Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Al Diamon
Warning: Don’t be Aggressive
The economy is weak and getting weaker.
The budget is tight and getting tighter.
The bottom line is dismal and getting more so.
Those ominous statements were already echoing through nearly every newsroom in Maine, when, on April 8, the volume got turned up. That was the day Hannaford Bros. supermarkets let it be known there would be serious financial consequences for any media outlet that got too “aggressive” in pursuing the story of the security breach that allowed hackers to steal credit and debit card numbers from over 4 million of the company’s customers.
Hannaford is one of the biggest advertisers in the state, both in print and on the airwaves. As such, it’s been treated with unusual respect and considerable care by reporters from newspapers and TV stations, ever since word of the data theft was announced in mid-March. There were no loud voices demanding to know why the company waited more than two weeks to inform its customers their accounts were in danger. There were few follow-up questions when Hannaford spokespeople answered inquiries about who would bear the costs of the crime by reading unresponsive prepared statements. There was little outrage when Hannaford waited an additional two weeks to issue a tepid apology.
One of the few exceptions was WGME-TV, Channel 13 in Portland. Reporter Diana Ichton distinguished herself, on occasion, by refusing to be deflected by all that corporate-speak. If Ichton didn’t think the company’s front-person had answered her questions, she asked them again. And again. And again.
This strategy didn’t necessarily result in Ichton getting better information, but at least she tried. That’s more than can be said for most of her competitors.
Hannaford noticed the difference. The company, which had temporarily cancelled its advertising everywhere immediately after the story broke, announced this week that it was resuming normal media buys. With one exception:
WGME.
When the station asked for a reason, inquiring as to whether there had been errors or inaccuracies in its reporting, Hannaford would only say that Channel 13’s coverage had been too “aggressive.”
Not wrong. Not sensational. Just “aggressive.”
Usually, when somebody says that about news coverage, it’s a compliment.
This time, whether intentional or not, it served as a warning to the entire Maine media: Take what we give you. Don’t push for more. If you do, you’ll pay a price.
WGME’s management reacted with the standard line in such cases. “Although we respect Hannaford’s right to spend its advertising dollars where it wishes,” said general manager Terry Cole in a prepared statement of his own, “we make all editorial decisions relating to news coverage independently of our sales efforts.”
WGME is owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, a corporation with a well-deserved reputation for paying attention to its bottom line. Whether Sinclair stands firm in the long term, figuring the benefits of being seen as “aggressive” outweigh the financial consequences, or whether it quietly makes concessions to a major sponsor, remains to be seen.
In the same category: whether the rest of the media reacts by treating Hannaford more like they would if the company were an errant politician, a bungling bureaucrat or a ruthless speculator, or whether they continue to accept the supermarket chain’s non-responses – and its money.
— Filed April 9, 2008
Al Diamon can be e-mailed at aldiamon@herniahill.net.
Posted on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 in Permalink
Views expressed in this blog belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect either Down East's editorial stance or the views of Down East Enterprise. We ask that comments be civil; anyone who refuses to self edit runs the risk of being banned from commenting on Down East.com content. Further, please limit material cited from other publications to fewer than 75 words and a link; anything more riles copyright attorneys.
Reader Comments:
Nothing in the PPH as of 4/10 edition and WCSH basicly giving Hannaford a free pass, there needs to be some accountability on this issue. These two media outlets have dropped the ball by sugurcoating/ignoring this situation
Good for you, Al...and good for WGME! I'm now in week three, waiting for my new debit card; and I now have to notify a few companies that their automatic payments will need to be drawn from a different account. It has been a huge pain.
I don't hold Hannaford at fault for the original hacker thing....but I do resent their arrogance and lack of concern for their customers.
Actually, the PPH had something on the WGME/Hannaford brouhaha in Wednesday's paper.
The media needs more reporters and journalists that are honest and assertive like WGME's Diana Ichton. It is what the general public deserves...well done.
Hannaford's non-response to the credit card breach has at long last exposed the company's plantation mentality for all to see. Hannaford has long used its market dominance to crush independent supermarkets, keep competitors from mounting a strong challenge and silence critics. Remember when a competitor tried to build a supermarket in Kennebunk? Hannaford tied it up for years and only Stop & Shop's tenacity pulled them through. Hannaford also financed a group opposed to a Stop & Shop in Portland, which appears to have killed the project (not coincidentally, another Hannaford was built just a few blocks away as the project was being evaluated.) And recently Hannaford bought a long-vacant strip center just a half-mile from its flagship store in Scarborough. Do they really plan to do anything with it, or are they just hoarding real estate to keep out competition? Whole Foods and Stop & Shop had been talked about as tenants prior to the Hannaford purchase. It's time Hannaford got the scrutiny it deserves.
I was prepared to accept this ongoing narrative of WGME as the crusading truth-tellers and Hannaford as the big corporate bully. I was, that is, until I learned that WGME 'reporter' Diana Ichton interviewed her boyfriend Jason as part of the Hannaford story. Isn't this a fundamental breach of journalistic ethics? And doesn't this make one even more suspicious of WGME's notorious policy of inadequately identifying on-camera interviewees? How many more 'ringers' are there in the WGME 'news' archives?
Hannaford can place its advertising dollars as it sees fit. If not with one - for whatever reason - than so be it. Credit card breaches occur more often than any of us like to imagine. Hannaford is not the exception — how many times has TJMaxx has been hit by credit breaches? A community-minded reporter could explain fraud regulations and ease consumers' fearful minds -- might take three phone calls/interviews to get the complete picture. Any fraudulent activity is covered by major credit-issuing bank and smaller banks also have fraud control through Visa/MC. Has any Maine media reported the who and how of credit card fraud? Who really loses when fraudulent activity takes place? Is it direct to the consumer, or the issuing bank? If no one has reported, have they at least published a public service announcement from the better business bureau?
The sky is not falling over this breach -- or the placement of ads.