Newspapers aren't comfortable covering themselves. Such was the case in the past few weeks as Advertiser employees and management sparred over a new labor proposal that calls for a modest pay increase and bonus but also asks employees to pick up a greater share of their medical costs.

Other media picked up on the story before we wrote our first piece, and reporters here began asking editors why we weren't doing the same. In my view, there was nothing to cover early on when the Hawaii Newspaper Guild received management's offer and found it nowhere near what the guild had proposed. This is standard operating procedure during negotiations involving any company and didn't, in my view, deserve any special treatment.

However, when the guild membership met on Feb. 17 and voted 358-17 to authorize their six unions to call for a strike, we ran a story on the front of our business section summarizing both sides of the issue. Both Wayne Cahill, the chief administrative officer of the guild, and Lee Webber, the Advertiser's president and publisher, were quoted. The story pointed out that before a strike could occur, management or the unions would have to give a 30-day notice to cancel the existing contract.

On Feb. 20, U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie attended a workers rally on the sidewalk in front of The Advertiser building. The presence of Abercrombie made it news because there were really no new developments in the labor situation. Abercrombie criticized Gannett Co., the Advertiser's owner, and praised the work of journalists.

Webber pointed out in his statement that employees would continue to earn the highest salaries and benefits of those in the state's publishing industry. He also expressed confidence that the two sides would reach an agreement "that fairly compensates our employees while ensuring the long-term viability of the newspaper."

Guild workers then staged a three-day byline strike and stopped writing their blogs between Feb. 20 and 22, including the removal of bylines from their stories and credit lines from photographs the day after Hawai'i's historic caucus. There was no reason for The Advertiser to write about those actions because the absence of bylines was obvious and those suspending their blog activities made note of why their entries had been discontinued. The New York Times did a piece on the blog strike, noting the unusual nature of the protest.

Before deciding how we should be covering our labor dispute, I reviewed our stories prior to a three-week teachers strike in 2001, the 34-day strike by transit workers in 2003, and a seven-week strike by nurses at St. Francis Medical Center, The Queen's Medical Center and Kuakini Medical Center in late 2002 and early 2003. I also looked at the 126-day Wilcox Memorial Hospital nurses strike in 2006 and the Times Super Market strike by meat and fish cutters and wrappers, which ended earlier this year with some workers being recalled and others voting to decertify the union from representing them.

Coverage leading up to the major strikes (nurses, bus drivers and teachers) described strike authorization votes, calls for mediators, all-night negotiations and then an impasse before the actual strike. Of course the impact of those strikes was covered in great detail.

We are nowhere near those situations and we don't intend to get there. We are hopeful that the next story you read about this situation will include the news of our contract settlement terms.

Mark Platte is senior vice president/editor of The Honolulu Advertiser. Reach him at mplatte@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8080.