Local News

Press Talk: This run of white water will end

Saturday, October 11 | 5:05 a.m.

Back in 1950, when the livin’ was easy, gas was cheap and a good job was there for you, the movie “All About Eve” showed up in theaters.

Bette Davis, one of the stars, had this to say about a party she was attending:

“Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.”

Today, when the livin’ is hard, gas is expensive and a good job is tough to find, we find ourselves at a party we’d rather not be at.

It’s a very, very, bumpy ride.

If this is white water, we can’t quite see the calm ahead. But surely it is there.

That, I am confident of.

At The Columbian, we’re in the same boat with most of you. And that, as most of you have heard, is forcing us to move back to our old building.

Our new building was a great idea at the time. But in these difficult economic conditions, it doesn’t work financially for us.

So we did what any reasonable family or business would do: We began the process of getting out from under our debt so we can get back on track. And there are two ways to do this. Lease the new building or sell it.

All of this takes a little time, of course, but our loan payments still are there.

So we need a way to get that time. And that can happen two different ways:

n Renegotiate our loan with the bank.

n File for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The second option has created a little stir, mainly because not everyone understands Chapter 11. So some will shout about how we’re near bankruptcy.

But Chapter 11 is — first and foremost — a reorganization. It allows a company like ours time. Time to, you guessed it, move to the old building and sell or lease the new building.

I should add we’re still hopeful that we won’t have to file Chapter 11. But if we do, readers and advertisers won’t notice much difference.

The Columbian will hit your porch very early every morning. Reporters and photographers will fill the paper with good stuff.

And we will continue to get results for those who advertise with us. In fact if I were marketing us to advertisers, this would be my pitch.

“You’re not gambling with your advertising dollars when you place them with The Columbian. Whether it be in the newspaper or on our Web site, we give better results than anyone out there in Clark County.

“We’re your best bet!”

So what does this all mean? Hang in there. We’ll be there for you. And we hope you’ll be there for us.

Sure you see a lot of negative vibes out there about us. But let them speak, please. Newspapers have fought for their right to do so.

Yes, there are those who find joy in the struggles of others. But that’s OK. Without ugliness it would be difficult to recognize beauty. And there have been dozens of everyday folks who have stopped us to say nice things.

For The Columbian, we’re moving forward.

We’re excited about this community, fortunate to live and work in Clark County. We’ve played a role here for more than 100 years and plan to do so for at least another 100 years.

We’ve got a big boat. It’s mostly made up of good vibes and support and high hopes and hard work and those who are looking to move ahead.

And we’ll move ahead by informing the community and telling stories — both good and bad. Stories that will sometimes make you cry and other times make you laugh.

It will still be a bumpy ride for a while. But we’ll get through it.

Join us please.

Lou Brancaccio is The Columbian’s editor. Reach him at 360-735-4505 or lou.brancaccio@columbian.com.

by Marketing Consultant : 10/11/08 8:54am - Report Abuse

Lou, we believe there is no way to sugarcoat the fact that your credibility is in the toilet.

This piece is a fine example. Two days ago the Oregonian reported that the City of Vancouver was considering bailing out Scott's sinking raft. His downtown gamble didn't pay, according to the Oregonian. The Columbian waited a day to report this news and you have not made mention of it here.

Perhaps you were sleeping through most of your journalism classes but omission of significant points can and will hurt your credibility. It is difficult to believe that the newspaper that became the story didn't have this information.

Why does this matter? First off, you wrote last summer that the building failure wasn't impacting decision-making at the Columbian. Some would see that as a lie.

Secondly, as you honorably mention here, these are tough times. Folks in Vancouver are struggling. The city is struggling with a budget deficit. Higher taxes are the last thing a struggling family, a person on a fixed income watching their savings disappear, or a worker recently the victim of layoffs need right now. For the city to consider spending more than $30 million to bail out a downtown gamble is downright insulting. As the economy worsens crime increases. This is a time to invest in city services while minimizing the impact higher taxes might have on citizens.

You don't mention any of that here and that is why your credibility is in the toilet, Lou.

Since the majority of Clark County doesn't subscribe to the Columbian this may not seem to matter much to you. It should. Following your reasoning here about the downtown gamble and Scott Campbell's business nearing bankruptcy, one could make the stretch that the Columbian doesn't need to move. That's why your credibility is in the toilet.

One other point. it might be best to let the Advertising Director do their job and you do yours. Again, this is about credibility.

Well, gotta go. I just saw some homeless folks gathering in Esther Short Park. Thought I'd buy them some lunch.

by Cindy Cleveland : 10/11/08 10:35am - Report Abuse

Wow, The City of VANCOUVER bailing them out?? They must have the tax payers money flowing out of their pockets! Didn't they just pay 1.65 Million on the Sharma case and also on 4 to 5 other city employee lawsuits due to the mis management of the superiors there? They sure have the bucks when they want to, but cry wolf to the taxpayers when the Police and Fire budgets don't jive! Tell me what's wrong with THIS PICTURE??

by Lou Brancaccio : 10/11/08 11:48am - Report Abuse

Thanks much (Mr. Consultant for the e-mail.) Let's go through some of your points. You say two days ago The Oregonian reported that the city might be interested in The Columbian building. Then you went out to say we waited a day. Two days ago was Thursday. We had a story that the city might be interested in our building. On Thursday. On our front page. By the way, we had a second story about the city being interested in our building. On Friday. On our front page.

You say I had written a column in the summer saying the building wasn't impacted decision making here. Not true again. Here's what I wrote: "Our new building is what has created this economic mess for us." Clearly our new building is an expense. No one would suggest otherwise. But it simply isn't the reason why we are having to make cutbacks. Dozens of other newspapers acorss the country are making similar cutbacks. None of these newspaper has a new building as far as I know."

And that point is still true today. We still have to get our expenses in line with our revenues, regardless of the new building.

Finally you say that it hurts our credibility because it was not mention in my column that the city is considering buying the building. But this isn't a column about that. And, as mentioned, we aren't hiding it. We had two front page stories on it. This column was about the struggles we are going through.

I don't mean to let the facts get in the way of your comments because I realize most comments aren't intended to be fact based. But I thought you might want to know. Thanks much.

by g kortes : 10/11/08 12:22pm - Report Abuse

While I'm still sorry for the Columbian's loss of property, and disappointed they can't remain in the new building, this is a decent article and fine rebuttal.
I must also say that the probable deal with the City looks shady. Just how can the City afford the building when police cutbacks have been mentioned? I would resent taxpayers bailing out The Columbian.
I also think there's been agreements among the City, Columbian and the Columbia Credit Union. Why do I think so? Because, as you recall, Columbia Credit Union had a branch office in the vicinity that was bought for all this area. The Save CCU group "fought" to save the credit union from becoming a bank, but the members (owners) were denied access to the board meeting minutes. I submitted weekly updates in Letters to the Editor on happenings, such as the police intervention called out by Columbia Credit Union. Having had up to a thousand letters published up to that point, ALL my letters were denied publication. That had never happened before. That is the whole reason I dropped my subscription.
I suspect something going on with the City, Columbian and Columbia Credit Union! It doesn't look good.

by Lou Brancaccio : 10/11/08 1:16pm - Report Abuse

Thanks G. Appreciate the comments. Did you ever speak to Editorial Page Editor John Laird about your letters? If not, I'd suggest you give him a call or e-mail him. And, if you would, call or e-mail City Reporter Jeff Mize on your other assumptions. I don't have any detail on that but he could check it out. And you're always welcome to e-mail me at lou.brancaccio@columbian.com. Thanks again.

by Rock VanHalen : 10/25/08 12:22pm - Report Abuse

dear marketing consultanat, thx for writing cuz it made "good vibes lou" have to be serious which is what he hould always be cuz he stinks when he tries 2 b funny. like one of thoe pathetic weathermen who try so hard. but at least lou is safe, based on hi hndsome pic in paper he is cloe to retirement and wont care soon.