Seeing the difference

The layoffs, the bankruptcies, the wage freezes, the unpaid leave, the dwindling circulations and advertising revenues have pretty much taken a front seat lately when it comes to this blog.

I recently got back in touch with an old friend from college. During one of our e-mail exchanges, I explained that I wasn’t really looking for newspaper work. Even if I were, there really isn’t much out there and I’d probably just get laid off, I told her. Later, it hit me: it’s not the layoffs.

It’s more about how newspapers are run.

Papers are supposed to help the little guy, inform the public, serve as the eyes and ears for the everyman. Many a time an editor lectured about the newspaper belonging to the community.

It’s pure crap, of course.

For years, newspapers management has been obsessed -- with money. How much can they make for those all-mighty stockholders? Did we upset a city bigwig? An advertiser?

Circulation began falling. So newspaper bosses began scrambling to keep subscribers. Let’s see, is this editorial too strong? Will it offend a bunch of subscribers? Better tone it down. Let’s be more middle-of-the-road. This story is about gay people. We’re a family newspaper. Spike it.

The quest for younger readers began in earnest. Newspapers tried to be hip. Newspapers are not, never have been and never will be, hip. Papers began printing gossip snippets, sterilized and packaged by wire services, sans snark. I remember an education page, anchored by a sweet, maybe newsy, maybe not, feature about a student. Pages for children. Newspapers in Education.
Plenty of journalists have complained that newspapers are failing in their jobs. Most point to the corporate takeover of newspapers as the beginning of the end.
I could literally see the difference at my first newspaper. Our city editor, no college degree, wearing rumpled pants and a shirt that inevitably picked up a bit of his lunch, wore a tie because his boss required one. He typed with two fingers. His voice rose on occasion, when a reporter couldn’t answer a question about a story or when a particularly egregious act of transgression against the public trust had been committed.

The managing editor in the same newsroom, with a bachelor’s and an MBA, always dressed in well-tailored, nicely pressed suits. He left every day at 5 p.m. if not before. He would not have been caught dead with food stains on his shirt. His desk was always neatly arranged and his eyes would roll if a reporter’s desk was too messy. He noted how his reporters dressed and favored those who looked good in their clothes.

The first guy, who is still the best writer I have ever encountered, had worked in newsrooms since the ‘60s and was full of stories about the old days when reporters smoked as they pecked at typewriters and editors sometimes kept a small bottle in a desk drawer.

The second guy wasn’t a particularly talented writer or editor. His news judgment was OK. He reveled in screaming at employees. He thought anyone who wasn’t in their seats in the newsroom was playing hooky. He was big on counting things. He was a clock watcher.

I didn’t do well under the second guy, who once suggested I do something with my hair. He told a fellow employee, female, that she ought to wear makeup and lose weight. I would bet my bank account that the old timer never noticed anybody’s hair or makeup. I’m sure he didn’t care about weight.

When our paper was bought by a large corporation, groups of us would go down to the “big newspaper” for conferences or to shadow the reporters there. We went to an editors meeting. Most of the editors looked like our suited boss – they obviously got frequent haircuts and had tie collections. One wore a sweater over a dress shirt with a tie. None looked messy or ink-stained. The meeting was long and boring. I don’t remember much, except that they discussed Web hits and corrections. They decided which stories would go where. None of them sounded the least bit excited or happy to be there. None argued too much about stories to run.

The newsroom there was big. It was also extremely quiet. Our small office was full of noise -- typing, ringing phones, reporters reading ledes aloud, occasional bursts of laughter. The big newsroom was like a tomb. The reporter we followed introduced us to some people. All of the mid-level editors spoke in low tones and had limp handshakes. Some of the reporters were a bit louder with firmer hands.

One time, four of us drove to the “big paper” for a seminar. When we got there, we tried to park in the big paper’s lot. Security told us we could not. There were spots, we were told, but they were only for corporate employees. We were employees, we said. We showed the guard our press passes and explained we worked at another place owned by the corporation. No one told him to expect us, he said, so we weren’t allowed in. He directed us to a nearby pay lot. None of us had brought any money, so we left.

The corporate paper didn’t look anything like what I had envisioned. It didn’t look exciting, fun or interesting. It looked boring as hell.

Just like the newspaper it put out.

Just because it isn't pretty doesn't mean it isn't news

My post on candy-asses got me to thinking about photos in newspapers and what a hot-button they can be if they're showing something less than pleasant, like, say, pictures of war.

Most of the places I've been have taken into account the news value of photos, at the least holding a discussion to determine whether any given image is worthy of publication because it furthers the story or tells one of its own.

But I've also had the misfortune to work at places where discussion -- and debate -- aren't allowed to happen, replaced by blanket policies. The last newspaper (to use the term extremely loosely) where I worked had a policy of not running photos of the dead, period. Let me make it clear that I hate ALL blanket policies, period. They're a cop-out for useless editors who are sitting in chairs wondering what the hell to do.

In this instance, the photo was of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, killed in 2006. Obviously the death of a terrorist leader is news but what about running his photo? The editor wandered into the meeting, glanced at the group, said, "No," and left. No discussion whatsoever. This does a disservice to everyone, of course. Someone may have had a valid argument for running that photo. Was it newsworthy? The question was never asked. It wasn't allowed.

This publication recently laid off all of its staff photographers, who were among the best employees there. The photos were more often than not excellent, even when faced with a less-than-newsy assignment. Now reporters will take some photos and, most likely, they will depend on reader-submitted photos. In other words, forget any hope of thoughtful,meaningful photojournalism.

Another newspaper at which I worked had a long and serious discussion and debate about whether to run a photo that depicted dead Americans in Iraq, men who had been beaten, dragged, and hanged up for gawkers. We ended up running the photo on the front page, in color but fairly small. Did we get complaints? Of course. But we had a reasoned and well-thought-out response for those people.

With newspapers in such steep decline, it's an excellent time to return to the intended purpose of printing the news, straight up, no chaser. Why not? If readers and advertisers are leaving in droves, go out with a bang and some dignity. Stop pandering to those half-ass readers who want news to be pretty. War, crime, politics -- it's never pretty. But it is news.

Another bankruptcy

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune has joined the list of papers in big financial trouble. The paper announced that is has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The Tribune Co., which owns the LA Times and Baltimore Sun, among others, has already filed.

Also, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer joins the Rocky Mountain News and the Miami Herald as newspapers for sale. The Intelligencer is owned by Heart and the company says it will quit printing in 60 days if there is no buyer.

Looks like Seattle is about to become a one-newspaper town.

A really shitty idea

Michael Miner at Chicago Reader reports that the Sun-Times has suggested eliminating some editorial positions and outsource those jobs, maybe to India. Roughly 30 jobs would be cut, all are copy editing and design desk jobs.

Writes Miner: "The Sun-Times Media Group would have to be in terrible shape to consider such an idea. To turn copy over to editors on the other side of the world whose idiomatic English is so different is to guarantee constant aggravation and frustration, not to mention published howlers."

Apparently the paper is in big trouble financially, like every other newspaper in the U.S.

Here's my take: It'll be shit. I'm also a bit annoyed with the usual we-can-make-do-without-copy-editors attitude. Um, no you can't. But try if you want. When your reporters come back with shitty copy and somebody in another country does a shitty job of "editing" it, then hopefully the management here will deal with shitty comments from readers who are tired of shitty shit in their paper.

Thanks, now get out

I got this email today from a friend:

Found this at Sportsjournalists.com. It's a memo from Jim Moroney over at DMN to the staff. Had to share.

“The waters are choppy and the visibility is poor.” That’s how a ship’s captain might describe it. For us in business, we know the economy is wobbly and there is no expert who can tell us with certainty when it will stabilize.

So expect 2009 to be a very difficult year financially. Probably more difficult than 2008. Looking back, we went into 2008 with more optimism than was prudent. Perhaps we are going into 2009 with more pessimism than is necessary. Yet it is always far easier to deal with a bit of prosperity that comes your way than it is to react swiftly to unanticipated adversity.

Having said all that, we will make it through 2009. We will make it through because we believe what we do is important. And because we believe what we do is important, we work the extra hours, make the extra sacrifices and endure the extra hardships to be certain the enterprise continues to thrive.

We have area city councils facing important decisions regarding regional transportation. We have significant decisions to be made regarding the quality of our air and the availability of our water supply. We need our largest school district to succeed. The development of Southern Dallas must remain a top priority for everyone. Will the Texas legislature fund a public law school or a “Tier One” research university in our area? Who are the best leaders for our top statewide offices? These are just a few of the important issues of concern that will be discussed, debated and maybe even decided during 2009. These are but a few of the important issues that no local media organization can or will cover with the breadth, depth or expertise as will our company.

And then there are those without means and without power to redress wrongs. When they have no place left to turn, they turn to us. And we answer, thoroughly and more often than any other local media organization. Once again, this is why what we do is important.

You can work for many companies. And those companies can produce very fine products. Yet there are very few companies which operate for a profit that can state that a part of their mission is to improve the community in which it operates, to hold elected officials and public institutions accountable for their actions and to bring attention to the needs of the neediest in our society. And none of them have been granted a constitutional right to do what they do.

I could spend another few paragraphs extolling the many ways we help our business customers grow their businesses. We do it well and we do it every day. More on this in a subsequent communication. Everything we do — everything each one of you does — in every part of our company is important to the collective strength of our organization. I am asking all of you and each one of you to remember the important mission we have and to let this thought strengthen our resolve through 2009.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to work for such committed leadership and dedicated employees.

Jim

I wonder how many of those "dedicated employees" will be gone after the DMN's next round of cuts? At least we can rest assured that Jim's job is safe.

No more wet papers in Detroit

More and more bad news just keeps coming for newspapers. Bankruptcies, layoffs, up for sale, dropped benefits – the list keeps growing.

In Detroit, the Free Press and the News are planning to dump daily home deliveries except for the three highest circulation days – Sunday, Thursday and Friday. These are the first major newspapers to do such a thing.

"We're fighting for our survival," said David Hunke, publisher of the Free Press and CEO of the Detroit Media Partnership, a joint operating agreement between the two papers, told CNNMoney.com. "We think it’s time to take a geometric leap forward in what we've known as newspapers."

Uh-huh, somebody’s taking a “geometric leap” here but it’s not the Free Press or the News. Why do newspapers, who are supposed to report the news without the spin, insist on spinning their own news? This move is about money, nothing more, nothing less. The paper wills save big bucks on the cost of paper and ink. I guess they’ll save some on staff, too, since this will result in some layoffs.

Under this new plan, Web sites will be expanded and “abbreviated versions” of papers will remain on news racks.
If you don’t have a computer in Detroit, you’re pretty much screwed if you want some news, unless you make a trip out to a news stand. For most, that may not be an issue. But considering that most newspaper readers are older, how many of those readers no longer drive? They may not have any way to go pick up a paper. And why go through all that trouble for an abbreviated edition?

While money may be saved in the short term, in the long run, both papers will end up losing readers and advertisers. Here’s the thing, newspaper publishers, those of us who still read the paper, do for a reason. We like to read the news. In our hands. Spread out on the floor, or the table, or on the couch. It’s the same reason that I don’t do e-books. I’m not going to lug my computer around everywhere I go. I’m not taking it to the dentist’s office to read while I wait; I won’t take it with me on the light rail while I go someplace; forget taking it along to a restaurant to read while eating breakfast.

And I don’t want an “abbreviated” newspaper. I want a real, actual newspaper with real, actual news inside it. The only silver lining I can find is the one I used for the title: No more complaints from readers about papers being tossed in puddles or into bushes or stolen by their neighbors. That's a pretty crappy lining, though.