Matt Pearce, who interned at the Kansas City Star and witnessed the firing of veteran metro columnist Steve Penn, has written an interesting story about what exactly transpired at the newspaper and the policies that resulted in Penn’s termination for an article in The Pitch alternative weekly (link).
Penn was one of three remaining black columnists at the Star following the “slash and burn” departure of sports columnist Jason Whitlock. Penn’s firing left the paper with Lewis Diuguid and Jenee Osterheldt.
Penn had been working 32 hours a week since 2009 as part of the paper’s cost-cutting moves.
Penn, 53, is now suing the newspaper saying that running news releases pretty much “as is” was a common practice at the Star. (JL note: It should be noted that in 25 years of sending news releases to the Star that was not my experience even though I would not have had a problem with it!!)
In a story after the firing stalwart Pitch reporter Peter Rugg said Penn wasn’t fired for just copying information directly from news releases, but for being “too goddam lazy” for not even bothering to rewrite them.
According to Pearce, Anne Hartung Spenner, at that time the Star‘s assistant managing metro editor, delivered the news to staffers that Penn, a 31-year veteran at the McClatchy-owned newspaper, was being fired. He had, Spenner explained, lifted sentences and paragraphs from press releases and passed them off as his own in his columns.
Spenner did not provide many more details except to note Penn’s firing would be printed in the next day’s paper. It was a rather unusual “public burial” as Pearce noted since a bevy of editors, reporters and columnists have simply vaporized at the newspaper with no notice whatsoever to readers over the years.
As expected the Star and Penn refused to discuss the issue with Pearce due to the litigation. In reality, the Star never speaks to other media outlets on any topic at the newspaper.
Pearce did a good job speaking with experts about what constitutes plagiarism and it is obvious that Penn had crossed the line. Pearce also noted (as Bottom Line had pointed out in an earlier story) that the actual legal filing of his case had so many mistakes in it that it was an embarrassment unto itself.
It’s not so much the fact that Steve Penn was terminated for plagiarism, but it’s the “public burial” he received from the paper that’s the most disturbing aspect of this entire case. I thought the story that appeared in the paper was over the top.
I now have the story in front of me. First off, it’s unfortunate that Mr. Pearce chose to quote a former colleague of Mr. Penn who wishes to remain anonymous because he/she doesn’t want to be involved in the lawsuit. He/she may end being pulled into the matter anyway. One never knows. Second, if Mr. Penn was supposedly so “unemployable” at the time of his firing, as his former colleague contends, then how was he able to carve out a 31-year career at The Star? One wonders. Is Mr. Penn’s reputation both professionally and personally on the line here? Certainly. And what about the newspaper? Aren’t there a few questions it still needs to answer? I think so. Why was the plagiarism allowed to continue for as long as it apparently did? Was anyone in management ever “disciplined” for this failure to intervene earlier? Why wasn’t Glenn Rice canned at the time if the problems with his work were so serious that they had to be “addressed,” according to Mark Zieman? Why was Mr. Penn promoted in the first place if his writing was so unengaging, as his former colleague maintains that it was? Is the newspaper’s policy on the use of press releases clear and consistent across the board (i.e., in all departments)? Does the newspaper provide its employees with sufficient training in the use of press releases? How many other employees may have been guilty of plagiarism if, as Mr. Penn insists, he was not alone in passing off the information contained in press releases as his own work? At any rate, it will be most interesting to see how this whole thing plays out in court if indeed the case ever gets to that point.
Man I miss Peter Rugg. He was a fun writer.
Penn deserved what he got. He was a minority hire that got along even though he never said much of interest. I think Rick is right to question what the Star knew and when it knew it. That Pitch story mentions Hearne and a lot of sites have mentioned that he always had errors was able to hold his check for a very long time. What exactly is the discipline policy at the Star? Or does it matter now that they only have a few reporters left that haven’t been laid off? I feel sorry for people working in media today.