Friday, April 8, 2011
The Advance trial on the "job pledge" ended in a confidential negotiated settlement. You know that Advance didn't want to lose that case on its merits. Too many potential suits in that case. Before the settlement there was some juicy testimony that gives a little insight into some of the perks of the "haves" in the Advance family of publishers.
From the mailbag comes this al.com story about a former publisher's suit against Advance Publications. It is an interesting read, including the amount of pay that the publisher received (and continues to receive in retirement) compared to the folks he supervised. You have to believe that Advance didn't want to have that information out. Glad the Press-Register is covering their own story, however. Here's a little more information from another source.
There is so much wrong from a journalistic standpoint with the idea of rewarding writers for the number of Internet "hits," but I don't have time to list them all now. Sensationalism and relevance come to mind just off the top of my head. Writers should be rewarded, and much better than they are now, but not based on this. (Attribution note: I found this link on Facebook, but can't remember who or when)
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The cost of downsizing apparently was $1.5 million in Kalamazoo. And, surprise, surprise, the paper couldn't reach its own publisher for a comment for its own story. Update: Thanks to an FFE reader we now have the full written statement of the publisher. As a reporter you dislike written responses for comments because there is no chance to ask follow up or other relevant questions of the source. Interesting that a publisher avoids that interchange with his own reporter.