It’s no secret that Tennessean editor Frank Sutherland and managing editor Dave Green have different ideas about the role of a daily newspaper.

Sutherland, who subscribes more to the old-school thinking but has ceded day-to-day control of the newsroom to Green, believes in a newspaper with a more activist bent, one that rights wrongs, gives voice to the voiceless, helps the downtrodden. Green feels a newspaper should not take it upon itself to set such an agenda. He believes a newspaper should hold a mirror up to the community and report what goes on.

That The Tennessean’s top leaders don’t agree on the mission of the paper only underscores a perception in the newsroom that the paper has no clear direction.

Former Tennessean business reporter Will Pinkston, now a staff writer at The Wall Street Journal, says he doesn’t think that “The Tennessean stands for much of anything, except attracting as many readers as it can.” He defends that position, however, by saying “there’s not as much necessity or opportunity today as there was yesterday for newspapers to stand for something.”

However, another former business reporter for the paper, David A. Fox, says the opportunity’s there—if the newspaper would only recognize it. “I think if The Tennessean regularly identified important missions for its newsroom and editorial staffs, the writers would respond to the challenge, and the community would regard the paper as more of a mover and shaker in the city, which would boost readership.”

The debate hasn’t been lost on the paper’s staff. In January 2000, Tennessean journalists drafted an internal document intended to voice their concerns about the direction of the paper to management. According to several Tennessean staffers directly involved in the process, these were the issues that led to its drafting: Sutherland was not in the office much; Green couldn’t communicate with his staff; quality reporters were leaving for other papers; and many editors felt they were getting beaten on big stories.

To help improve matters, Catherine Mayhew, then the paper’s managing editor for news, decided to throw a Hawaiian party in the newsroom. They staged a limbo contest and plugged a Jimmy Buffett tape into a boom box. Reporters throughout the newsroom groaned. “This was The Tennessean’s answer to morale problems at the paper,” one staffer says. “It was a silly response to deep-seated editorial problems and a fundamental lack of leadership.”

Shortly after the episode, Mayhew took a more serious approach by hosting an informal editorial retreat in her Brentwood home. Editors and reporters sat around her living room, munching on assorted high-end sandwiches and fruit salad that had been catered in. They acknowledged that the paper was in trouble and said they were worried that Sutherland and Green didn’t have a clue.

The group took their concerns to Sutherland, who suggested forming a committee. He put Mayhew in charge. She helped form a seven-member group and charged her colleagues with the task of creating a “credo”—more commonly known in corporate-speak as a mission statement—for the paper. Then, to give the committee independence, Mayhew recused herself. The members were newsroom staffers Julie Bell, George Brooks, David Climer, Dorren Klausnitzer, Tammie Smith, Tasneem Grace Tewogbola, and Monica Whitaker.

The so-called “Who We Are” committee interviewed dozens of newsroom employees, including writers, editors, graphic designers, and photographers. The committee then wrote a credo, which, along with a cover letter, was presented to Sutherland in a three-ring binder. (To read the full text of the cover letter sent to Sutherland by the “Who We Are” committee, as well as comments from newsroom staffers that accompanied the letter, visit the Scene’s Web site at www.nashvillescene.com.)

The cover letter outlined serious problems at the paper and blamed Sutherland and Green for many of them. Committee members wrote that newsroom employees were concerned “that too often, the newspaper’s reporters do not ask tough questions or think critically and in-depth about subjects, and that the newspaper’s desk editors do not ‘prosecute’ stories often enough.”

The cause of the problems, the letter noted, may be “a planning process that focuses on filling space..., rather than thinking about our community and what is truly relevant, important, interesting, well-done, or wrong.” The letter said that Sutherland and Green were “so concerned about the possibility of being unfair that they water down stories in the face of criticism from ‘community powers that be,’ discouraging tough reporting.”

Another key finding of the committee was that the editorial staffers are “at best confused about the mission of the newsroom.” To solve the problem, the letter called for “stronger leadership from top management” and noted that Sutherland particularly needed to be more involved.

The letter, drafted by Bell, noted that Sutherland and Green appeared to be “at odds” about what the daily’s mission should be. Sutherland, the letter explained, “expressed a desire for more ‘watchdog’ kinds of enterprise,” in contrast with Green, who told the committee that “we should not define ourselves...as watchdogs.” In fact, the committee blamed Sutherland for allowing Green to determine the paper’s mission. Green’s view of The Tennessean’s purpose, the letter said, is “telling the story of this community to this community.” The committee thought Green’s vision was a “problem” because it was “so broad [that] staffers can interpret it however they want.”

Investigative reporter Laura Frank—the only Tennessean staffer willing to be quoted by name in the letter—said that such a vision “can mean virtually anything.”

In the binder they gave to Sutherland, committee members also included dozens of unattributed comments from newsroom staffers whom they had interviewed. Many of the staffers appeared unhappy with the direction of the paper. One newsroom employee complained, “If you’re too aggressive on a story, you are a crusader. Instead of being a really good reporter, you’re [considered] a bad reporter. That’s enough to make you want to quit.” Another staffer said, “We are a newspaper. I pick up the paper...and there is no news in the newspaper.”

One newsroom employee was quoted as saying, “There is no connection with management. Many of us are ‘broken down.’ Enthusiasm is lost. Higher-ups are ‘untouchable, unreachable.’ ” Another staffer was “bothered” by all issues dealing “with quashing the reporting spirit by killing or taming down a controversial story. When reporters work a tough story, they sometimes feel ostracized—as if they have caused an unwelcome problem—instead of congratulated.”

As for the credo, committee members recall that it contained vague language outlining goals for The Tennessean. Among the points members recall were that the newspaper should be aggressive and its reporters should have a common sense of purpose. Sutherland edited the credo, then posted it in an internal computer file at The Tennessean for staffers to read. Committee members expressed frustration to the Scene that Sutherland had “watered down” the credo.

Sutherland then presided over a few meetings to address the concerns of the “Who We Are” committee. Green attended the meetings but remained silent.

In any event, after several weeks, Sutherland lost interest. The meetings stopped. Shortly thereafter, in July 2000, at a time of considerable tension between Green and Mayhew, Mayhew left the paper for an editorial position with an Internet company near her home in Brentwood. (She is now executive editor of The City Paper.)

Mayhew tells the Scene, “For the most part, my seven years at The Tennessean were very rewarding. I count many of the staff among my friends, but I’m happy where I am now, being able to run my own newspaper.”

More important, the effort to sort out internally what role the newspaper should play in the community was dead. Even today, many reporters and editors say they get no clear direction from Sutherland and Green as to what the paper should be.

Green and Sutherland tell the Scene that their diverging ideas about what constitutes news have been overblown, and that they essentially believe the same thing.

“We try to figure out what’s important, and then try to provide news and insights on these issues...,” Green says. “We try to understand the community and organize ourselves so that we can tell the important stories about what is going on here in Nashville.”

Says Sutherland: “I believe being a watchdog is a responsibility we have because of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”