Sadly, the editors backed down from their statement the next day.
On March 29, Editor John Armstrong was back with another letter to the readers. The front page backfired, he wrote contritely, because it caused "revulsion in many of you."
Speaking later, Armstrong denied the note was a retraction or apology of any kind. "You can characterize it any way you want," Armstrong said. "I don't think of it as an apology." He also insisted he never admitted to a mistake.
But the tone was clear. He wrote that "there are lessons to be learned" from the negative response. Among them, "we must never fail to exercise restraint, to doublecheck ourselves."
And, he said, "[w]e come away from the experience ... concluding that we failed to exhibit the degree of respect and restraint that our readers have come to expect from us."
It came off as patronizing, intellectually dishonest mush. The layout was a grabber. It was guaranteed to stir a response.
Why the apology? Why not just let angry readers write letters, and publish as many as possible?
"There's a certain expectation your readers have as to what kind of newspaper you are. Any time you move out of that field of comfort, you need to do it carefully," Armstrong said.
But there's a crucial distinction between respecting readers and condescending to them. Failing to make that distinction is a prescription for failure.
And what about future controversial stories? The photo flip-flop will not have a chilling effect on the paper, Armstrong asserted. But he acknowledged that in the future, editors will consider reader expectations when making news decisions.
Although perhaps oversolicitous of its readers, The Sunday Times is almost certain to be an improvement over the five poorly written, parochial papers it replaced.
Even Ben Bagdikian, the UC Berkeley dean of media monopoly watchdogs, is glad that Knight-Ridder came to Contra Costa: "A lot of people were relieved that Knight-Ridder bought the papers. It has a higher reputation for news, and [the late] Mr. [Dean] Lesher didn't. It [Knight-Ridder] also is not so dumb as to ignore the fact that this is a growth area."
Knight-Ridder's record is hardly one of unqualified support for journalistic quality. Its flagship paper, the Miami Herald, was beset by staff defections a few years ago amid salary freezes and rumors of layoffs and buyouts.
But Knight-Ridder's recent $1.65 billion purchase of four Disney-owned papers is a notable commitment to the future of newspapers.
At the least, with the creation of The Sunday Times, Knight-Ridder is now better-positioned to take advantage if Dean Singleton's Alameda Newspaper Group and faltering flagship, the Oakland Tribune, lose much more ground in the Oakland market.
Armstrong and Riggs both declined to speculate on future moves in regard to Oakland.
But the Antioch Ledger-Dispatch's Diokno says that "everybody's poised" to go into Oakland, his old professional stomping grounds.
And if Knight-Ridder does go in, muses Bagdikian, "it'll be decided by a computer analysis instead of an individual wanting to take on Dean Singleton."
Phyllis Orrick can be reached at SF Weekly, Attn: Unspun, 425 Brannan, San Francisco, CA 94107; phone: (415) 536-8139; e-mail: porrick@sfweekly.com.
