The Reynolds Center has announced its 2009-10 free workshop schedule.
Select a workshop and register from the drop-down menu below.
The Reynolds Center registration for Fall 2009 free online seminars.
By Chris Roush
March 28, 2007
There are days when I get tears of joy in my eyes thinking about the future of business journalism.
Consider the following e-mail I received from one of my students. It stated: "Just read the amended S-4 for the Smithfield Foods/Premium Standard Farms merger and it's amazing. I love the amended S-4. It has a blow-by-blow recounting of the lead up to the merger agreement, which includes every meeting and conference call. ... Good stuff."
Wow. It's that kind of gung-ho attitude about reading SEC filings -- in his spare time no less, not for a class assignment -- that just warms my heart and makes me think that business journalism is in good hands down the road. I looked at the filing, and the student is right. There is a strong story in this filing about how this deal was negotiated, including that there was another bidder for Premium and that Smithfield raised its offer three times last year before Premium agreed to a deal.
But then I start to think about the current state of the industry, and then I do some research and discover that none of the business reporters at any of the papers in the two states -- Virginia and Missouri -- where these companies are located have bothered to write this follow-up story to a $675 million deal, much less read the filing. None of the wire services have picked it up either, as near as I can tell.
Hey, these are the two largest pork producers in the country, and they want to combine operations. Combined, they'd have more than $12 billion in revenue and employ more than 55,000 workers. Why isn't any business reporter paying attention?
My guess is this: Most business desks, if you excuse the pun, have been cut to the bone. They're short-staffed, and they no longer have the time to wade through SEC filings looking for stories. Their reporters are also being merged with metro desks and being asked to work weekends.
The reporters that remain are too busy chasing other stories that have to be written that day to fill up the section. Their bosses -- not the business editor, but others in the hierarchy -- probably don't want them reading time-consuming documents that may -- or may not -- lead to a story.
Because part of my job is to show students examples of how great stories can come from public records, I've encountered too many examples of SEC filings which uncovered stories in recent years to think this is an isolated incident.
If we're missing stories like this by not reading SEC filings -- either because we don't have the time or we don't want to -- then I think I need to go sit in the corner and have a good cry.
Copyright © 2008 Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism
As maybe the journalist who covers Smithfield the most, I certainly took this personally. And all I can say is, you're dead right. We are short-staffed too. The business team has to produce a centerpiece for our section every day, and are often getting those stories taken for the other sections. And we're down a position. Personally, I love digging through SEC filings and it's part of my daily routine. I spent yesterday digging through a proxy to do today's story on Dominion's CEO and board pay. But do I have time for anything all that substantial? Rarely. This also leaves out one other issue - look at how long the SA-4 is. When I glanced at the early versions, it looked like a lot of boilerplate. Problem is, I can't spend hours pouring through a document if that time might not yield a story. Our need for volume is that great. I read every annual filing of the companies I cover closely regardless because it's essential. But even with seeing what's in it - a great story that some editors would feel like few of our readers would really care about - I'm not sure if I'd get, or have, the time to do it. Do I sacrifice the story about Wal-Mart and other companies slashing their taxes through a loophole, which I'm doing this week? I have at least two other much more local pressing series about scams that target local people I want to do - and I might have one day a week to work on. Which of those should I sacrifice for a story of corporate intrigue? It's a great story, but I doubt it will ever get done here.
Posted by: Chris Flores | March 29, 2007 10:26 AM
Well, I too must confess that it's my job to cover Smithfield now...though I literally just started a week or two ago. It's overwhelming at times...especially when we're understaffed. I spend most of my time at home in the evenings trying to catch up on filings. I agree with Chris...my list of stories that need to get done is long and getting longer everyday. It's no wonder I only have time to sit down with the filings on evenings and weekends.
Posted by: Mary Worrell | March 30, 2007 10:22 AM
To add to Mary's thought: Ironically, I always caught up with SEC filings - along with huge regulatory filings for the utilities and telecoms I cover here - on weekends and nights too. But now I'm working on an MBA at nights at William & Mary, so my nights and weekends are completely gone. All of a sudden I realize to what extent the majority of the journalism I did with depth was primarily researched and at least partly written at home unpaid. That's also precisely the reason I'm getting an MBA. And for as little work time as I had before for work with depth, it's even worse now with producing multiple versions of stories to meet online expectations.
Posted by: Chris Flores | March 30, 2007 12:19 PM