good for your girlfriend, Don Kehotay. I have always especially admired those gutsy Arkansas women who insisted on crossing the lines and playing the games the little boys played. There have been a lot of those women in my family, and they have enriched my life immensely.

My mother's cousin refused to be a lady and wear a sunbonnet, until my great-grandmother devised one that was sewn onto Lula Mae's head, so that she couldn't take it off. She shocked her town by going swimming with the boys in the town mill pond.

As she grew up and her sister Lela--the lady of the family, who had less stamina than her tomboy sister--died, leaving children motherless, Lula Mae decided it was time for her to marry, whether she wanted to or not, and she did so to provide a home for her niece and nephew.

I have always thought Gene Lyons is right on target when he says that many of the women of Arkansas are a lot more interesting than the boys who remain in the boys' club.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what's "the glass"?

Thought it was in reference to the notorious "glass ceiling" which prevents women from reaching the corporate top levels...and still it's a bit cryptic in context... Anyone else?

ARK. BLOG: I am told by a former employee that this is a reference to those editors who have offices with windows, the higher mucketymucks.

Thanks Max.

Usually on the ArkTimesBlog the topics just expose the CCRRR lemmings. This was the first post I remember that drew the misogynist bigots out into the light.

I find the correlation of their predilections interesting.

Thanks Max for reporting the news. The Big Guys at the DemGaz can sure dish it out but they can't take it. Imagine what would happen to Joe Citizen if he or she complained to them about a story like the DemGaz staff has to you! You'd be seared above the fold the very next day and the subject of one editorial after another after another.
I love it! And they had the gall to challenge your credibility? As usual, Max, thanks for shining the bright light of truth on a very interesting story. If this had happened anywhere else it would have been all over the front page.
We all act like fools at times but this behavior on the DemGaz staff is really over the top. Who said they get to make up their own rules? It's OK for them to report whatever they want but if you do your job and report about them . . . they go nuts!
I'm going to start calling them DemX because they've lost all rights to even have the name Gazette in their name . . . regardless of how much they paid for it. There are some things that are not for sale . . .like journalistic credibility . . . integrity . . .being able to take it as well as you give it. I'll never use the term Gaz to describe them again. They were nothing more than a step child of the Old Grey Lady anyway and now its been proven without a doubt that not one drop of the old lady's ink runs through their presses. And no I've never worked nor applied for a job with any of the current newspapers or people involved in any of this. I'm just an Arkie who prefers the truth. That's what I buy a newspaper for. Maybe I need to rethink my DemX subscription. Do they report the news or still live in a dream world of their own as this episode clearly describes?

Personally I have never experienced any conversations about penis size. However, one night while surfing through the cable channels, I came across a commercial touting a miracle product that claimed to cure men inflicted by the dreaded Small Penis disease.
Perhaps, these newsmen had also watched this advertisement, and even purchased their product, and were only comparing the results.

One day soon Hussman's dumb fishwrap fees will topple his empire of crappy newspapers. It will not be a moment to soon IMHO and I wouldn't be sad to see this process accelerated by a multi-million dollar sexual harassment lawsuit.

I work at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, and I want to let you know that Marilyn Mitchell's problems at the newspaper don't have anything to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her being a bad person and poor journalist, regardless of her gender.

It's insulting to hard-working women everywhere and particularly to the ones at the newspaper who are actually good at their jobs for Mitchell to claim that she's any kind of victim. That's why I'm posting this to your blog. The editors have told us not to respond in anyway, and, frankly, I couldn't care less what the Arkansas Times thinks about us. But this is a different audience.

First off, let me say that I'm not claiming the paper is a bastion of forward-thinking and progressive thought. It most certainly is not. There are real problems (meaning real people) here that hold this paper back from being anything more than ordinary. I'm not here so much to defend the newspaper as to tell you that Mitchell is not someone you should be defending.

Mitchell appears to be an interesting dichotomy herself. Google her and you'll see she has held significant management positions at other newspapers. I don't know if what I saw here was an aberation in her behavior or maybe she just bullied her way to the top. Some of the women at the paper found her immediately abrasive and believed she has adopted that as a management technique.

What I can tell you is based on my own direct observations of her behavior, discussions I've had with reporters who worked for her, my own inquiries with my co-workers into her claims and my knowledge of how this newspaper works.

First off, Mitchell was hired over a man who also interviewed for the job. I don't know his qualifications exactly so make of that what you will. All of women in the newsroom who met and/or interviewed her for the job strongly recommended against hiring her. After she got the job, Mitchell regularly (and obnoxiously) claimed to have a close personal relationship with the managing editor and his wife - I don't know if that was true or not. (I'm guessing that friendship has gone by the wayside now.)

Secondly, the state editor job and duties were actually strengthened and expanded when Mitchell was hired. I don't know if that was the plan originally or if the powers-that-be did that for her. I do know that they were significant changes and actually gave the positioin much more authority.

Third, remember the tornado? As state editor, Mitchell was in charge of the coverage. This was a big deal. They brought reporters and editors in to help cover it. Now, here's where my knowledge gets shaky, but apparently, there were some problems with the job that got done. I don't know specifically what problems management had, but from reading the paper, I certainly could find fault. Somehow that led to a shouting match between Mitchell and the city editor (male) in the newsroom. Frankly, I walked out when that happened because it was too disruptive so I don't know what exactly was said. I do know that both editors were called on the carpet and that Mitchell left in tears. I do know that responsibility for the storm coverage was reassigned - to another woman, an editor who has been at the paper for more than 20 years.

Mitchell didn't come back the next day, which was Thursday, Feb. 7. She did return on Friday, and I didn't pay much attention to her. We could tell that something was going on the first few days of this week because senior editors kept ducking into meetings - they think they're being sneaky, but they're not. Something happened on Wednesday. I don't know what, but I expect it was some kind of disciplinary action. I doubt that it was any kind of financial punishment or firing, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was going to lose some of her authority.

And that brings us to the St. Valentine's Day massacre. That has got to be the most immature resignation I've ever seen. At least, this should have the side effect of keeping Mitchell from ever working at another newspaper again. In fact, if I was an employer in any field and I found this email, I'd be reluctant to hire anyone who would quit in such a public manner. (Full disclosure: I've regularly fantasized about quitting jobs, including this one, with a well-publicized "Screw You" to the management. My continuing need to eat, keep my kids in shoes and pay my mortgage keeps me from doing so, but someday, I'm going to win the lottery, and then it's on!)

From my knowledge of the newspaper and Mitchell, I think it's mostly (if not completely) lies.

It's hard to start, but let me start with Mitchell's "likeability." No one liked Mitchell (except for maybe her husband) because she was relentlessly unprofessional. She was rude and abrasive with her reporters (I saw her make at one cry on more than one occassion) and she seemed to go out of her way to pick fights with her colleagues. Sometimes things would get so bad I'd have to leave because her remarks were so derogatory and abusive that I was embarrassed to hear them. I'm not the easiest person in the world to get along with at times, but Mitchell was unique in her apparent quest to alienate almost everyone she came in contact with. I seldom ever heard her reply to a question in what I consider a respectul tone. She should have been fired just because of her daily behavior.

The reporters I talked to who had worked for her complained that she regularly introduced mistakes into their copy, which she insisted on changing without talking to them. That's a sure sign of a poor editor, in my book.

Regarding her husband's career, she might have ended that, too, at least in Arkansas. From what I can tell, he seemed genuinely surprised by the email, as much as anyone. One time I saw him that morning, and it looked like he had been crying. I don't know how they could keep him on or why they would want to.

Let's look at this from the paper's perspective and briefly give them the benefit of the doubt and that Mitchell is lying in her email: If she is planning a lawsuit against the paper, is her husband going to help gather material for the suit? Will he let her into the building to search for incriminating materials? Will he spy at meetings to gather information? Will he suddenly quit by emailing the entire newspaper? Would he vandalize? If he worked for me, I'd sure be curious about where his loyalties lay. Look at this from the newspaper's perspective and his employment prospects don't look to good. Hopefully, he'll at least get a decent severance package. Unfortunately for him, this comes at a time when they are actively cutting the newsroom budget.

Now, let's get to the "resignation" (A caveat: I don't attend the meetings Mitchell seems to be referring to)

"All I wanted to do at this newspaper is to do a good job. I
came here because I thought it was a good newspaper. But,
it's not. It's a good ole' boys club made up of old white males.
Nobody else has a voice."

This newspaper is run by mostly men, but I think the majority of the newsroom employees are women, excluding sports. Women hold significant editor positions throughout the newsroom, and most of the top reporters are women. That's not to say that there aren't any elements of the boys' club, but it's in decline. There is one guy who has been a problem, but he's been disciplined and that most recent incident was months ago, probably even before Mitchell came to work here in September, from what I can tell.

"This is a newspaper in which: The city editor can verbally abuse another editor in the presence of the managing editor and nothing is done."

Oh kettle, thou are black, sayeth the pot. I don't know if Mitchell has ever savaged anyone verbally in front of the ME, but I wouldn't doubt it. He's not really the most attentive to that sort of behavior. And from what I hear, some strong disciplinary action is in the works.

"The managing editor in a news meeting slugs a potential 1A story as blonde bombshells - a story in which bombs were strapped on two retarded foreign women and sent into a crowd."

Doubtful, but possible. Usually the slugs are written by the female international editor, but this could be true. Anyone who works at a paper knows there's a lot of gallows humor. Is this the best she can do?

"Male editors are allowed to talk about penis size during
news meetings."

I couldn't find any female editor who remembered anything like this since Marilyn worked at the newspaper. I know there are people at these meetings who wouldn't tolerate this kind of discussion.

"Editors call Hispanics wetbacks in news meetings
Editors are proud to call blacks n-----s in news stories."

Can't address the wetback comment directly, but if it came up, I'd attribute it to the gallows-humor school. I've never heard anyone at the paper "proudly" use the N-word, but I do know that it has been used in stories and the paper has written rules to govern it's use.(For the record, let's be clear that Mitchell wrote out the full word in her email)

"A city editor gets his feelings hurt over coverage of a story and I'm penalized for it. The managing editor is a bald face liar and the executive editor doesn't give a damn. So to "the glass," I resign effective immediately."

Let me just say that Mitchell's email has been personally embarrasing to me. Over the weekend, I've been questioned repeatedly about what goes on in the newsroom. Well, if Mitchell's description was accurate, I'd no longer be working there. I'm not going to tolerate racism, sexism or juvenile bathroom speech. That's not the way I was raised.

But now I've been unfairly tarred with Mitchell's brush. It's hard to deny that you're a racist, sexist pig - when that representation goes against everything I believe in. I just have to trust that the people who know me really do know me.

Let me address Bill Simmons' response now. Simmons has been at the paper for 30-40 years, and if there's an old boy at the Dem-Gaz, it's Simmons. That man has seen and heard it all at the paper, including, I'm sure, penis talk and the casual use of racial slurs. Maybe he's even indulged in that behavior in the past, but I've certainly never heard or seen him behave the way that Mitchell describes. However, it's folly for him to address the editor meetings since I do know that he doesn't go to them.

I'm writing this not so much with the hope of changing anyone's mind here on this blog. You are free to believe Mitchell. Heck, I'd probably believe her if I just stumbled across this post. I just wanted to give you an insider's perspective, and encourage you to remember the journalist's maxim, "There are two sides to every story."

I'm probably risking my job if the bosses see this message and figure out who has written it. Like I said before, I don't care too much what the Ark Times and its readers care about the Democrat-Gazette. The Times has had a long time vendetta against the paper and all of that is a matter of public record.

But I hate to think that Mitchell's rant is floating around the Internet without any serious rebuttal. I would hate to think that any woman would be discouraged about working at this paper or entering the journalism field because of Mitchell's lies and distortions.

This paper does have problems, including some misogyny and elitism. It regularly falls short of excellence in a manner I find both heart-breaking and discouraging.

But the paper and the people who work there don't deserve to be maligned by someone who is truly an exemplar of the worst practices of the field, no matter her sex.

"This paper does have problems, including some misogyny and elitism. It regularly falls short of excellence in a manner I find both heart-breaking and discouraging."

SOME misogyny? Some elitism?

How much misogyny is acceptable in any workplace today? Or in a newspaper?

"Regularly falls short of excellence"? It hasn't even been in the ballpark of excellence for lo these many years.

Where is that dusty old Oscar for mediocrity I used to keep lying around when someone makes the understatement of the year? I need to find it and see that it gets sent down to the Dem-Gaz building to be awarded to whatever poor soul wrote this lame quasi-defense of the paper.

Regardless of the merit (or lack of merit) of Mitchell's case, the Dem-Gaz is far more than a tiny bit tainted by misogyny, racism, and elitism, and hasn't been on the same planet with excellence for about 30 years.

Uh oh!
What I meant to say about Bill was:
Simmons is one million years old so if there's an old boy at the Dem-Gaz, it's him. Seriously, that man has seen and heard it all in the 30 to 40 years he's been in the news business, including, I'm sure, penis talk and the casual use of racial slurs. Maybe he's even indulged in that behavior in the past, but I've certainly never heard or seen him behave the way that Mitchell describes, and I don't think he'd put up with anyone who would. However, it's folly for him to address the editor meetings since I do know that he doesn't go to them - ever.

"This paper does have problems, including some misogyny and elitism. It regularly falls short of excellence in a manner I find both heart-breaking and discouraging."

Elitism? The Arkansas Democrat? The lower middle class rag that only begs for social respectibility?

Ha!

Just a thought, but: Could it be that the Hussman empire manufactures racism (among other things) without practicing bigotry on the same scale in employment practices? I don't find that hard to accept.

I've now talked to four staff members at the Democrat-Gazette. I trust all four of them. Each told me, unprompted, that Mitchell was not widely admired (especially by those who had worked with her). None of the four had any axe to grind, not one of them is a bubbly advocate of the position that the newspaper is a perfect place. Mitchell apparently had poor people skills - along with questionable skills in general. I think the e-mail she wrote (even if she had been completely right) is a testament to her judgement and native wit.

I have no knowledge of how things are in Arkansas, but you might want to talk to people at some of the other newspapers at which Marilyn Mitchell has worked.

She was managing editor at the Montgomery Advertiser in Montgomery, AL. She left that paper abruptly with no job to go to, and much of that also involved her lack of people skills or lack of most other skills for that matter. At the time the top three people in the newsroom - the executive editor, managing editor and assistant managing editor - were all females, so it is hard to claim it was sexism.

By the time she left, she had driven off countless people, including the female assistant managing editor. The amazing part of her rant here is that she was infamous for screaming at people, not in her office, (and yes, it had glass windows), but in the outer office where everyone could hear. She was reported several times to Human Resources, and joked about the oh-so sensative types of people that had somehow gotten into journalism. I don't know how it is at the Montgomery Advertiser now, but back then HR did nothing, and Mitchell might have continued to be completely abusive and to stay at the paper if she'd been any good. But she was pretty horrible. I heard that she left after she said she was going to do a major investigative series to show the incompetent reporters under her how it should be done. A year later, still no series. I don't know if it's true, but someone e-mailed me that a few months after that, it came out she had lost the disc with nine-or-ten months of data on it, and that she hadn't made any back-ups. About a month or two after that,the Birmingham News did a series on the subject she'd been trying to do for more than a year, and they based much of it in Montgomery.

Yes, there is sexism, racism and a lot of other isms in newsrooms, but to paraphrase Freud sometimes an imcompetent fired journalist is just an incompetent fired journalist.