PublicSource: Our mistreatment at Pittsburgh’s nonprofit newsroom
For journalists, news is a labor of love. It’s late night calls and early-morning meetings. It’s months of trust-building and data mining. It’s cold coffee and quick lunches. Our work is an extension of ourselves. We don’t do this for the money. We do this because we care about our communities. Because we believe in speaking truth to power. We understand how imperative it is to tell the stories of vulnerable people, amplify their voices, right wrongs wherever possible and to attempt to contribute to a society where everyone is treated with equity and respect.
It is in the spirit of this labor, that we publish this letter today.
Pittsburgh is blessed with many talented journalists and reporters. But evidence keeps mounting that some of our local media leaders are not up to the job of making sure our city’s journalists can tell the most important and difficult stories; ones that hold the most powerful to account and truly challenge a status quo that harms so many of our neighbors.
One of us will remain nameless for fear of retribution from a new employer, but the four of us provide the following experiences working at PublicSource not to expose a bad boss or work environment, but as another concrete example of the structural and institutional problems in journalism.
While much attention in Pittsburgh has been focused on the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and its mistreatment of the unionized workers there — an obviously important issue — PublicSource employees, just across town, regularly worked well beyond a 40-hour work week with no additional compensation, even when funders provided fellowship and other money for specific projects. There was also no policy or schedule for how an employee could get a raise. The executive director, with her six-figure salary, (nearly $120,000) was making far more than twice — in some cases three times — as much as her reporters.
The most recent IRS filing by PublicSource shows a fund balance of nearly $1.9 million.
At PublicSource, there were no concrete policies on sick time, vacation time and no human resources representative to address possible instances of discrimination or bullying. A policy addressing employee conduct on social media was not drafted until days before management threatened to fire a reporter for tweets he had posted.
The lack of a human resources representative meant that management subjected multiple employees to so-called performance improvement plans that threatened their employment when workplace issues arose. Worse, the lack of a human resources representative meant, in one instance, that an employee was required to share personal physical and mental health information with the same managers who controlled his employment, as part of a performance improvement plan. That policy also led to the unwelcome outing of that employee, who identifies as LGBTQ.
Two of us left PublicSource out of duress and frustration. Overworked, underpaid, and put through threats of punishment for bizarre and unevenly applied policies, we chose our health and well-being over any hope of doing the work we cared about.
Two of us were fired under dubious circumstances and for stated reasons that violated no established policies, and actions that many newsroom leaders would consider part of a reporter’s job.
All of our departures occurred within weeks of each other in the fall of 2019, yet this seemed to raise no red flags with the PublicSource board.
Our stories show clear patterns of poor management and editorial judgment.
In July 2020, we sent the accompanying letters of our experiences to PublicSource’s Board of Directors and asked that they conduct an independent investigation into our claims. While the executive director also sits on the Board of Directors, we did not share our letters with her given that they involved her conduct and policies. A week later, the board leader thanked us for doing so and told us the board planned to launch an investigation into our claims. We were optimistic.
Instead, we received a message from an expensive defense attorney on behalf of PublicSource, who specializes in defending employers against discrimination claims and whistleblowers. We wondered: Is this where PublicSource’s donation money is going?
We took that action as a clear signal that PublicSource’s leadership had no interest in taking a serious and impartial look at our concerns but to defend against them. Note that none of us have or plan to file any EEOC complaints or legal actions.
With no hope for a serious internal review on their part, we hope making our experiences public will contribute to a greater discussion about the importance of local journalism, the crucial need for a concrete wall between funding streams and editorial decisions, and for better treatment of our city’s journalists.
And again, we ask the PublicSource leadership and board of directors: Conduct an independent investigation into the claims we make here today, this time in good faith. We do this not for money or other ill aim but for accountability. We know we were harmed by the policies, people and culture at PublicSource and if it is to continue in its reputation as a news outlet that makes the unheard heard, a publication that holds the powerful to account, it itself must be held accountable.
Attached are versions of letters we sent to the PublicSource board in July. We encourage you to read each to fully understand our experiences.
Brittany Hailer (Personal Letter)
Mary Niederberger (Personal Letter)
Anonymous former employee (Personal Letter)
Tom Lisi (Personal Letter)