In a bizarre op-ed titled “Mercy owes community more details on its cuts” in Sunday’s Janesville Gazette, the Gazette editor lashed out at Mercy Hospital’s executive decision to keep the details of possible service cuts out of the public eye, at least until after all of their internal affairs are re-aligned and effected employees are informed.
The editor however, felt the newspaper should have been the first to hear about the cuts and that Mercy had much to discuss in the public forum, even trying to pin the hospital’s quasi-public/private business status as reason enough to throw their employee’s privacy and dignity under a bus. I completely disagree.
The next few years will be a tough time for workers in Janesville, and to find out whether or not you have a job tomorrow is first discovered by reading a newspaper is an arrogant, heartless and ignorant way for it to be handled. Other major employers in Rock County would do well on the behalf of their workers and customers by following in mercy’s footsteps.
This sort of sensitive information should be disseminated at the speed of the business in question, not at the urgency to satisfy the thirst of a third party informational service need-to-know. In this instance, employees and customers of the hospital are the only interest that must be served and protected, not the newspaper’s. Mercy did the right thing.
NOTE: Gazette Op-Ed Weblink not available
3 comments:
Wonder who the Gazette and their minions have to kick around once the UAW and GM workers are gone?
Louis,
You once again have twisted yourself in knots to criticize the Gazette. It's amazing how far you go to get to the opposite side of the newspaper.
I never suggested that the newspaper should have been the first to hear of Mercy's cuts. You totally - and conveniently - missed the point.
What I suggested was that Mercy should have had a plan for releasing the information and that it owed the community details on just what services it was cutting. That plan certainly should have included telling employees first. That's a no-brainer. But Mercy should have anticipated the fallout in the community and been prepared to quickly follow up with specifics to the Gazette and other media. It's been clear for years how sensitive this community is to decisions by Mercy, particularly those involving services, and how quickly word and rumors spread.
As a champion of working men and women and the disenfranchised, you should appreciate how important it is for Mercy to explain what services it is cutting to the elderly and less fortunate and what steps it took to ensure that those people's needs wouldn't be ignored.
That was the point of the column. And if you weren't so bent on criticizing our every move, you would have seen that.
Scott Angus
Editor, The Janesville Gazette
Your column described the newspapers repeated attempt to extract information from a another party, and attempt bordering on paparazzi. If Mercy fails to deliver the details to their customers and employees - its a reflection on Mercy - not the newspaper. But you've found it necessary to clear yourself at their expense for some reason.
For a spell up until the recent editorials, I think I've been soft on the paper.
Scott, thank you for expressing your view.
Post a Comment