PressEthic

A 27 October 2006 article by Michael Burke in a Racine, Wisconsin newspaper, The Journal Times, appeared under the headline: "Modine fires 50, another 50 jobs go dark."

It seems mundane and harmless enough. But David Rayburn, President of Modine Manufacturing -- where the firing occurred -- begged to differ.

In an Opinion Page commentary published in The Journal Times on 2 November 2006, Rayburn argued that displaying the word "fires" prominently in the story's headline was "insensitive" of the paper. He clarified that the Modine employees had not been fired; instead their positions had been "eliminated, based on a careful business decision, carried out after careful consideration."

"It was very insensitive to these employees' hard work and service to characterize their situation in the sensational way you did," Rayburn wrote.

He noted that "several" of the fired/eliminated employees had said they were "hurt and embarrassed" by the headline and even "worried about what it would do to their chances of getting a new job." Rayburn added that others -- including current and retired Modine employees and members of the community -- were "angry and disappointed by the insensitivity of The Journal Times."

I would argue that newspaper editors have 'bigger fish to fry' than quibbling over the semantics of public relations. An independent newspaper is not an instrument of public relations (err, well it's not supposed to be!). Rayburn was interviewed by The Journal Times reporter and had his opportunity to state his position. Rayburn's control of the story's fine-tuning ends at that point.

In selecting the shorter word, "fires", for the story's headline, The Journal Times didn't change the meaning of the facts conveyed by the headline. Perhaps "fires" has a slightly harsher tone, but in all likelihood, space constraints prevented using the longer synonyms for "fires" (such as "terminates" or "eliminates") that appeared throughout the article.

Given this, it was honorable of The Journal Times to publish Rayburn's objections. I would imagine that there are undoubtedly bigger issues that could have filled that bit of the paper's Opinion Page real estate.

Still, Rayburn's argument is not completely unfounded. His final point is a good one, which journalists might do well to remember.

"We ask that in the future you reflect on how words can have a huge impact on the lives of the people in the community which you serve," he wrote.

Agreed.