OK, first I have to correct my first report on the new round of buyouts. The information came not from Publisher Dave Sharp, but was given to staff members by Editor Tony Dearing following the weekly recognition meetings. (Gosh, I hated those).
After gushing over this week's stories (one of the editor's favorite, if incomprehensible sayings, was that this or that writer "had written with authority." Never knew what that meant, because the examples he gave were simply just good writing that any competent reporter could or should do. Or how about the other time he lavished praise on a reporter for using a reverse directory to find a witness for a story by, stop the presses, looking in a reverse directory. Any first year cub reporter would know how to do that, but to the editor this was a major accomplishment). Sorry for the aside, but I quit going to those meetings after he gushed over the work of an editor over the coverage of a tornado. What the editor apparently didn't know was the weekend coverage of the tornado was almost completely reporter driven. The best thing the editor did that particular weekend was that he got out of the way and let us do our job, which come to think of it probably deserved some praise because it so rarely happened.
Anyway, back to the buyouts. It sounds like after a little prodding, the editor acknowledged that the revenue stream had turned to a trickle and that some serious additional cutting had to be done. Sounds like editors may be on the block this time as the Booth company is now looking at consolidating all the properties into one massive budget.
Because I wasn't at the meeting I'm piecing together information that tells me that people and resources could be moved around to maximize profits instead of each paper serving on its own.
The inference was that what had been seen as a potential profit turnaround by 2010 is not happening and may in fact be deteriorating.
No specifics were announced on the next round of buyouts, but there was some statement that they won't be as lucrative as they were last year. Believe me, those of us who took the buyouts are very thankful (and grateful) for the extent of them.
We are sad that our colleagues continue to face the uncertainty of the newspaper's survival. It is hard to imagine the company selling the Journal or even closing up shop, but it sounds like those options are on the table, at least a year from now.
As I learn more, I'll keep you posted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The Flint Jornal is a trickle of warm pee these days. What was once one of the best papers in the mid-west back in the 1940-50s is now a PC self serving product that like almost every paper today is not near worth the delivery price. What is there in each days paper that would make me care to support it? Nothing !
Cat Paws.
I think, like a lot of newspapers, the Flint Journal just lost its way. Management forgot that people wanted hard-hitting, incisive breaking news coverage. They wanted to be able to pick up the paper and find out what happened in an accident they drove by the day before.
When they saw police tape around a house they expected that the paper would have the full story the next day and be confident they had the real story of what happened.
They wanted reporters to attend city council, school board meetings and from them be the watchdog for the community. At those meetings reporters mingled with government officials and citizens and learned what was going on in that community.
Some new age editors arrived and decided what people really wanted were more soft features, more feel good articles about, well you name it. They discouraged meeting coverage, they dragged reporters off the street and back into the office where they could be watched and now they are reaping the results.
They decided that dramatic and disturbing photos were offending and not attracting readers. They were wrong.
On top of that the Internet exploded and started providing a free outlet (if often very wrong and irresponsible) for the kind of news people wanted.
So in a panic they fired up an online version of the weak coverage they were giving in the daily and it hasn't worked so far to bring back readers.
They try video, interactive polls, anything they can but to use a very common phrase today, you can put lipstick on it, but it's still a pig. No offense intended to pigs or anyone else.
The Journal is still doing a good job of providing the crime news and what's going on at City Hall and in communities. Granted, with fewer reporters, there isn't as much of that as in the past, but if you've been reading the paper, it's been getting all the big stories. The last few sundays have been particulary good with stories about who owns land in Flint, the Land Bank and about how a school district wants to put advertising on buses. More breaking coverage includes having a good story about the Secret Service going to somebody's house to investigate bomb threats. Tell me what other news organization around the area would do all of that? The real problem is advertisers are giving up on the print product and taking there money to the Internet, but the business-model there doesn't generate the heaps of cash it did because there's so much to choose from. That plus the fact that Michigan economy is in the toliet basically means it doesn't matter whether the paper is any good. That's the tragic part because the people who stayed have been working their butts off for the past year doing a good job with what they have, but now face more monumental change.
I would agree that for the small staff that is left they are doing as good a job as possible.
It's simply not possible to do all the things that were done in the past because ownership has stripped the newspaper of an adequate number of reporters to do the job.
I'm an old dog. I still think the beat system, where one reporter covers a specific area of interest provides the best coverage for the paper.
It's simply not possible to do that with the numbers of reporters on hand now.
The ownership made a decision to make money, but wrecking the thing that made the product. It just won't work.
People expect more, not less for less today. There is a limit what any human being can produce and produce well.
From my perspective, the paper is concentrating on quick turnaround stories that, yes, are good news stories.
But where is the in depth coverage of the inner workings of Flint City Hall. What reporter is covering the weekly circus that is City Council and the Mayor.
Who is looking into and requesting documents on the Mayoral appointments, their backgrounds, etc.
Those kinds of investigations take time. That is impossible when there are assigned quotas for stories for reporters.
From where I live, I really don't care who owns land in Flint. So I have to admit I did not read that story. Where is the detailed coverage of the townships, cities and villages?
Reporters have become taxicab drivers, sent anywhere and anywhere an editor needs them at any moment to fill a hole.
That is the antithesis of good beat reporting.
Are there good stories in the Journal? Sure, I've acknowledged a number of them. I understand a reporter will be traveling to Sweden for a business story. That is great, that's the kind of commitment and investment that should pay dividends for readers.
My only point is that when I started there, I made sure we didn't miss any accident in which there was a significant injury. I made sure we didn't miss any assault that put someone in a hospital. We covered every armed robbery, etc.
I'm not blaming the reporters that that is not happening today. I'm blaming management for trying to save money by ruining the product. Not going to work.
Note: due to some editing (at the poster's request) I had to post this under anonymous. I posted this, but the words below are completely that of the poster. I will respond to it in the following entry. Here follows the info:
Jim,
You make great points about the beat system its benefits. But you exaggerate the extent that people are general assignment. Nearly every veteran reporter there continues to cover beats and cover them well. Take higher ed, Flint schools/politics, business, cops/courts, genesee county, southern Genesee County, northern Genesee County/Lapeer County - they all have done some great beat reporting lately.
And your point about the Flint City Hall coverage is a little off. The Journal's current reporter is breaking a lot of news. Take the coverage of the drag strip craziness. The Journal also hasn't missed the fact the feds have been busy with the super chief and his son and has followed all the dramas with the police officers who can't talk to the press. While more resources to investigate City Hall always would be helpful, I think given the circumstances they've done well.
The terrible reality, here, is the owners just can't afford the cadillac paper Flint had 10, 20 years ago. The market doesn't support it. The paper hasn't made money in years and now with the nationwide economic crisis in newspapers, Newhouse's other properties can't prop it up like the past.
I'm not happy with the current situation and I wish the paper had more resources. The area community deserves it, but the financial situation that is forcing this upcoming round of buyouts, I believe, will transform the paper far more than what happened last year. But I don't think this is being comtemplated over greed. It's being contemplated over survival.
(Anonymous) 9/13/08
Just for information to all posters: If you send me a post that includes both on-the-record and off-the-record information it is very difficult and requires some crazy electronic gymnastics to perform. I really only have the choice to accept or to reject an offering, so when I get one that has personal information you don't want printed it is really, really difficult to post. Better to send two posts one with the good info and one with the background. FYI.
Thanks for you post. Listen I don't have all the answers, but I have a lot of opinions. So I always hold out the possibility that I am wrong.
We don't really disagree. My only point is that someone who has a beat that covers all of one county and a third of another is not a beat reporter, that's a general assignment.
People who have a beat covering a specific area like courts and cops should not be doing stories (routinely) that don't involve that beat.
My only point is that seeking survival is actually seeking defeat, in my opinion, of course.
When you fall off a ship, is it better to tread water and hope for rescue or see a light in the distance and swim for it.
For me I would rather die trying to swim for help, rather than treading water and hoping that I would be found.
To me what the Journal is doing is treading water in hopes that a ship will come by and save them or that a mountain will grow out of the bottom of the ocean.
From my view, which is admittedly now from the outside, I would rather see the company pour money into the product, make it something people HAD to have then continue to shrink it down, making it even more unappealing to readers and advertisers.
None of this, my friend, is a criticism of the reporters, or frankly many of the editors, who are there, but of the short-sighted management that continues to try to bleed its way to health.
Didn't work for George Washington and I don't think it will work for newspapers.
But I certainly respect and welcome your point of view. I'll try and tone down the strident language for awhile.
I had lunch with a few of my fellow buyoutees the other day and the one thing we all agreed on is that we want the Flint Journal to survive. For one thing we all have a lot invested in it and for the other we have a lot of friends who are still there.
Keep coming back!
Post a Comment