He's had enough. Enough of the incessant reports detailing the inevitable demise of newspapers. Enough of the never-ending litany of layoffs chronicled by Romenesko. Enough of the industry's new (but already well-worn) slogan, "More with Less."
For years he had been offered well-paying jobs in other lines of work. Every so often, a government agency would come calling with a proposal to be a spokesman or policy wonk. But he was a lifer. Someone who wanted nothing more than to be a good reporter at a big city newspaper. Someone determined to fight the good fight on behalf of some noble cause.
He would be a journalist to the end.
Or so he thought.
With several rounds of buyouts and layoffs over the years leading to a decline in the product that defined who he is, my friend has decided to leave. He has gone through several rounds of interviews, and all that is left is an offer he won't refuse. Sometime in the next week or two, he will give his notice to his bosses toiling in an industry suffering from a dearth of leadership.
He was the last person, besides myself, who I thought would decide to pack it in. But he's had enough. And I can't say that I blame him. And when he goes, a part of me will go with him.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The omen
Parking yourself by a desk in a newsroom for most of the day can sometimes make one forget that there is more to publishing a newspaper than utilizing the skills of reporters, editors, photographers and the like. And as dire as the industry's proverbial "perfect storm" has been for journalists, it has been even more dire in other parts of the business.
Like the production building.
A friend of mine who I know mostly through our shared interest in music - he plays the drums in three bands and I sometimes bring my guitar to sit in on some sets at local blues clubs - also works at the paper in a place where most journalists probably couldn't find: the packaging department. And my colleagues who thought mandatory furlough days and 9.25 percent pay cuts were hard to digest should have a talk with him. He thinks we're lucky.
My buddy has been working in packaging for nearly a quarter century. He began his career in the business when he was 22 years old. Ronald Reagan had yet to be tainted by the Iran-Contra scandal. Los Angeles still had two professional football teams. A full-timer, he was devoted to his job and the company. His pay: about $20 an hour.
On Feb. 1, his pay was cut almost in half. His hours were also slashed, rendering him a part-timer and making him ineligible for health insurance. The bottom line: his earnings have gone from about $800 a week to a little more than $300. He can only get by now through the help of his paying gigs.
Several of his co-workers, similarly affected, saw the reductions in hour and pay as an insult. They quit. Meanwhile, the department has cut its full-time staff in half, and those who were making what my friend was earning saw their pay slashed, too. Even part-timers who were making but $13 or $14 an hour saw their pay cut.
I'm not passing any judgements as to whether these folks were screwed, or whether the company made a well-reasoned business decision to stay afloat during an unprecedented downturn in the industry. But who's to say what's happening in packaging won't start happening in newsrooms across the country?
Like the production building.
A friend of mine who I know mostly through our shared interest in music - he plays the drums in three bands and I sometimes bring my guitar to sit in on some sets at local blues clubs - also works at the paper in a place where most journalists probably couldn't find: the packaging department. And my colleagues who thought mandatory furlough days and 9.25 percent pay cuts were hard to digest should have a talk with him. He thinks we're lucky.
My buddy has been working in packaging for nearly a quarter century. He began his career in the business when he was 22 years old. Ronald Reagan had yet to be tainted by the Iran-Contra scandal. Los Angeles still had two professional football teams. A full-timer, he was devoted to his job and the company. His pay: about $20 an hour.
On Feb. 1, his pay was cut almost in half. His hours were also slashed, rendering him a part-timer and making him ineligible for health insurance. The bottom line: his earnings have gone from about $800 a week to a little more than $300. He can only get by now through the help of his paying gigs.
Several of his co-workers, similarly affected, saw the reductions in hour and pay as an insult. They quit. Meanwhile, the department has cut its full-time staff in half, and those who were making what my friend was earning saw their pay slashed, too. Even part-timers who were making but $13 or $14 an hour saw their pay cut.
I'm not passing any judgements as to whether these folks were screwed, or whether the company made a well-reasoned business decision to stay afloat during an unprecedented downturn in the industry. But who's to say what's happening in packaging won't start happening in newsrooms across the country?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Film at 11
Much has been said over the past couple years about the imminent demise of newspapers and what that will mean to Democracy as we know it. One thing's for sure, television news certainly won't be the same.
As someone with the good fortune, or misfortune, of having a television (with cable!) on my desk, I watch the news virtually all day. And let me tell you, if it were not for the newspaper, these guys would have nothing to report, except maybe the weather and the occasional car chase. Television news would be reduced to a reality show. One station has gone so far as to invite reporters from Voice of San Diego, a Web site that focuses on San Diego government issues, onto its afternoon newscasts to talk about that organization's latest scoops. Another has partnered with the North County Times for some of its news. All brazenly rip off The San Diego Union-Tribune for its juiciest pieces, including today's front-page gem by Jeanette Steele detailing how financial challenges facing the San Diego Historical Society are resulting in some very visible cutbacks in service. Proving that no story is too small to steal, one station even plucked from a community news section a story about the possible closure of an after-school center (a story that a shocked, shocked! councilwoman later told the center she had no idea what was going on until she read about it in the paper).
It's a daily occurrence. Sometimes, an anchor will attribute the story to the U-T. Far more frequently, he or she won't. Either way, if we go, television news will have nothing to offer but a few pretty little faces.
As someone with the good fortune, or misfortune, of having a television (with cable!) on my desk, I watch the news virtually all day. And let me tell you, if it were not for the newspaper, these guys would have nothing to report, except maybe the weather and the occasional car chase. Television news would be reduced to a reality show. One station has gone so far as to invite reporters from Voice of San Diego, a Web site that focuses on San Diego government issues, onto its afternoon newscasts to talk about that organization's latest scoops. Another has partnered with the North County Times for some of its news. All brazenly rip off The San Diego Union-Tribune for its juiciest pieces, including today's front-page gem by Jeanette Steele detailing how financial challenges facing the San Diego Historical Society are resulting in some very visible cutbacks in service. Proving that no story is too small to steal, one station even plucked from a community news section a story about the possible closure of an after-school center (a story that a shocked, shocked! councilwoman later told the center she had no idea what was going on until she read about it in the paper).
It's a daily occurrence. Sometimes, an anchor will attribute the story to the U-T. Far more frequently, he or she won't. Either way, if we go, television news will have nothing to offer but a few pretty little faces.
90210
If you want to peruse through a smart looking Web page, log onto Beverly Hills-based Platinum Equity's site. "A multibillion dollar revenue base," a message reads as it scrolls along black and white photos of what looks to be the original Getty Musuem in Malibu (or some really really rich guy's mansion). "Hundreds of thousands of customers worldwide," another banner reads. "Tens of thousands of employees."
Platinum is a global firm "specializing in the merger, acquisition and operation of companies that provide services and solutions to customers in a broad range of business markets, including information technology, telecommunications, logistics, metals services, manufacturing and distribution," the site states. Navigate further and you'll find Covad Communications Group, Inc. (April, 2008), Tecumseh Power (November, 2007) and Broadleaf Logistics (June 2007) among its acquisitions.
Platinum might soon have another trophy in its case: The San Diego Union-Tribune. According to several sources (who knows how good they are?), Platinum is the key financial backer behind the Black Press in its pending effort to buy one of California's largest papers, and all that's left is a few dotting of the "i's" and crossing of the "t's." David Black, the privately held company's chairman and chief executive, was seen touring the U-T's Mission Valley headquarters Wednesday.
The smart money, however, is on an announcement next week. Breaking the news that the U-T has sold on Friday the 13th might be bad form.
Platinum is a global firm "specializing in the merger, acquisition and operation of companies that provide services and solutions to customers in a broad range of business markets, including information technology, telecommunications, logistics, metals services, manufacturing and distribution," the site states. Navigate further and you'll find Covad Communications Group, Inc. (April, 2008), Tecumseh Power (November, 2007) and Broadleaf Logistics (June 2007) among its acquisitions.
Platinum might soon have another trophy in its case: The San Diego Union-Tribune. According to several sources (who knows how good they are?), Platinum is the key financial backer behind the Black Press in its pending effort to buy one of California's largest papers, and all that's left is a few dotting of the "i's" and crossing of the "t's." David Black, the privately held company's chairman and chief executive, was seen touring the U-T's Mission Valley headquarters Wednesday.
The smart money, however, is on an announcement next week. Breaking the news that the U-T has sold on Friday the 13th might be bad form.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Oh Canada
The latest talk from those paying attention to what's going on at The San Diego Union-Tribune is that the Copley paper is being sold to the Black Press of Canada, a rather large - and apparently healthy - publishing company that owns more than a few (dozen) newspapers in Alberta, British Columbia, Hawaii, Washington and Ohio (including the Akron Beacon-Journal). Black Press sightings are everywhere, along with a potential partner. Why, just the other day, a few Canadian suits were said to have been spotted on a grassy knoll just outside the paper's Mission Valley headquarters.
I'll believe it when an announcement is made. Over the past few weeks, "sources" inside the newsroom have told other news(?) organizations that massive layoffs - a major bloodletting! - would come the next day, then the next, then the next...yet nothing has been announced. Yet.
I'm at the point of being too busy to care. With a staff reduced by several rounds of buyouts and layoffs over the past two-plus years, there's more than enough to keep me occupied. If the Black Press becomes my future employer, more power to them. They'll get what I've given every employer since I landed my first job selling programs at Dodger Stadium in 1975: The best effort money can buy - at an economical price.
....Meanwhile, I've gotten a lot of feedback from a recent posting on how silly it was for newspapers to spend millions of dollars producing a product, only to give it away for free on the Web. New York Times editor Bill Keller addressed the issue in gawker.com, a New York-based blog, validating my point.
Writes gawker:
So here's what newspapers need: some collective action. What if, say, the 100 biggest papers in the nation all started charging for online access at once? That would make it much harder to track down quality news for free. People happily paid to read newspapers before the internet came along. Then newspapers started giving away all their content for free, and now people think that it should be free. But if a paper's website can't pay its own way through online advertising, and if it doesn't somehow bolster print ad revenues, then it has to charge for access. It's common sense. Millions of extra online readers are nice, but if they don't bring in more money than they cost you, they're no good for the paper.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I'll believe it when an announcement is made. Over the past few weeks, "sources" inside the newsroom have told other news(?) organizations that massive layoffs - a major bloodletting! - would come the next day, then the next, then the next...yet nothing has been announced. Yet.
I'm at the point of being too busy to care. With a staff reduced by several rounds of buyouts and layoffs over the past two-plus years, there's more than enough to keep me occupied. If the Black Press becomes my future employer, more power to them. They'll get what I've given every employer since I landed my first job selling programs at Dodger Stadium in 1975: The best effort money can buy - at an economical price.
....Meanwhile, I've gotten a lot of feedback from a recent posting on how silly it was for newspapers to spend millions of dollars producing a product, only to give it away for free on the Web. New York Times editor Bill Keller addressed the issue in gawker.com, a New York-based blog, validating my point.
Writes gawker:
So here's what newspapers need: some collective action. What if, say, the 100 biggest papers in the nation all started charging for online access at once? That would make it much harder to track down quality news for free. People happily paid to read newspapers before the internet came along. Then newspapers started giving away all their content for free, and now people think that it should be free. But if a paper's website can't pay its own way through online advertising, and if it doesn't somehow bolster print ad revenues, then it has to charge for access. It's common sense. Millions of extra online readers are nice, but if they don't bring in more money than they cost you, they're no good for the paper.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
