So, fun fact -- I spent 20 years as a newspaper editor (not in Iowa), so perhaps I have a perspective that might be valuable.
My take on the editorial is that this is basically the editorial team standing by its reporters. Circling the wagons, so to speak. John Steppe seems like a pretty young guy (only been on the Hawkeye beat since September, I think), and I doubt they want to throw him under the bus. You also get a sense that they feel like they have a role to play in holding Ferentz and the football program accountable. Fair enough, but it does come across as kind of obtuse.
I am much more critical of the original story, which felt rushed and quick to condemn. Use of words like "abruptly" and "contentious" in the headline created an aggressive tone from the beginning. The story also misrepresented the purpose of the committee and made no effort to identify other members of the committee (which other reporters in the state were able to get.)
It was lazy reporting. I know because I've been there. This reminds me of a story my paper did once upon a time, only with us, it wasn't a football program, but a major local employer. The company had been accused of racial discrimination in a lawsuit, and they were ultimately ordered to pay a fine. We had the information from the lawsuit, so we had most of the facts. Our reporter made a passing attempt to reach the company for comment, but without success. This was pretty common; our local companies (heavy industry) were notoriously known to ignore local media. So we ran the story without their comment. And the fallout was not good, especially since the local company was well-connected to the local power structure. Our mistake was not trying harder to get in touch with someone from the company. This resulted in a one-sided story. Yes, the company's response would likely have mostly been "spin," but they deserved an opportunity to tell their side. We got in too big a hurry to get the story out. But that's the mentality in the daily news business -- get the story, get the facts, and get it out -- you generally don't have time to go through multiple drafts and revisions, like you're writing a term paper for rhetoric class. The beast must be fed. This is a flaw in journalism. The reality is that holding a story for a day usually is just fine -- especially with sensitive stories that have the potential to damage local entities.
Full disclosure: In the days following our gaffe, I defended our decision, much like the Gazette has done. I thought it was important to stand by my reporter. After all, for the most part, the story was accurate. But now, years later, I can stand back and acknowledge that we could have done better. In the heat of battle, I am sure this will be hard for the Gazette writers and editors to do; but with time, their perspective might change, as mine did.
I only write all this to say that while there are indeed many cases of bad journalism -- and I believe the Gazette's coverage is a good example -- there's no reason to call out all journalists with blanket condemnation. Gathering news and reporting information is not easy. The majority of those doing it -- especially at the local level -- have good intentions. Yes, sometimes they lose their way, and they deserve criticism. But know that most of them are committed to the noble task of keeping their communities informed.