Half Moon Bay Review reporters don’t stay on the job for much more than a year. The last six reporters averaged thirteen months at the Review. This is barely enough time for a reporter to acquire basic knowledge of their beats before they move on to bigger and better things. Couple this with the fact that many are in their first professional reporting job, and it’s clear that they’re at a disadvantage in covering Coastside news.
This analysis is based the bylines in the Reviews online archives, and does not include two reporters who have been with the Review for more than a decade. Mark Foyer covers sports and Stacy Trevenon covers community organizations and events. But neither covers A-section news.
In preparing to write this, I had email conversation about these issues with Review editor Clay Lambert. He was justifiably proud of the quality of his recent recruits. I also think the quality of the Review has improved in recent years, at least in terms of the breadth and promptness of its coverage—especially its coverage of breaking news on its website. But it’s challenged when it comes to covering what’s happening beyond last week’s board meetings.
Many of the reasons for this are beyond the Review’s control. As a weekly newspaper in a sleepy news market, the paper isn’t going to be the first choice for seasoned reporters, nor is it a place where top performers will want to hang around. At a board meeting a few years ago, we sat next to a Review reporter who was muttering over and over to themselves, “I hate my stupid job”. Covering our stupid boards is not something you’re going to want to do for more than a year or so.
The Review is destined to always be a training ground. Recent college grads looking for journalism jobs are entering an industry in decline. Small town papers are doing relatively well, and can offer professional experience that new reporters can’t get anywhere else. And if you’ve read a few local weeklies, you know that the Review is a lot better than most. Most folks who’ve talked to Review reporters in the last few years has been impressed with their intelligence and sincerity.
Even the best, most experienced reporters who have been working a beat for years will have problems adequately explaining complex issues to their readers. Inexperienced reporters must take opposing views at face value because they can’t judge the validity of the arguments.
The Review’s reporters are also working harder than ever. The average number of stories per week by Review reporters has grown by 50% in the last four years. Before he left, David Smydra averaged nearly two news stories every working day. And this doesn’t include a lot of breaking news stories on the Review’s website, which has only started in the last two years.
I’m not convinced that anyone else could do a better job of managing the Review’s turnover. But it’s important to consider the limitations that face the paper in covering significant local issues that affect us all.
I know first-hand many/most here despise the HMB Review... but Barry...taking 7 paragraphs, to finally elude to lack of veteranship and the quality of journalistic heed thereof...
Come on, just come out and say next time. Let me do it for you here:
"I know we all despise the Review, and here is another point that they have a bunch of rookies that are either young, short-breathed on topics that "we" care about, and you can never trust them, but Clay, don't take it personally".
It's a shame the Coastsider can't seem to maintain a sense of neutrality. Seriously. Sorry to lay it out there Mr Parr.