This morning's e-mailed announcement to Palm Beach Post staff from Tom Giuffrida was posted on the Pulp earlier this morning:
March 7, 2008To Employees of Palm Beach Newspapers:
Cox will announce today that I will be retiring May 1 and that Doug Franklin, publisher of the Dayton Daily News and president of Cox Ohio, will succeed me as publisher of The Palm Beach Post and president of Palm Beach Newspapers.
Doug is an outstanding leader whose talents are just right for the challenging times in our business today. I know you will support him the effort to strengthen our company so that it may prosper for decades to come.
I have been publisher here for nearly 23 years, and I just turned 62. I would love to go on for another 23 years, as I feel so strongly about the importance of our work and our prospects for a bright future. But it is time to go. I will leave with gratitude for our owners, for our leadership at Cox, and most of all for all of the employees, active and retired, with whom I have worked over these years. I have come to regard this place as home, our employees as family.
I wish all the members of the PBNI family the best for the future. And I thank all of you for the support you have given me. It has been a privilege to lead this company.
Tom Giuffrida
This does not bode well for the Post at all. The early speculation is that Giuffrida is stepping down to avoid the upcoming carnage from yesterday's announced cuts to the newspaper. Franklin's recent reign in Dayton has not been without labor controversy and he president over a large staff reduction 16 months ago involving buyouts.
They'll have to tie everybody down and lobotomize them before the Post can reach Sun-Sentinel quality.
Reading this article below, I'm like, wondering, 'What, no Seminole series? Surely the Help Team will be Pulitzer finalists in Public Service, or what about Dan Vasquez' insightful reporting about swallowing lead-based alloys.
Or what about the category of best brief?
Or worst choice of front page stories? Surely the hyper-local category is a slam dunk.
Or what about Earl's weekly missives as a contender for biggest mediocrity?
I just don't understand it. Rosenhause and the other editors have never met a committee or an awards panel they can't sit on. Never turned down a junket or a panel. You'd think as they're tossing off plaques and statues that they'd think, 'Damn, maybe I should spend more time doing this kind of work at my paper and less planning websites that let readers shoot sunsets and baby photos.'
Or puppie dogs.
But hey, that's the essence of public service. What do those New York elites know about journalism anyway?
Pulitzer Finalists Trickling Out -- 'NYT' Doing Well
By Joe Strupp
Published: March 07, 2008 2:30 PM ET
NEW YORK For years, Pulitzer Prize Administrator Sig Gissler has firmly directed the juries that choose finalists for the 14 journalism categories not to disclose them before the Pulitzer Board reveals winners in April. Nevertheless, for many years, E&P has managed to collect and publish a nearly-complete and accurate list of most of the finalists shortly after those decisions were made.
It's taking a little longer this year. The juries met in New York earlier this week but the usual flood of leaks has slowed to a trickle -- so far.
Interviews with dozens of current jurors, past jurors, editors and others who usually have insight into the finalist lists finds most of them in the dark or keeping a lid on it.
Despite that, E&P has managed to obtain the names of finalists in two categories, both confirmed by several sources. We have also been told about other categories, but with only single sources, awaiting confirmation. Those and other initial leaks seem to indicate The New York Times is doing quite well in a handful of categories.
Investigative
1. The New York Times -- Toxic Pipeline
2. Chicago Tribune -- Product Safety
3. The Denver Post -- Destruction of Evidence
Explanatory
1. The New York Times -- DNA
2. The Boston Globe -- Global Warming
3. The Oregonian -- Computer chips
The much-praised Walter Reed Army Hospital series in The Washington Post is a Public Service finalist, while The New York Times is among the finalists in the International category for its Iraq reporting.
We have also been informed by one -- informed -- source about the three Breaking News finalists but are still trying to confirm. If that source is correct, the winning subjects are the Virginia Tech massacre, the Larry Craig scandal, and a big city fire.
Longtime Pulitzer watchers who routinely obtain the finalist lists say jurors have kept their mouths shut more than usual this year. Some jurors who had promised to reveal finalist lists before this week's three-day judging, from March 3-5, changed their minds after the event occurred.
"We ask our people to honor their promise and hope they will," Gissler told E&P Friday after hearing of the diminished leaking. "Every year I ask them to honor their pledge and I always felt that most of them did. If more of them are doing it, that is fine."
Jurors, who choose three finalists in each category from dozens of entries, are required to sign statements promising they won’t reveal the finalists. Veteran jurors, both past and present, told E&P that Gissler has even cited E&P's finalist leak reporting in his admonishments for them to avoid leaks.
"I'm not going into everything I've said or not said," Gissler responded when asked about E&P mentions. "We ask people to honor the pledge and stand by their word."
One of the reasons the finalists are not formally revealed until winners are announced on April 7 is that the Pulitzer Board has the power to change the finalist list and move entries from one category to another. Other jurors have said that the Pulitzers also seek to avoid lobbying of the board by finalists.
Joe Strupp can be reached at 646-654-5272 or the email address below.
*
To comment or check updates, go to blog
Posted at: March 7, 2008 4:00 PM