Media General eliminates 80 positions in Florida, including 18 in the Tampa Tribune newsroom

  Media General eliminated 80 positions at its outlets in Florida today -- including a number of experienced journalists at the Tampa Tribune newspaper, such as longtime columnist Dan Ruth and editorial page editor Rosemary Goudreau.

The job reductions were made necessary by the worsening newspaper economy, particularly the large drops in classified advertising revenue every newspaper has faced in recent months and years, said John Schueler, president of Media General's Florida Communications Group, which oversees the Tribune, WFLA-Ch. 8, TBO.com, Hernando Today and all the corporation's other Florida-based outlets.

"Circuit City just declared bankruptcy and Macy's has signaled in the first quarter they're going to cut all of their magazine ads,"  Schueler said. "All of those signs tell us that in the short run it's going to be much tougher, so we're trying to get ahead of that."

Schueler said about one-third of the eliminated positions were unfilled jobs; the reductions will leave FCG with about 1,150 employees total, down from 1,326 in April. At the Tampa Tribune, the names of those laid off today included some of the longest-tenured and best-known journalists on the staff: Ruth, Goudreau, senior editor Larry Fletcher, senior editor/presentation Pat Mitchell, longtime reporter Phil Morgan and many others.

"We're all cognizant of the economic realities of this business," said Ruth, who was packing up his desk when I reached him by phone this morning. "For the last two years, hardly a day has gone by when I didn't wonder if this would be the day . . . I've given 36 years of my life to this business . . . now that day has come."

Ruth is arguably the most visible name yet at the Tribune to be included in staff reductions (he also hosts a Sunday afternoon radio show on WWBA-AM 820). Rumors surfaced a couple of weeks ago that the worsening economy was forcing the newspaper to cut 20 more positions; Tribune executive editor Janet Coats eventually confirmed that 18 positions were eliminated at the Tribune.

Having reorganized the newsrooms of the Tribune, WFLA and TBO.com into a "Web first" converged operation, Coats remained confident the remaining staff could still produce compelling content for TV, print and online. "We still have 235 journalists in this newsroom -- that is a strong enough staff to produce the product line we have now," she said. "Even though it's been a rough year, I think we are strong enough and deep enough to figure this out."

The big problem: how to replace the huge drops in revenue that have come from losing auto ads, retail ads, real estate ads and classified ads to the recession and competition from Web sites such as eBay and Monster.com. Throughout the year, Media General has tried to shave costs by offering buyouts, instituting layoffs and reducing the size of the newspaper.

And Coats acknowledged the frustration some staffers felt as people with decades of tenure saw their jobs eliminated so quickly. “Some of the people who left today . . . were people who were at my wedding,” she said. “But, as heartless as it may sound, it’s business. There are certain ways you have to handle this . . . but there were still several standing ovations today in the newsroom.”   

Over the years, staff reductions and voluntary departures have taken some well-known names from the Tribune's roster, including movie critic Bob Ross, classical music critic Kurt Loft, political columnist/editorial writer Joe Brown (at right) and now Ruth.

The question left: What kind of paper can the Tribune produce with such a reduced staff? And will crucial connections with readers be lost as writers well known in the community leave?

"Of course, we're concerned about our connection to readers...but we're working hard to make those connections with the reporters we do have," said Scheuler, who did not expect any platform to be significantly remade following the staff reductions. "It's a balancing act." 

Ruth actually worked at the Tribune in two stints, from 1973 to 1981, leaving for Chicago where he worked, among other jobs, as the TV critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, and from 1991 to now. The columnist says he got a phone call this morning notifying him of the layoff, and isn't sure what he may do next.

"I'm 59 years old and I've had a triple bypass . . . I don't quite know what my marketability is," Ruth said. "But I feel like I can walk out of here with my head held high. I did the best job I could as a columnist for as long as I could, and that's all you can really do."

*

MEMO TO:     All FCG Employees

FROM:            John Schueler

Dear Colleagues:

Today we announced the elimination of eighty positions in 
Advertising, News, Marketing, Administration, IT, HR and the Business 
Office. About one third came from open positions and the remainder 
through layoffs.

Our revenue base continues to be challenged as the market and 
advertising economy stumble, so we will continue to work on 
efficiencies in our operational areas that are likely to result in 
further employee reductions.

Despite these very difficult decisions, we are working to preserve 
our purpose and mission so that we can thrive in the long term. Your 
talent, commitment and dedication to outstanding local journalism 
remain the cornerstone of our community service and our progress in 
this tough economy. Our ongoing investments in operational efficiency 
as well as in profitable products and services across all of our 
platforms will help to see us through this very difficult period.

As we face the continuing uncertain economic conditions in the months 
ahead, I look to your dedication and professionalism as we chart the 
best course for success.

Comments

[JobOutlets]

I have a very close friend, who graduated from Harvard. Worked for ML for over 8 years, last year he’s laid off too. OMG, now the banking industry is badly hurt, how long it would take for those financial background like him get back to the job market. Banking jobs are not there as much as before as easily seen on http://www.joboutlets.com and other job sites in the region

[beltwaybandit]

Some industry data, showing that revenue was dropping even before the economy tanked:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28005346

U.S. Newspaper Q3 2008 Ad Revenue - DOWN 18% from previous year

U.S. Newspaper Q3 2006 Ad Revenue - DOWN 1.5% from previous year

This shows that newspapers started losing ad dollars BEFORE the economy hit them hard.

Meanwhile, circulation has been dropping for years and years...evidence that audience for newspaper product has been eroding totally independent of any economic factors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/02/AR2005050201457.html

This information together verifies the assertion that the industry's problem is much deeper than just "decline in classified ad revenue".

[Steve]

The term is "disruptive technology" coined by Clayton M. Christensen author of The Innovator's Dilemma[1997].
This book explains what has now taken place in the newspaper business.

I believe there's another factor (among many)involved: The newspaper mind-set or culture -- with full-on arrogance. The mind-set prevented newspaper manager's and staffers from understanding or believing what was inevitable. The mind-set necessary for this failure festered in part because of the separation of editorial and advertising cultures in newspapers.
I'm not talking about advertorial content here -- obviously this separation was necessary for the editorial content of the product. However by separating the business thinking from the editorial thinking(until it was too late) helped cause a blindness. The failure of both sides to be aware and understand the whole of the enterprise (kinda like a comet being screened by the sun until impact).

I find it amazing that newspaper people -- who think of themselves as smarter than the average bears, quasi-experts on all they write about, failed to catch a clue early enough. Kind of like people who are great at giving advice but don't follow it for themselves.

Media General even bragged about how they "got it," but failed to act on it.
In fact MG COO (former Tribune Publisher) Reid Ashe used to recommend "The Innovators Dilema" on his internal blog 7 years ago (launched long after the early adopters in his company discovered blogging) . But of course, that's academic now isn't it?

I'm not one to believe all newspaper jobs ought to still exist simply becasue they have in the past (or because of 1st amendment arguements). In the case of Media General -- the faliure to act on the changes they saw coming basically comes down to a lack of the ability to be brave... the inability to do anything significantly different from the way they always did things in order to learn and to try "new media" in order to stay in business. (unless you count "The Orange" !! A cheap panic move).

I have thought about these things for some time (local TV news is killing itself with a different kind of arrogance). I'm riffing here and as always will take a somewhat extreme position to illustrate my points -- so be it.

Sometimes things are simple and when people argue that they are much more complex - they're just invested in reinforcing the status quo in order to feel secure and to avoid being brave.

[beltwaybandit]

Eric,

I don't understand the newspaper business very well?

You deserve to know a little about my background, as you make a good point...I know your background from reading you and blogging with you, you don't know me.

My entire 30+ year career has been spent in broadcast, newspapers, marketing and advertising/PR.

In the past 20 years I have been CEO of a national radio network, chain of radio stations, newspaper company, PR firm, ad agency and a marketing services company in addition to running a cable company.

I departed newspapers and radio 12 years ago because of what could be seen from the marketing side as the coming quantum change in the advertising business and the impact on traditional media. I went to work on the marketing/ad/PR side because that's where the action is.

While you are accurate that classified ads have long been fuel for newspaper revenue streams, you clearly do not have even a fundamental understanding of what is happening to the newspaper industry.

Classifed ad revenue decline is occurring because of a fundamental change in the way marketers look at newspapers and advertising in general.

No longer will they tolerate a mass media approach. It is too inefficient and the return on investment of marketing dollars is muh greater by alternative sources (digital). This was already the case long before the economy started to go downhill.

Newspapers, like other media, failed to see this trend or if they did, failed to accept it because their profit margins were so great for so long. (30% net profits were typical in newspapers, and even today some still produce 20% net profits.)

By the time newspapers woke up, it was too late. The time avialable to shift to digital delivery of content passed them by and now the cost to shift is destructive to most companies.

I often consult management teams in media and one of the first questions I ask them as the session begins is: "what business are you in?"

I get a lot of stares and then they shrug and say:

1. we're in the news business.
2. we're in the newspaper business.
3. we sell ads to generate revenue.
etc., etc.

The I tell them they are wrong. They are in the audience business.

The reason you gather news and put it out on the street in the paper is to get readers. Those readers are then packaged and sold for revenue.

The business is audience. Nothing else.

Newspaper lost touch with their audience. The audience decided to move to digital delivery and the audience that still read the paper product is shrinking because they are dying. There is no young audience following the older one. And the data clearly shows newspapers are losing their audience and have been for a few years...long before the economy went down hill.

This lack of understanding of the newspaper business is the real reason why the industry is dying off and will continue to do so.

Those in the business, like you, who worry about future careers can cheer up. The digital delivery mechanism still will require news gathering expertise.

But the large and expensive newspaper delivery method (print and circulation) will suck off available cash flow to the point that the companies can't invest in digital delivery shifts, even if they woke up and realized they need to. And they have not yet.

I do agree that we probably are aligned on the need and importance of news gathering in our society.

But if I were you, I would avoid demonstrating a reason why the newspaper industry is in the shape it is in by blaming classified ad decline as the problem. It is only one result of a much larger problem that most in your line of work don't even understand.

[Eric Deggans]

When the country is in the middle of a recession so deep that major banks are on the verge of failure and the entire U.S. auto industry is begging for money from the federal government, there is no newspaper which will be flush with cash.

Newspapers depend on advertising revenue to prosper, particularly ads in classified, real estate, automotive dealers, retail stores and employment. So imagine how the current economic downturn, which is centered on a mortgage meltdown, layoffs, high gas prices and a lack of credit is impacting business' willingness to place ads in newspapers.

What we have seen from circulation figures, is that the biggest national newspapers have basically maintained stable circulation and small localized newspapers have also stabilized. But newspapers in between are losing viewership.

What is ironic is that, thanks to the Internet, more people are reading newspapers information than ever. We reach many more people online than we used to through the newspaper alone. But those online readers only produce a fraction of the advertising revenue that newspaper readers do, which makes it very difficult to maintain the staff size we need do produce the kind of work we do.

So, the problem is very complex. We need to find a way to make more money on the readers who consume our product online and in non-traditional outlets such as our free weekday tabloid TBT. If we manage that, we can build a new business model to support the editorial staff we need for wide ranging, incisive reporting.

But that's a big "if."

I feel like we are having an argument similar to one of the 1980's: beta vs. vhs...when what none of us can see is, our current argument is already outdated because right over the horizon the new mode of movie viewing is going to be DVD's and Blue ray dics.

So my point is/was all this wailing about what the paper(s) should have done to morph for change - to save jobs, still would not have been enough to keep up their profitibility (to their years prior levels). Practically no paper has really accomplished the balance between changing with the times and keeping the profitiability up to past years - yet.

So it seems what most of them are doing are just embracing the fact that the profit levels of the past are gone, cutting staff and stepping back trying to keep the business afloat while trying to really figure out what the readers and viewers really want-and most importantly how what the viewers want will make them profitable again.

You can see it with all TV stations national and local, rebranding their names (Ten connects comes to mind), re doing their sets (WFLA in HD), the news anchors "email me with your thoughts on this news story my aol email address is (channel 10)" national news anchors walking around the set in short skirts and low cut tops (the females) on the Fox News channel (national network not local) all of this ...all these are acts of change but also quiet desperation.

That is unless these changes work and then of course they were acts of brilliance.

Heck - I dont know the answer, I just know this demise was basically caused by the way we use the hard copy of the newspaper and how we do not watch the local 5,6, and 11 o'clock news every night like people used too - these layoffs are inevitible. Sure there will be papers in our futures - but the types, quality and glory days (as they were) are gone.

That was my point with envisioning the horse & buggy (not whip) industry trying to re-design their product so as to compete with the advent of the automobile.

It's not that we didnt need the transportation anymore - it's just that the horse and buggy wasnt going to be the most popular mode of transportation anymore - no matter what the horse and buggy industry did to redesign their product - it was out the door. Hence it's demise.

So Im am not saying people dont need news anymore - Im just saying exactly what Eric and Beltway both seem to agree to -newspapers and TV news, as they are now, are not where the vast majority of people are getting their primary news info from anymore-especially people under 35.

The upcoming youth are being weaned on non news products, such as reality TV. They'll use the search engines on topics they are interested in. With no loyalty to one sight or the other. The loyality will be the search engine. Or they will subscribe to items that interest them But we in the media are not driving the bus on that one anymore. And how does the media capture this to make any revenue?

Really my point was/is it's not just Media General and not just here in the Tampa market. Many papers are trying many different things to stop the bleeding. Some even are working the theory that Eric suggested above.
Its just not proven that any of these options are bringing up the profit levels yet - even though it may be meeting the viewer/readers needs.

So the "hiring frenzy" was just a metaphoric type question of is there any paper in the midst of real success right now? If you believe Vanity Fair, Bloomberg is the only successful news org afloat right now.

Because in the end practically every media outlet is a business - and in business to make money - and they are not non-profit organizations(no matter what their "mission statement" says).
So yes, the money needs to be there for the jobs to stay there.

Im sure it's obvious Im not a writer. But this is an interesting blog and the first one I have even written on - just wish there was a spell check!! Thank you guys for your insights and thought evoking commentary.

P

[Eric Deggans]

And, in case I need to spell it out further, there's no way to support the large reporting staffs maintained by modern newspapers without the revenue they once generated.

Other news outlets, web sites, radio stations, TV station, don't have one third the newsgathering staff of a paper the size of the Times. Which means there will be much less actual news provided to the community if newspapers go away.

[Eric Deggans]

I don't know who you are beltway, but you don't understand the newspaper industry very well.

The current newspaper economic structure is failing because classified ads are failing. they have always been the engine that drives newspaper revenue, supplying up to 60 percent of some newspapers' revenues when times were good.

But web sites ranging from Craigslist to eBay have taken that business by offering a free alternative. In October, the Tampa Tribune's classified revenues were down something like 21 percent from last year, and I bet 2007's revenues were down from the year before.

The current economic recession is making the problem worse, because other kinds of advertising revenue is falling, too. And newsprint prices are rising tremendously as well. But the big problem is that newspapers' status as a cash cow came largely from classified ads revenue, and no one has come up with an effective replacement.

[beltwaybandit]

Eric,

The newspaper industry is in fact dying, and in fact it is because management...and employees in the industry...failed to see the changes coming upon them and now it is too late.

If you honestly think that the classified ad revenue decreases are the cause of the newspaper industry's fall then you are naive.

The cause of the classified's disappearance is the onset of digital alternatives...cheaper, more effective ways to deliver what used to be done via newspaper classified ads.

The same thing is happening with the newsgathering function...there is a better way to deliver the results of that newsgathering and it is digital.

Now, it is interesting how you...and many in the newspaper industry...continue to put forth the notion that "newsgathering" is the primary function of a newspaper. And that newspapers are the only product of newsgathering.

For at least 20 years more Americans have received their news from sources other than newspapers. In fact...newspaper, TV and radio are nothing more than delivery methods for content.

You are accurate in that "newsgathering" and the information it provides is important to the American society. However, the way that information is delivered is totally irrelevent.

To my previous points, if management at these newspapers and TV stations accepted early on the fact that their traditional delivery methods are either gone or going fast and committed to digital, they would be in front of the tide instead of under it.

Newsgathering functions will always be needed.

What is not needed are outdated, "day after" business models like newspapers, or newsgathering operations that consist of arrogant editors and reporters who think they and they alone know what their audience needs or wants.

Nor do we need members of the news media who are so out of touch that they don't even recognize that "newsgathering" and "newspapers" are not the same thing.

The world can live just fine without newspapers.

It can't live without newsgathering.

[Eric Deggans]

I think many of you are oversimplifying this problem.

If only newspapers' problem could be marked down to bad management or dismissed as the kind of revolution which killed the buggy whip. the fact is, the transition we're living through is much more complex and worrisome.

Buggy whip manufacturers went out of business because a new mode of transportation emerged which made them obsolete. But the information newspapers provide is not obsolete -- in fact it is the fuel that feeds our entire modern news infrastructure, from the stories that TV and radio reporters read on their reports to the links thrown up on a thouand blogs and the reports fed across the globe by google and yahoo.

What is going the way of the buggy whip is the way that newsgathering is funded -- namely, the classified ad.

If newspapers go away, unlike the demise of the buggy whip, we won't be left with a much improved system. We'll be left with a news infrastructure which doesn't have the manpower or expertise to offer serious newsgathering or analytical reporting outside of the biggest outlets.

But I don't think that will happen. In media, as we've seen with radio, movies and television, new advances don't kill old forms. But it may force them to change to the point that they are unrecognizable.

[beltwaybandit]

Your next to last paragraph reveals a lack of understanding of the media business and the changes causing the turmoil.

You ask what "traditional old guard newspapers in this country who are successfully adapting to the point where they are on a hiring frenzy and their subscriber base is up over what it was, even five years ago??"

That question misses the point by a wide margin...an old guard newspaper that successfully adapts to the changes would NEVER be on a hiring frenzy, nor would their subscriber bases be increasing.

Instead, they would have robust web sites, an active database of e-mail address to customize content and deliver it to subscribers on a daily basis, and they would rely on each individual reader/subscriber to choose the content they got delivered digitally.

The successful newspaper "adapters" of the new model would take that highly targeted audience with custom content, package and market those audiences and the information on their tastes, and sellit to marketer slooking to reach those kinds of audiences. That, in fact, is where the demand is in marketing...NOT in the mass delivery model offered by newspapers, local TV, network TV and to an extent radio.

The whole point of the digital age is to cut out jobs that formerly were needed, making things more efficient.

Your last graph makes a good point. I would say the management of buggy whip companies would be roughly equivalent to the management of today's auto firms...no grasp of the reality of the market and stuck in an old business model of management deciding what cars to build and sell instead of understanding that the customer now controls those choices.

The downfall of the auto industry was predictable...and so was the downfall of newspapers.

More than anything, the causes for each downfall can be traced to inept management that never realized that the control of the product (car, SUV, news, sports, etc.) ultimately rests with the consumer/audience and NOT with management.

You can also fairly argue that labor has been an equally inept and blind partner to these repsective managements. Auto unions just recently in congress argued they had already given up a lot and saw no reason to give up more. They also have a long history of extracting ridiculous pay and benefits for their workers that made Detroit non-competitive. Newspapers have long been heavy on labor and as evidenced in this blog, the cries are as much about loss of jobs as loss of media outlet.

True, management has been complicit in some of these labor deals. But crippling strikes pretty much helped them make their decisions to agree.

If labor unions had not been so shortsighted and not asked for idiotic pay and benefit packages that have consumers paying medical insurance for retired workers and their families, and management had the vision to see the impact of their decisions in the future and had stood their ground and not agreed to these bonheaded contracts, the auto industry would not need a bailout and newspapers...would perhaps be more digital than they are now.

Forrest Gump was right when it comes to labor and management...stupid is as stupid does.

If blogs existed in the 1900's these above postings would be akin to reading that "Hanover" horse and buggy company laid off most of their employees due to lack of sales since the creation of the automobile.

These blogs are lamenting what is and was inevetible in the newspaper and the media world. No matter what Media General or the NY Times, Dallas morning news, or the Washington Post or the L.A. Times or the ST. Pete Times do - their subscriptions will be down every year until some are out of business or their business model is changed to something so different that none of us can really foresee it now.

I am surprised by the mircro vision of some of these blogs above wailing and lamenting about our Tampa market when this media morphing is happening in all media all over the US. OOOOhhh the horrors of mean big business, companies like Media General and so on; and what they (the Media Generals of the world) could-a, should-a, have done to help save these jobs. Do you think these major companies want to be going out of business and their revenues down? IF it were just Media General I could see the point - but it's not. Just try and get a job in the media right now. Check the classifieds - very sparse.

Wake up - there is nothing that could be done to keep the world of media from changing; therefore nothing keeping newspaper(s)or the big three TV stations in their former place of glory. Just like the horse and buggy are never coming back to every driveway.

Im sorry for every person, no matter what their profession, that looses their livelihood and has to go out and find a new job etc. But the entire media world is changing. All the media layoffs and firings are sad. Please, please at least consider beyond this local view of Tampa/St pete and realize - this is an over arching metamorphasis that is affecting the entire media world.

Daniel Routh, et al, can still have successful daily editorial pieces on the web and more people can see it on Huffington Post or Salon.com or gosh golly, they can have their very own web site. Which could in turn be more than just being published in the Trib or affiliated with tbo. Point is, we all know it, the days of having to get your editorial wit and commentary from an actual newspaper are gone.

So stop with the "woe that the big mean old Tampa Tribune didnt listen to all the sage advice [probably from all the ex employees posting here] and save these peoples jobs". Nothing could have been done to stop this one piece of the overall media world train wreck. It's an epedemic for all media across the whole USA and none of us were really prepared for it.

The way we as consumers get our information is changing. We're all part of these firings as well-becuase we choose to get our news and entertainment differently - and it cant be stopped.

I would like to know of any of the traditional old guard newspapers in this country who are successfully adapting to the point where they are on a hiring frenzy and their subscriber base is up over what it was, even five years ago??

Again, as a metaphor - ponder this - what could the horse and buggy industry have done to stop the advent of the automobile taking over the personal transportation market? Right...nothing.

[Brad]

There are fools running Media General... or should we call it Mediocre General. They are very good at collecting easy money and very bad at running a business.

They have managed to synergize WFLA, the Trib, and TBO.com so that none of them are worth reading, watching, or advertising in. WTG!!

I'd like to see the fired staffers put together their own local paper. It's easy enough to pull in the same AP stories the Trib has. They'd run Media General out of town in a year.

[Tom Seay]

Someone said the Tribune could not talk bad about Obama. Obama said no one can talk bad about him, and the liberal media says no one can talk bad about him. I don't think anyone will have to talk bad about him. His performance as president will eventually do that for him, no matter how much the left and the liberal media try to blame the TRUE conservatives.

[Sad to hear the news]

How awful! As a former employee, it's sad to know about the folks behind the scenes (not just big columnists)who have lost their jobs. Pat Mitchell is a great teacher and artist. There are far to many to mention. You can start to see a trend, kicking employees to the curb that are of a certain age group, and number of years of service. The media outlets hope to give you young, cheap, sloppy written, copy edited and slapped on the pages journalism. Good luck.

[Howard Troxler]

As a columnist and a former Tribune employee ('82-'91) I was sad and surprised to hear the news about Dan as well as the other folks involved, some of whom I remember well from past years.

I absolutely believe that the marketplace will always need someone to tell folks what their mayor, city, county, School Board, Legislature and governor are trying to do to them. That requires a journalistic function considerably deeper than web briefs, aggregators and Google can provide. The question is whether the traditional newspaper industry -- or parts of it, at least -- can adjust to the changing world to provide this, or whether the market will come up with alternatives.

It is good to see so many names from the past whom I recognize here among the comments. Best wishes to all.

[Suzie Siegel]

Joe, there was never a "perfect world" for newspapers. When I started, there was still plenty of discrimination against women, for example.

It has long made sense to let workers work from home.

[joe hillman]

very well-written david.

>>>Newspapers began their decline when the Internet revolution kicked in. I'm no GenX'er, but I get my "information" digitally. It's not that I don't have time to read the newspaper -- it's that I don't have any desire to. Throw that in on top of the $100+ subscription, and I would rather source my news digitally. <<<

totally agree. rarely do i buy newspapers. but i surf news sites/blogs constantly throughout the day. i read more news now from more sources -- and therefore believe i'm more informed -- than i ever did when i was a subscriber.

[David]

Joe,

While I will agree with you in principle, in order for newspapers to have relevance, they need 'local' workers. My company has done quite a bit of outsourcing to India, and believe me, it's not the same as dealing with someone in the States. Sure, it's cheap labor, but you don't get what you don't pay for in certain situations.

I COMPLETELY agree with your reference to broadband -- there is NO reason to have "buildings" where people report in, provided they have broadband access. I do a tremendous amount of collaboration with co-workers across the country, and we see each other in person perhaps every two years or so. Broadband -- and what is coming next -- has been a godsend.

Newspapers began their decline when the Internet revolution kicked in. I'm no GenX'er, but I get my "information" digitally. It's not that I don't have time to read the newspaper -- it's that I don't have any desire to. Throw that in on top of the $100+ subscription, and I would rather source my news digitally.

Believe it or not, a well-executed local blog might actually do a better job of keeping people informed of their 'local' events. Do I really need/want to know what is going on in Ocala? Maybe. But that is the beauty of digital sourcing -- you can pick and choose the topics/areas that interest you, and set up an RSS feed (provided, of course, your source has that!).

As much as I hate to see them go, I cannot help but to think that newspapers will cease to exist in the next 20 years.

[joe hillman]

>>>But you seemed to be making the argument that outsourcing copy editors was just as good as having copy editors who knew their community.<<<

in the current age of newspapers, yes.

again, this is no longer 1984. newspapers are today's magazines. "sense of community" is a luxury that in many cases cannot be afforded. this is no longer a perfect world for newspapers.

we need to forget what newspapers were. newspapers that clutch to the past will go belly up in the very near future.

a person in india with a good grasp of english and a stylebook can edit copy just as easily as someone sitting in an expensive downtown office.

for that matter, it would be cheaper to outsource to contract copy editors working from home. broadband internet access is a wonderful thing.

wish i didn't have to type that. but if drastic measures such as those aren't utilized, there won't be any paper with copy to edit.

[David]

Well, to quote Slash, "...that's the sound of a band breaking up."

[Suzie Siegel]

Re: restaurant reviews. For a while, I was Kurt's editor, and he was always very productive, doing restaurant reviews in addition to his other stories. I know he doesn't need me to defend him, but what the hell.

I don't understand the criticism of restaurant reviews. A lot of readers find these articles useful. Why would it be wrong or shameful for reporters to write about something they enjoyed, whether it's eating or reviewing movies or writing feature stories about interesting people?

Did some people have better jobs than others? Yes, of course.

[Suzie Siegel]

Joe, I agree that the newspaper business is collapsing. Most newspapers have been cutting back for years. But you seemed to be making the argument that outsourcing copy editors was just as good as having copy editors who knew their community.

[Jill]

Definitely not. But it didn't matter to me. I just liked to write.

[Still There]

I guess there is no such thing as a free lunch. Depending on your name.

[Jill]

When I did restaurant reviews for the Tribune, I had to buy my own lunch.

[Still There]

Ok, enough whining back and forth. Who wants to go do a restaurant review and bring along your closest pals? Or who wants to do one story every six months? Now taking applications......

[Jill]

Now it's more a sense of commodity...

[joe hillman]

suzie:

you are correct (outsourcing copy editing), but think about it:

20 years ago, shoot, 10 years ago, would you have envisioned in your wildest dreams what's happening to newspapers currently? i wouldn't have.

"knowing a community" used to be a core element of a newspaper. those days are gone just like the pica pole.

in a perfect world, sure, the copy desk could be saved. it's no longer a perfect world for newspapers. it's a world of desperate financial survival now.

"sense of commonuty"

[Suzie Siegel]

Re: Joe's comment that copy editing can be outsourced to some place other than the Tampa Bay area, plus another comment that the Tribune had too many copy editors. I can't believe anyone who has been in journalism would believe either of those statements. Knowing a community differs from checking a stylebook.

Re: all the people who made inane political comments. If you don't like the politics of particular columnists, don't read them. And if you were upset that the Trib endorsed McCain, where have you been all these years? The Trib's editorial department has been conservative as long as I can remember.

[Eric Deggans]

OK Jack and Jill. I was hoping this back and forth might die out without my getting involved. But i'm going to have to ask you guys to be more respectful and offer comments to the point of the post.

Otherwise, i'll start deleting your comments, which I don't want to do...

[former tribber]

I don't think anyone commenting here is denigrating the commitment or talent of the people still at the Tribune. Some of the people I worked with are still there, and they always gave it their best. They still do, and they still write, shoot and edit for about 200,000 print customers every day. Here's hoping they still get to do it.

[Jill]

Having fun, Jack?

[jack]

At least I have a name attached to my post,...
Posted by: Jill | November 13, 2008 at 12:51 PM

And the attached name, "Jill" tells us a lot!

God help you JILL. What a dolt you be.

My name is JACK, OK?

I sense you are one of the poor folks left in the Tribune ghostroom, er, newsroom or the significant other of one.

No worries. You or your loved one will be tumbling down the hill shortly.

JACK

[Jill]

After thinking about it for a while I also feel it is a disservice to the employees who are left at the Tribune to be so quick to condemn their efforts.
They are the ones who are going to have to pick up the slack and try to put out a decent product with an inadequate number of staff, their names on the bylines and mast.
It isn't their fault they are the ones who will have to bail faster on what everyone assumes to be a sinking ship.
How would you like that task knowing that any day it could be your phone ringing telling you to bring your purse/wallet and car keys and go to the publisher's office?

[Jill]

At least I have a name attached to my post, November 13, 2008 at 11:49 AM, and I read too.
I have no objection to a list of the positions that were eliminated being posted – if someone wants to share the information with you, feel free.
Beltwaybandit, you know the reason information on governmental agencies is open to public scrutiny is because they exist through the expenditure of public funds.
The only people you could argue have a right to employment information on a publicly traded company are the stockholders.
Whether or not the newspaper will be "diminished FUNCTIONALLY" will be evident in time, don't you think?

As a reporter, were I covering the firing of a group of people from a company, .... Posted by: Jill | November 13, 2008 at 08:59 AM

Once AGAIN Jill, you are flogging a dead equine.

I already said, "Fine, no names."

But a list of the positions that were done away with so we could see just how the paper has been diminished FUNCTIONALLY would be good to have.

Do you object to that too?

And again, just what is your interest in all this?

As I said before, mine is that of a reader.

[Kurt Loft]

All 17 people laid off Monday were essential to the production, quality and relevance of the Tribune. I have the list and I know most of these outstanding, talented individuals. Not one was less than essential. Their absence, as we all might agree, means 17 fewer minds who will contribute to our daily slice of Tampa life in print.

[beltwaybandit]

It is rapidly becoming time for members of the news media to become subject to the same standards that they themselves apply to others.

If news reporters and columnists believe they are within their rights to report on and comment on individuals, some of whom are often innocent people simply sucked into the media windstorm because they are somehow connected to a subject of a story, then it should only be fair and reasonable that media reporters and columnsist be subjected ot the same standards.

It would be interesting to see if, subject to the same level of judgement that they themselves apply to others, if reporters and columnists were to alter their approaches and apply their own internal editing procedureson their work.

I suspect that the result would be a much better balanced and more fair product, geared more to proven facts rather than innuendo and implication.

Before Jill fires back at me, please note that I started my career as an on air news and sports reporter on both radio and television. I then moved into management and ended up running broadcast and newspaper companies with oversight of news operations in both industries. I am well versed in these issues and I've been in and near the business for more than 30 years so I have watched first hand the changes in news reporting and editorials.

Luckily, I departed operating positions in the early 90s to focus on new media and marketing services.

What's happening to newspapers has been predicted for more than tenyears, and any management team that says they were surprised or who blame the economy is just covering their tails.

Employees who share management's views have their heads in the sand as well.

Employees arguing that "the public has no right to know" about these "wonderful people who have been laid off" are just practicing a double standard that is precisely what they have been operating with for the duration of their careers.

Think of it...we now have the same people who argue that employees of government agencies or public trade companies deserve to have their employment information published claiming that THEIR employment information is essentially "no one's business".

No wonder the Tribune is rapidly nearing the end of the rails.

[Lynn McClure]

I just returned from a trip and find Daniel Ruth has been fired. Sorry I put the paper on hold, because I'm canceling as soon as I finish this comment.

[Jill]

PS
Victims of crime and accidents are named in police reports which are public record.
If you were writing about that crime or that accident and approached the victim with the attitude that you had a "right" to their side of the story you wouldn't get very far.
People involved in such things speak to reporters because they want others to know how the event has impacted their life, not because they have to.

[Jill]

How is someone losing their job your "right to know?"

As a reporter, were I covering the firing of a group of people from a company, I would talk to the people who were willing discuss their experience with me. The people who did not mind going on record I would name and quote, the ones who preferred to maintain their privacy, I would respect.
The Sunshine Laws do not apply to the press. Private employment records are not public records.
Your desire to know does not trump someone else’s right to privacy.

[NewsKnight]

I was overly harsh with my initial response to Mr. Ruth's dismissal. I will miss his caustic charms. As for the newspaper business... oh, we got trouble, right here in river city.

[Steve]

"..or people who will be noticed by readers or viewers are let go."

My point was (perhaps poorly made) that serving the public interest as a journalist is NOT always the same thing as writing about people or things readers and viewers would notice.

I find it ironic that a newspaper employee doesn't want the names and positions of those fired to be published in a blog. You should try working for any government agency, school, university, etc. Everything is public record. Everything. And Jill, you would be the first one to cite the Public Records Act and sue the agency if they didn't give you what you wanted. Double standard, for sure.

[mike]

Eric,

It's not perhaps so much a "who" but rather a "what" question.

The functions performed by these folks would be good to know so we can monitor the effect(s) of the terminations on the product.

1 columnist
5 reporters
2 editorial writers
3 editors
4 graphics editors
2 researchers
1 partridge in pear tree
and so on.

Should we be looking for less of the already sorrowful local news coverage?

More punctuation and spelling errors?

Even more (but less relevant) photos to fill all that space abandoned by advertisers and unfilled by missed local news?

It would be nice to know the positions that were killed so we can see how this translates to the newspaper.

I wonder what the backshop folks in think of this. They prpbably don't care. It doesn't effect their hometown Indian paper, does it?

Kinda sad seeing a once fairly decent newspaper dying piece by piece in front of our eyes.

Announce the closing now and give employess 6 months or so to get situated before the doors are slammed shut.

[Eric Deggans]

Jill, Mike and whoever else is trading comments on listing all the laid off people at the tribune: much as I appreciate your feedback, I'm not really planning on listing more people than I already have.

Unfortunately, there are lots of people getting laid off from lots of different businesses these days. I tend to write about layoffs when they are a significant number of people leaving or when people who will be noticed by readers or viewers are let go.

Sorry if that doesn't seem like journalism to some commenters. Obviously, I disagree.

[mike]

"Besides, most people who are inside the newspaper industry probably know who has lost their job.
If the person who is now unemployed doesn't want their business posted in a blog, that's their perogative.
Newspapers don't post the name of every GM or Wachovia employee that gets laid off."
Posted by: Jill | November 12, 2008 at 09:42 PM

Jill. Stop. Now. Please.

First, the is now such word as "perogative."

Second, these are firings, TERMINATIONS, not "layoffs," as you imply. There is a difference, you know!

Third, the news about people getting canned at the Tribune is for "newspaper insiders" only? Is that what you're saying???

How about the effect on the readers? It's news, Jill, NEWS. N-E-W-S!!!!!

Victims do not have the prerogative of whether or not their names are published in the paper.

If you and your family get involved in a hit-and-run accident, your name and those of your family members are in the paper. You have no prerogative to exercise.

And those who were let go by the Trib ARE, in a very real sense, victims and there names SHOULD be published for a variety of reason, some of which I stated earlier and elsewhere.

Your weak attempt to compare firings at GM and Wachovia to the firings at Tribune simply falls flat.

We don't depend on GM or Wachovia to deliver news to us, do we?

This is our hometown newspaper. This bloodletting at the Trib will certainly effect the amount and quality of the news we receive.

Now make sense or go away please. And remember, you haven't made sense yet.

Just quit while you're behind. It'll only get worse.

What is your interest in this, if I may be so bold?

I hope you are not a staffer there. You don't seem to know much about words. Or maybe you're the type of staffer that poor, sad paper is hiring these days.

I'm interested because I live here and read the Tribune... less and less, of course... but I still buy it a couple of times a week.

[Steve]

I'm also having trouble understanding how publishing/reporting the names of the departed is problematic for some -- especially it seems the journalists in the discussion.

The layoffs are news, business news to be sure, and thorough, comprehensive reporting ought to provide the list.

After all a siginifcant part of journalism (perhaps the part that makes money) involves reporting on a wild assortments of private death by car crash or knife or gun or what have you.

I remember one day kneeling in the middle of a blocked off street looking into a video camera trying to frame a nice composition of a smashed vehicle in which someone had just died. That day I asked myself -- if this were my father's car, my father's death -- would I want it to be trivialized by a 15 second VO on a newscast (or a still in a newspaper)? My answer was -- no. Beside, wouldn't the media serve the public interest better using this time and resource chasing a real story?

Journalists have long enjoyed a double standard.

This reminds me of a recent story Eric wrote about the dismissal of the weekend anchor at WTSP not so long ago -- the story included discussion about whether the decision to let Jennifer Howe go would have an affect on station morale.

The story:

"In the past few weeks, WTSP has let go weather forecasters Anna Allen and Randy Rauch and traffic reporter Meredyth Censullo. But Nikiel said the trickle of departures hasn't affected morale at the station."

This angle of the story bothered me because I suspect that one reason the morale question was asked was because the people being discussed were all "on-air" people.

Of course anchor people and columnists are the stars and they are special, they are better people deserving of more of our compassion -- right?

I know from experience that morale is definitely adversely affected when behind the scenes people -- photographers, editors, producers -- are let go. But we don't put faces or names on those people who are let go --let alone worry about the affect of their firings on station morale. And many times, in TV for sure, these are the people who do the heavy lifting to make the stars shine.

Part of me understands the "star" factor -- part of me knows that when media resort to it -- they're rarely doing journalism.

So when Dan Ruth gets tossed off -- we think something bad has happened -- and it has, but something bad has already happened to other "no-stars" while no one was looking or reporting.

Our empathy ought not be doled out according to status...

[mike]

So, maybe you should be more careful not to be so ambiguous
Posted by: Jill | November 12, 2008 at 09:34 PM

You are speaking about this, correct?

"How about someone posting a list of the PEOPLE who were let go and their newsroom function?

I believe it would prove interesting."

Jill, Jill, Jill. There is absolutely NOTHING ambiguous about the above.

It begins with an unambiguous interrogatory and ends with a rather simple declaritive sentence.

Whence the ambiguousness?

Please just admit you were wrong and go about your business now.

I mean why continue to expose your lack of understanding and comprehension any more than you already have?

Have you not embarassed yourself enough or is your capacity for embarrassment limitless, as it is beginning to appear to be?