Thursday, May 07, 2009
Lamentations on the Future of our Business
A column from the WP's Dana Milbank about the Senate hearing on the future of Newspapers:And later:They came as if to their own funeral.
Reporters from Hearst, USA Today, McClatchy, the Dallas Morning News, The Washington Post, the Washington Times and the Boston Globe -- their employers in varying stages of decline or death -- took their places at the press table for a Senate subcommittee hearing yesterday titled "The Future of Journalism."
"I hope I get laid off," one of the reporters could be heard telling a Senate staffer, "so I can get the severance."
But it was (David) Simon, once a Baltimore Sun reporter, who struck the strongest blow for newspapers. Though scolding publishers for their "martyrology" and mismanagement, he spoke of how "aggregating Web sites and bloggers contribute little more than repetition, commentary and froth" and added: "The parasite is slowly killing the host."
Go read it.
So, I'm procrastinating on writing a story (that got held anyway) and I stumble across this column in the Boston Globe by Kevin Cullen.
As a journalist, I got pulled in by his lede (even if it is a rehash of what was drilled into us in j-school) because really, don't we all think our jobs are more noble than that of those we cover?
If you ask anybody why they got into this business and they say it was for the money, they are either certifiably insane or no longer in the business.
Few in journalism call it a business. We like to think we forfeited bigger paychecks to pursue something that is essential: speaking truth to power, comforting the afflicted, afflicting the comfortable.
I'm here in New England watching as the Globe struggles with wage cuts and other concessions in an effort to stay afloat. I have to say as a newspaper snob myself, I always thought the Times was better than this. I had this notion that if any paper would understand the value of journalists, it would be the Times. And they would do what it took to make sure they continued supporting great journalism. But as Cullen said, the Globe relationship with the Times wasn't a marriage, it was a business deal. And, really, I think we all knew that if it came down to the Times and anything else, the Times was going to take care of home first. Shoot, I was told by Times employees not to go to a Times regional paper expecting the same treatment as I would in New York. Only The New York Times is The New York Times. Cullen continues:
It would be easier to get worked up if there were shining examples of an enlightened newspaper company figuring all this out. The Times has made lots of mistakes. I wish they didn't build the Taj Mahal on Eighth Avenue. I wish they'd close the International Herald Tribune before they gut the Globe. And, at the very least, the bigshots at the Times should have climbed aboard the Acela and come up here to explain to us, and to you, their threat to close the Globe. When an essential element of your business is demanding transparency of others, it looks pretty shoddy when you expect none from yourself.
But hating The New York Times is like hating the Yankees: It might make you feel better, but it means nothing in the standings.
Labels: dismay, dying newsroom, fear, frustration, industry analysis, media ownership, the industry, union, Washington
continue...Monday, April 06, 2009
It’s getting kinda hectic around here.
All around us, we’re seeing the ruins of papers gone. Bye Bye
At my paper, the company is proposing to guild members to take a 2.5 percent pay cut. The Guild put out a newsletter detailing the cut and asking for our feedback. On the back, lists a few options of things we could ask for in exchange for the cut.
As my coworkers looked at the paper, they all but exploded with outrage that they were being asked to make yet another cut (the company has laid off at least 100 guild members in the last 6 months, stopped our 401k match and delayed a contribution for the pension phase out plan already). They indignantly marked “there are no circumstances under which I would accept a pay cut.”
I stared at the paper and twirled my pen in my hand. I didn’t know what option to choose.
Here’s my problem: I have a job. And I’m grateful for it. Especially as I see friends up the road dealing with the prospect of being unemployed very soon. Do I want to take a pay cut? Hell no. Do I want to keep my job? Hell yes.
I was talking to a friend in
Labels: business practices, dismay, dying newsroom, fear, layoffs, media ownership, the industry, union
continue...Monday, October 01, 2007
What do you do when you think your paper might be sold?
You gather around the water cooler and gossip about it, of course.
"Well, does this mean we're being laid off?"
"you know they will lie to our faces right until the minute the ink on the contract dies."
"The Times (as in New York) has been courting us. It seems like the logical next step since they own Boston."
I walked smack dab in the middle of this conversation this morning as I stepped into my office. That was before I logged onto my computer and saw an e-mail from a high ranking executive explaining that our company was essentially being split in two entities: broadcast and print. I listened more and found out a few things.
Our company was being restructured -- not sold (yet).
If anybody got laid off, it would be the part time news aides and assistants who are vital to the paper, but are not reporters (i.e. -- I still have a job)
This might actually be a good thing because the new print entity will come out of this deal with no debt. Kinda cool, I suppose, considering the current state of newspapers.
More conjecture, speculation and some panic continued for much of the monring. We have a meeting scheduled for this afternoon to find out what this really means for all of us. So we kind of shook it off until we found out more information. We have a job to do after all.
I went up to one of my coworkers and asked her if I should be worried. My coworker, a former union gal, told me that the contract we're working under (which expires in December) will protect us. And that I should be fine.
"I'll tell you when to worry," she said with a laugh.
I replied: "Alright, until then, I'm straight."
At least, I hope.
Labels: industry analysis, media ownership, the industry, union
continue...