Is the Texas Press Association shooting itself in the foot on legal notices?

Worried that the next time the Texas Lege considers a bill to remove the requirement that legal notices (both ones by governments and ones that government requires of private entities, like letters to creditors on wills, oil injection wells, etc) be published in newspapers, the Texas Press Association has partnered with a company called Column to have all member newspapers post copies of their legals on a Column-maintained TPA sub-website.

Several things?

One, my newspaper pair is in a small but nonexistent minority of weekly papers around the country that still doesn't have a website. Period. So, the Texas Lege could use us as Example A on why posting on any website is good because we don't have one; we are still old-fashioned print only.

Even if this weren't the case with my pair of weeklies and a few others, the existence of Column, above individual newspapers doing public notices both online and in print, is no guarantor (none, zip, zilch, nada, TPA) that the Texas Lege won't still pass a public notices bill. Ditto for other state press associations already partnered with, or considering partnering with, Column. 

(Update, July 5, 2023: Per the newest TPA Messenger, in a bill that flew under the radar screen because TPA officially supported it, the devil's deal with Column is complete. Per SB 943, now signed into law, TPA members are required to post to the state's legal notice website. And, until SB 943 is modified, which it never will be, that site CANNOT be paywalled, per the bill:

The association must ensure that the website: (1) is accessible to the public at no cost.

So, it's free, and also MUST have an email alert sign-up and other things? What's to stop the Lege, two years from now, from saying something to the effect of: "This is working great; we don't need no steenking newspaper notices in individual papers"?)

Second, Column itself doesn't impress me in some ways, and even worries me in others.

First of all, one of their staffers was sending out one or more emails a week to newspapers that hadn't yet done a Zoom meeting with them. I explained our situation and said I don't see the benefit, and I was told that this could be in violation of TPA bylaws. Well, bring a stick down on me that may or may not be true anyway. (Update: Now that I've grokked through the bylaws, with link, Ms. F. appears to have been full of crap on that claim, whether it was more from ignorance, or more from a willful misrepresentation as part of a lead-in to her sales pitch. I uncharitably am assuming the latter.)

Secondly, the Zoom meeting told me that this was of little benefit otherwise to small, rural papers.

Third, it was sales pitch as much as anything. And, I VERY MUCH didn't like that.

Column's rep said it had three options for uploading legals. One was paste (words) or drop-and-drag PDFs (and RTF docs?) onto the appropriate webpage. Second was using an FTP server.

Third? They offered a full proprietary system where, using your standard font, column inches width, etc., they format PDFs for you on text-only legals, and maybe on PDF legal displays, too (didn't ask about that), then do affidavits, billing, the full 9 yards. No extra cost to you the newspaper, but yes, an extra 10 percent to the city, county, school district, lawyer, oil driller, etc.

No use to me. It would take more time for me to work with that than the time I spend now.

Daily paper? Sure, useful. Bigger daily, useful enough for it to shit-can a classified ad salesperson, clerk, whatever. And, no, no entity is going to place a legal in my newspaper via TPA's web portal for placing legals.

Anyway, HALF of what was NOT "a few minutes" or "10 minutes" but a nearly 40-minute meeting was devoted to the Column rep explaining Option 3 in detail. I know sales pitches and this was a sales pitch with full spiel and all.

Hard pass even if I were repping a daily.

Related to that, as part of the early part of the meeting, I got a thumbnail version of Column's origin story. Was informed that it's a public benefits corporation.

Big fucking deal. Hucksterman and Chan created a public benefits corporation, and when I saw some alleged Skeptics(TM) types touting it, I looked at California's public benefits law. RIDDLED with Mack-truck sized loopholes. 

I don't know if Florida's public benefits incorporation laws (where Column is physically located) have as many loopholes as California does for a California benefits corporation, but here's some things I noted elsewhere about the Huckstermans' move.

Some pseudoskeptics claimed that that a California benefits corporation, which is the type of LLC the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is in California, will keep him in line.

Per California's enabling statute, I don't see it that way.

That's in part because, per that same lawyer, and contra one neolib pseudoskeptic, Zuckerberg's money can be used for lobbying purposes, too.

The only way to "enforce" whether such a body is living up to its charter, etc., is through a "benefits proceeding."

However, such proceeding is all "inside baseball":

(a) No person may bring an action or assert a claim against a benefit corporation or its directors or officers under this chapter except in a benefit enforcement proceeding.
(b) A benefit enforcement proceeding may be commenced or maintained only as follows:
(1) Directly by the benefit corporation.
(2) Derivatively by any of the following:
(A) A shareholder.
(B) A director.
(C) A person or group of persons that owns beneficially or of record 5 percent or more of the equity interests in an entity of which the benefit corporation is a subsidiary.
(D) Other persons as have been specified in the articles or bylaws of the benefit corporation.
(c) A benefit corporation shall not be liable for monetary damages under this part for any failure of the benefit corporation to create a general or specific public benefit.

So, that would mean the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative corporately, or any shareholders or directors named Priscilla Chan, Mark Zuckerberg or cronies thereof, of such persons unlikely to hold more than 5 percent of the Initiative's stock, are the only people who can do anything about its performance.

Speaking, what is a “public benefit”? In California’s enabling law, it says it is:

(D)efined as a material positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole, as assessed against a 3rd-party standard, as defined, that satisfies certain requirements. 

But, that “third party standard” is undercut by lack of third-party enforcement.

Wikipedia’s article itself notes this, too:

Benefit corporations need not be certified or audited by the third-party standard. Instead, they use third-party standards solely as a rubric a company uses to measure its own performance.

A “rubric.” Is that like a “goldbrick”?

But, I didn’t yet answer what that “specific public benefit” is. Hold on, we’re there:

(e) “Specific public benefit” includes all of the following:
(1) Providing low-income or underserved individuals or communities with beneficial products or services.
(2) Promoting economic opportunity for individuals or communities beyond the creation of jobs in the ordinary course of business.
(3) Preserving the environment.
(4) Improving human health.
(5) Promoting the arts, sciences, or advancement of knowledge.
(6) Increasing the flow of capital to entities with a public benefit purpose.
(7) The accomplishment of any other particular benefit for society or the environment.

Look at No. 7. Ain't THAT a Mack truck-sized loophole?

 

OK, more analysis time.

And, again, per Pro Publica, Hucksterberg gets to save on his tax bill while doing all of this.

So what are the tax implications? They are quite generous to Zuckerberg. I asked Victor Fleischer, a law professor and tax specialist at the University of San Diego School of Law, as well as a contributor to DealBook. He explained that if the LLC sold stock, Zuckerberg would pay a hefty capital gains tax, particularly if Facebook stock kept climbing. 

If the LLC donated to a charity, he would get a deduction just like anyone else. That’s a nice little bonus. But the LLC probably won’t do that because it can do better. The savvier move, Professor Fleischer explained, would be to have the LLC donate the appreciated shares to charity, which would generate a deduction at fair market value of the stock without triggering any tax.

Let’s remember that by him paying less tax, you and I have to pay more for the same government services.

I have no idea if Florida's public benefit organization is anything like California's. But, if it's even close, Column is getting to run a for-profit corporation as a quasi-charity, claiming its "public good" is protecting newspaper public notices, and with that 10 percent off the top on its "let us do it for you option" on legal notices, laughing all the way to the bank while possibly getting some tax write-offs, too. And, per a piece by the Orlando Sun-Sentinel about the creation of Florida's law, it sounds like that is in the same ballpark as California.

So, I now wonder how much of a hard (and fast paced) "sell" TPA got in the first place.

Update: To put it more bluntly, riffing on Gale Sayers and Brian Piccolo? For Column:

1. Column is first;
2. State press associations are second;
3. Individual newspapers are third.

That's the way I see it.

So, how much does TPA get from Column for the "privilege" of it working hand-in-glove to undercut individual member newspapers? Since TPA is not a government (and ditto for other state press associations) it/they aren't subject to state public information / open records laws. And, since I'm not a TPA board member, I can't find out that way. If anybody knows .... 

As for Column's origin story? Well, newspapers shot themselves in the foot as much as anything, Jake. When Dean-o Singleton touted the "TV model" for online newspapers, even though pay cable channels (HBO and Playboy came to mind when I first critically examined Dean-o's md-1990s statement while chairman of the board at AP) had existed since the 1970s, maybe his idea was partially excusable. But, without any benefit of hindsight, it was not totally excusable. Nor was it totally excusable for newspapers to dawdle without paywalls not only into the early 2000s, but even after the Great Recession hit, and started gutting whole classes of display ads, like cars and real estate, beyond the classifieds that Craigslist had already hit. It was even less excusable for Dean-o to trot out I-News, a "lather, rinse, repeat" of the Dallas Snooze's CueCat, after it had already flopped. I also don't get how Jake Seaton could not only be part of a multi-generation daily newspaper family but, even after being a reporter at their newspaper himself, still not know what a public notice was. (I've gotten the occasional story out of a public notice, for doorknob's sake.)

And, speaking of all of this? Column's public notices webpage for TPA is of course ...

NOT PAYWALLED.

Also of interest? Column is NOT a TPA associate member, as of a check just a month ago. Such caring.

Craphouse / 'new Gannett' slouches further toward Gomorrah

 It's not really Gannett, of course, except for branding purposes, and for MY anti-branding purposes, Gatehouse is Craphouse.

So, what HAS Craphouse done now that draws ire?

Decided to slash the editorial page at all its dailies. Well, the print version, at least, as Craphouse is basically looking more and more like Advance on a vulture capitalist budget. No matter how many days a week they print, a print version of an editorial page is Wednesday and Sunday only, and at one Craphouse paper, it's reportedly Sunday only.

Here's the bottom line:

One cartoonist, speaking on background about the decision, said “It’s a cowardly and wholly expected move. Even for those one or two days a week, I’ve been asked to draw ‘unifying’ rather than ‘divisive’ cartoons. In other words, they want Hallmark cards.”

So, in that sense, if Craphouse was essentially running lets-not-offend-MAGAts-too-much cartoons, other than dollars in their wallets, it's not a loss for the cartoonists. The loss for broader American discourse already happened.

Lee Zion says "have my paper" and "I work 100 hours a week"; the not too good to be true backstory

By now, many inside the biz have heard about Lee Zion wanting to gift a small Minnesota weekly paper to "go see the elephant," per an old Civil War phrase, in Ukraine.

First, he's all wet on Ukraine. (As are, within our biz, various freedom of information and free press foundations here in the US who this spring attacked Putin for all of his restrictions on a free press in Russia, but said bupkis about Zelenskyy's similar actions. I refused to run the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas's column by Kelley Shannon when the Texas Press Association forwarded it for Sunshine Week.) And, I've told Zion, in an exchange of emails, that I think he's all wet. I appreciate his love for Ukrainian music and musical instruments, per the Guardian. I like Qawwali music, but, should the Taliban overrun Pakistan, I'm not going fighting on account of that.

On the press side, though, is where I want to look.

First, the part tied to his wanting to become a mercenary. (Let's call a spade a spade.)

What is he going to claim as the stated value of said paper? I mean, he could have a CNHI brain and be valuing the paper at its worth of 20 years ago. Would make a nice tax deduction for him.

Now, I analyze the nutgrafs of what Zion will reveal before handing the keys over to the right person.

What is "profitable"? Can't be THAT profitable if he's running a one-person operation, as it appears. Unless he's greedy, and too capitalistic to care about "sustainable" including his physical and mental health.

And, per another story, no, it's not THAT profitable.

“I’m going into debt to give the newspaper away and into further debt for a plane ticket to Ukraine,” said Zion.

Does he mean debt as far as income, or as far as assets? If he means the former, that's tautological, unless whatever he's going to do in Ukraine is actually lined up and paid. Ditto for having to buy kit to go there. That said, does he mean assets? Is he borrowing money to do this? That would fit with other things I think about m ore.

What is "sustainable"? 100-hour weeks aren't that, in my book.

I address both as an editor of two weeklies that, combined, run a bit over twice his subscribers and probably the same on rack sales.

I work more than 40 hours a week, tis true. Sometimes, well over But, I'll bet that if I took over postal reports, sales and billing (which I don't do), I could still do it in less than 100 hours a week. Might be 80 at RARE times. Not 100. (I write, edit submitted pieces and one regular "stringer," the former editor at the larger paper, shoot, edit submitted photos, paginate, even build my own ads, and deliver papers to post offices, stores and racks on Thursday mornings. I work more than 40, but nowhere near "killing fields.")

And, Zion's not telling the full staffing truth. Besides "stringers," per that "per another story" link? A former employee is writing sports stories and doing sports photos. Since we have a bigger paper in this county (as he does with New Ulm), I don't try to write great sports stories. But, I'm writing them, not somebody else.

I've long been suspicious, sociologically, of people who claim to work 100 hours a week and say it's metaphorical, not literal. Here's why.

If you worked 15 hours a day six days a week, you'd still have to work 10 hours on Sunday to work 100 hours a week. And, that means the 15 hours a day includes a real working lunch at your desk, or else an actual half an hour or hour of extra work. Taking that specific to a small newspaper? You can't sell ads on Sunday. You can finish stories and layout, and editing freelancers, tis true. You can do paperwork. But, if you have enough of that backlogged to Sunday, are you disorganized?

In other words, he's either REALLY disorganized, or else we're in big swinging dick lie claims about "I work 100 hours a week." And, yes, often, it's not just lies, but big swinging dick lies. 

(Update: Per a piece in the second story I did about him, he's got 500 subscribers. So, circulation work isn't that much, nor is delivery to stores for rack sales. Ads probably aren't THAT much work and are more "over the counter" than Zion's cold-calling.)

Next, if you're really that beloved in the community, unless your profitability is that skimpy, you could hire somebody part-time for some of this work. Lee, I know that, you know that, and the doorknob knows that. I suspect that's why, almost two months after throwing this out there, you've not had a taker.

Next, why aren't you selling it to your publishing group, instead? And, yes, folks, Lee Zion isn't totally totally alone. The Lafayette Nicollet Ledger, per its website, is part of a five-newspaper group. (Four plus a shopper, to be precise.)

Well, hold on to THAT thought. According to the Minnesota Newspaper Association's current member directory, the other three plus shopper are now part of Van Hee Media. Lafayette ain't, and has no "news group" affiliation listed. Maybe Lee Zion got put on an island by Jeff and Michelle Van Hee? Here's his profile on LinkedIn.  Their papers also have new websites listed and are not part of the now-former? Prairie Publishing. (Bizapedia had another point person listed for Prairie as of 1 year ago.) Well, no. Those are "mirror" URLs for Prairie Publishing. And their own website URL doesn't load. I don't know what's behind this, but I suspect some sort of fire behind the smoke. And, yes, I definitely see the above as smoke, and even perhaps smoke that smells of Denmark. The plot thickens more with more Googling. Michelle Van Hee is on Muck Rack ... and (drum roll) listed as having written for the Nicollet Ledger!

Next, I'm looking at one of his e-editions.

10 pages. Not sure how to count billing on the single page of graduates on page 10, as I don't know what the Lions paid to put their logo on that page. Interesting that that is NOT part of a graduation special section.

Not counting it as paid at all and setting aside the page entirely? 2 1/2 pages of 9 pages on adhole, not counting obits because I don't know if they're paid or not. (I've moved back away from counting them as part of an adhole in general.) The larger of my papers does well over that as an ad percentage, in part having a local grocery, in non-summer issues. The smaller runs above that on 8 pages.

He's missing some ad tricks. Like no sports booster pages, for No. 1. (Baseball season was still on in his first week of June issue, albeit ending.) Especially if someone is shooting sports pix for him.

He's running too many puzzles, and too long a community calendar, No. 2. He could whack a page (assuming he can run tighter) right there.

Going through current e-editions? 

Two of the other three non-shoppers in that group (IF it's still a group) are SMALLER! As in SIX pages. (And, together, their circ doesn't quite match the Ledger. Tiny!) Sounds like some consolidation is needed is the issue. (Even Madalia, the bigger by ads etc paper, has only the same circ.)

Also, I'd want to know your paper's relationship to the others, per the "smoke."

Then, I'd want to know your background in the business. What were you doing before? I don't see a LinkedIn profile for you. Why did you buy it? How much did you pay? And, how profitable is profitable?

Because more red, or at least yellow, flags have been raised. I see no wife or children mentioned in any of the stories. If you're going into debt to do this, either your paper has made TINY profits or else, even paying off any note to buy the paper, you're not a good manager of personal finances. Second, going into debt to do something like this at age 34 would raise eyebrows. Doing so at age 54? Have you become so burned out that your mental health is in question? Are you hoping for an Ambrose Bierce like denouement to your life? (I personally think Bierce never got to Mexico and speculation that he committed suicide at the Grand Canyon seems likely correct.)

Then, there's one other issue in the Guardian's piece. I've written editorial columns that have been close to "in your face" on political stances. Just wrote one in this week's issue on guns and Texas' social media law, and got lucky that a weird five-justice majority on the Supreme Court still understands the First Amendment. I have NEVER written one that is personally offensive, let alone offering a sexual come-on to my female readership.

Finally, you're 35 miles from Mankato and 80 miles from the Minneapolis part of the Twin Cities. If no laid-off or semi-retired journos are taking you up, there's probably a reason why. Maybe part of it is that despite the "take my paper" claims being straightforward, there's strings attached, like Dave Lewis at Pilot Point, Texas, saying "take over my paper."

So, that's me being a skeptical newspaper editor, Lee Zion.