The Nordstrom Story: Was It Handled Fairly?

A front-page correction of a story about Nordstrom prompted some reporters at The Seattle Times to fear the newspaper was giving favored treatment to a big advertiser.

Other reporters, meanwhile, expressed concern that the paper had joined a media mass attack on Nordstrom, which until recently has been a Northwest icon worshipped to idolatry (as in the license-plate frames that say, ``I'd rather be shopping at Nordstrom'').

A front-page article in the Wall Street Journal on Feb. 20 that also took up most of page A 12 launched the attacks. It followed by several days a finding by the state Department of Labor & Industries that Nordstrom did not pay employees for work done ``off the clock.''

``Off the clock'' is one of those phrases that enrich or debase our language depending upon your tolerance for linguistic innovation. It refers to some of the tasks that have enriched Nordstrom's reputation for excellent service - thank-you notes written away from work, clothes delivered by clerks to customers' homes, even stocking of shelves.

The Journal's article, by Susan C. Faludi, presented a series of grim anecdotes about unhappy, anxious employees who scrambled for commissions, promotions and company recognition. But her article failed to put into perspective the organizing efforts of a union, United Food and Commercial Workers, whose allegations led to the state's investigation.

``In context,'' said an editorial in the Journal American of Bellevue, ``the story made too little of the union's search for a tool to dig a deeper foothold in the company.'' Quite right.

A series of local stories ensued. One such was written by Tim Healy, business reporter for The Times. He has followed Nordstrom events for six months.

On Friday, Feb. 23, Healy arrived early for work. He had learned that two days earlier Nordstrom had distributed a memo to employees with their paychecks. He wanted to know if it spelled out a change of policy. About 7 a.m. he reached at home Kellie Tormey, a

spokeswoman for Nordstrom. She replied affirmatively to his question about a change, said she was uncertain about a couple of other questions and would check back.

Healy wrote a story for the first edition. It was headlined ``Nordstrom says/ it will pay OT.'' It ran on Page 1.

About 9 a.m. he talked again with Tormey, who by then was with the personnel director. This time she said policy had not changed. A second call reiterated that. Healy notified his supervisors and the story was dropped from subsequent editions.

Later that day, Healy discussed the story with Steve Dunphy, the business editor, and Carol Pucci, Dunphy's assistant editor. As is customary, Healy wrote a proposed corrective, presuming that as usual it would be published on Page A 2.

Instead, he was surprised Saturday morning to find a revised, much broader correction on Page 1, under the headline ``Correction: Nordstrom/ pay policy is unchanged.''

That angered Healy. In a memo to Dunphy he said the correction attributed an error to his story that he didn't make. ``I feel The Times unnecessarily flogged itself with the correction and unfairly flogged me,'' Healy wrote.

``It's ironic,'' Healy also noted, ``that on the following working day (Monday) after Nordstrom said its position hadn't changed, the company announced a major policy initiative with the establishment of a $15 million fund to pay back-wage claims.''

But Healy's lead on Friday said, without attribution, that Nordstrom had backed away from its earlier position. And the headline, not written by Healy, clearly was incorrect; overtime isn't involved.

My own guess is that Nordstrom's public-relations people got ahead of the policy makers and had to backtrack. There may also be a subtle distinction between policy and procedure that has not been adequately explained.

Dunphy is chagrined that Healy didn't know the correction would be on Page 1 and apologized to him. Dunphy says it is Times policy to correct front-page mistakes on Page 1. So does Alex MacLeod, the managing editor.

The Newsroom Policies and Guidelines says flatly, however, ``All corrections are run on Page A 2.''

The Times' library does not designate where in the paper past corrections were published. The last correction on Page 1 that MacLeod could remember involved an exaggeration of the size of cracks in Interstate 5. That was corrected on Nov. 9, 1984.

It seems likely that mistakes have been made on Page 1 of The Times since then.

The legislative adage that laws, like sausages, are best made unwatched probably applies to corrections, too. Certainly there were fluffs in this process.

To my eyes, however, the mishandling does not constitute either favoritism or bashing - only the typically untidy operation of the wayward press.

The ombudsman represents readers. Comments and criticism are welcome. Write him at The Seattle Times, P.O. Box 70, Seattle 98111. Or call 464-8979.