Updated at 12:43 p.m ET. There apparently was no big news, I've now been told.Earlier: Publisher Craig Moon (left) has scheduled an all-hands meeting for 11 a.m. today -- but without revealing the agenda. Amid hundreds of recent layoffs at other newspapers, Moon's opaqueness two weeks ago has stirred speculation that the ax will soon fall at the nation's No. 1 circulation paper, too.
Since my metier is encouraging poisonous comments (inside joke, involving USAT's top editor), I'm convening the first-ever session of Gannett Blog University today. The class: live commenting on news events. Starting at 11 a.m., I'd like USA Today staff attending the meeting to report any news, in the comments section, below. (Note: I'll have online access only by iPhone until about 3 p.m. ET, so will have only limited ability to update this post.)
Some of my readers say USAT employees -- especially in editorial -- get what they deserve today: "The USA Today newsroom is soft and spoiled, plain and simple. That's why they don't question authority. They want to maintain their gym memberships, play on their ball fields and tennis courts (part of the Gannett/USAT complex), go home by 5 or 6 every night. They enjoy their views of the Ritz-Carlton from their terrace and their lattes made fresh on Corporate grounds. Many of them have forgotten what it's like to work at other Gannett papers. Some never did work in the smaller sweatshops so they have nothing to compare the glass palace with. Many USAT people still have it made compared to most folks at other Gannett properties. On some level, perhaps they know that, which is why they fall into line so easily."Please post details from today's 11 a.m. staff meeting ASAP, in the comments section, below, after the meeting starts.
[Image: yesterday's USAT print edition, Newseum]
I've never worked at USA Today, but it's funny to read the vindictive posts of other Gannettoids that say the people there deserve what's coming because they don't work in the saltmine shitholes that are most Gannett dailies. Boo fucking hoo, people. Maybe you should pull your heads out of your asses and pay attention to the working conditions in other professions, and take note of what other professionals with college degrees do and do not tolerate. Maybe then a 9-5 workday with a real lunch hour, gym memberships and offices that don't look like half-abandoned grain silos inside won't seem like such a fairy-tale land of people who wipe their asses with silk. If there's one thing I've learned from working at Gannett and non-Gannett newspapers, it's that journalists AS A WHOLE are getting what they deserve for not having the balls to unite and demand better working conditions.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone can argue that a bunch of brave USAT newsroom patriots banded together to make their working conditions so cushy.
ReplyDeleteWow! I complain as much as anyone about life within Gannett, but it's difficult to fault USAT folks for enjoying the few perks that they have. I work at a mid-sized paper, and few people speak out at our meetings. Why? Because they've learned that it doesn't change anything, but it does brand you as a complainer, even if your questions or ideas are well thought out.
ReplyDeleteUSAT has a good batch of writers and editors who have worked their way toward the top of thier profession. Is it such a bad thing that they have decent working conidtions?
Yes, USAT has some good people. It also has some of the worst journalists I've ever seen anywhere, and I am including high school newspapers and bad weeklies. I work with some people who don't even know what's going on in the news! The paper carries these folks for various reasons that I won't bother to get into. Suffice to say that after years of hiring a lot of incapable staffers, and losing a fair number of good people, the quality of journalism at the paper has been in decline, and the morale of those carrying the load is at an all-time low.
ReplyDeleteThey don't just enjoy perks, they abuse privileges. While some have to eat at their desks because of a mountain of work and pressing deadlines that management refuses to acknowledge, others are taking two-hour gym breaks and not making up the time. This is the ultimate "have and have-not" newsroom. Makes for a tense environment when you see your cubemate jogging around the pond for two hours while you're busting your butt to complete an impossible number of tasks.
ReplyDeleteI hate for anyone to lose their job, but why should Editorial employees feel more outraged? At your local papers, one of the main reasons circulation is falling is the fact that these Editors continue to ignore the readers and focus on stories that they want to see. The readers are leaving, causing the advertisers to leave. That's why we see the layoffs taking out Circ, Adv, and Prod.
ReplyDeleteAmen 11:41. Circulation and Household Penetration was falling long before the internet hit when newsrooms were well staffed and the primary reason why subscriptions were canceled was no time to read. WHat this really translated to was uninteresting, uncompelling articles which overwhelmingly was what the newsroom wanted to cover. In a typical newsroom 20% of the workers do most of the work, 60% sorta work and 20% skate. Gannetts lauded diversity efforts didn't reach into diversity of opinion or coverage which resulted in declining fortunes for a lot of years. While newsrooms were spared most of the carnage production and circulation in particular were savaged in expense cutting. The real world is just catching up. Doubling the staffing of newsrooms wouldn't fix the declines and wouldn't bring in the revenue to cover the expenses. As a production manager who has been subjected to 100's of "we need to meet to cut $XXXXX.xx by Monday for the (1st,2nd,3rd,4th qtr or next years budget)meetings. Welcome to the club. We've seen production operations shut down and consolidated with no additional help to the surviving plant. USAT printsites have been strangled with "the model" and when reimbursement doesn't cover actual costs... we cut some more out of the daily operation. Unlike the newsroom we're on call 24/7 and a 60 hour week is a short one. I really don't want to hear about cafeteria service or gym memberships because if you are at a newspaper in production working at night they don't exist. I'd feel your pain but I've been through too many dollar drills, production reviews, newsprint audits, corporate onsites and beatings and floggings over the last 15 years with so many cuts that I'm past num. At least with a college degree and some jouralism skills you can get another job or retrain. You have a much better chance than a mailer, janitor or press operator with a HS education or less to find a replacement job or go back to school. For these folks losing a job is truly catastrophic.
ReplyDelete12:18 Thank you (and 11:41) for speaking for the production types. Many of us have to literally relearn a totally new and different set of skills. If no one is printing -- I have no job whatsoever.
ReplyDelete12:18, I hear what you're saying, but understand that not all of us in the newsroom have a cushy existence. I worked nights for 20 years. No cafeteria. No gym breaks. McDonald's for dinner, wolfed down at my desk. Here's one you won't understand: standing in the women's bathroom trying to pump breastmilk as fast as I could because there was no time for a real break, praying the cleaning company wouldn't walk in on me with my shirt wide open because the cord on the pump wouldn't reach from inside a stall.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I have skills I can sell elsewhere. But it was hardly a cushy time.
Is anyone at Moon's meeting?
ReplyDeleteI think a "making budget" list is in order here. One-upmanship highly encouraged.
ReplyDeleteWhen I worked at The Muskogee Daily Phoenix (before Gannett transrerred it to the foundation and sold it) the person in charge of supplies in the building was bound and be damned to make budget. For a time at the end of a year we:
1. used roll ends instead of paper towels in the ladies restroom.
2. toilet paper was rationed, only X number a day.
3. when we ran out of reporter notebooks, we had to cut up sheets of used copy paper and press releases and staple them together.
BTW, she made budget, got promoted to a larger paper.
I hear Moon may have hinted at a single-copy price increase, and that he didn't rule out layoffs in the future. Can anyone comment?
ReplyDeleteVery nice Jim. Let's turn everyone against each other. Who's next?
ReplyDeleteThe USAT staff seems even more quiet than usual.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they've been warned not to post here?
ReplyDeleteIndirectly, they have.
ReplyDelete3:53 I was thinking the same thing. 2:54, 12:31 here. I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking pressroom folk or circulation or anyone else. No one, not one person should be losing their job with this company right now. I can only imagine the hell you folks are in, especially if you're in NJ where the minimum wage jobs wouldn't support the family dog, let alone a single person. It's just hard to hear this perception that newsroom folk somehow have or have had a cakewalk. There are a lot of folks who work nights who get forgotten, in both the pressroom and the newsroom. And being the squeaky wheel only made matters worse. I know the pressroom folks are facing really tough times and I feel a great deal of sympathy for them.
ReplyDeleteWe're still going to find out what happened, even if Moon and Paulson hate this blog. Let's just have some patience and wait for the USAT staff to get off work.
ReplyDelete4:00 "Indirectly, they have."
ReplyDeleteNow isn't THAT ironic?
Yep, defenders of the 1st amendment, way to curb free speech.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you'll be hearing from people soon enough. It's almost quitting time.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they all went home to search CareerBuilder.com?
ReplyDeleteMore likely they don't want to use a work computer that can be "traced"!!!!
ReplyDeleteAngie P is demanding that USATeers do not post here or else they will be directly fired by her boss Mr. Moon the wonderful!
ReplyDeletePS- I am hearing that Jeff Webber is almost out the door.
Angie is a good egg. Leave her alone. Maybe they realized that you are playground bullies looking for a fight and the best way to handle bullies is to ignore them. It sounds like its working as you all are sooooo upset that nobody is paying any attention to your bullying!
ReplyDeleteAngie P probably reads this blog too
ReplyDelete6:13 PM
ReplyDeleteSo sorry you view this as a game of win- and- lose rather than information sharing.
Why all the negative talk about gym memberships, work outs and food?
ReplyDeleteI know more than most the dislike that can develop between haves and have nots.
But don't let yet another hurdle get in the way of information sharing. I work at one of the sweatshops and I and many of my co-workers want to know what is happening elsewhere in the company.
In a sense, don't we owe each other as much info as we know? Our careers and our support of ourselves and our families are on the line. What else is more important?
it's not about free speech. It's about leaking company confidential information and using company computers to do it. You don't have the "right" to post non-public information.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how you would (supposedly) protect a source who leaked confidential information from their employer, yet you expect your peers to leak that information here.
You all signed an ethics statement.
The company paid for the computers - they don't belong to you, and they have the right to look at whatever you do with those computers.
Now that I've said something in the defense of Gannett, let the personal attacks on me begin, regardless if my comment is true...
8:41 What one does on company time and on company property is one thing. But to threaten an employee who comments here on their own time on their own computer is surely and legaly another.
ReplyDeleteIf an email comes to a recipient without the obligatory confidentiallity statement attached to the end, then it's fair game. Suck it up, and take heed of that for the next round of emails. Corporate may own the email, but they have no more right to privacy than anyone else unless they state the transmission is confidential.
8:41:
ReplyDeleteI'd have way more sympathy for your argument (the computers and signing ethics statement are true enough) IF the company saw fit to honestly inform its employees in a timely manner about important decisions that affect how everyone will move forward. Instead, they operate under this cloak of secrecy that, as journalists, we would be honor-bound to pull aside, if any other company (or politicians, or public officials for that matter) engaged in this type of behavior. Basically, it smacks of hypocrisy on Gannett's part.
Blog on guys. It's the only way we're going to get anywhere near the big picture, - if we all share what we know.
@9:30:
ReplyDeleteIt's not about sympathy for my argument - I was just responding to the person who stated that it's "free speech" to leak confidential information.
It's not free speech.
I would hope no one reading this blog would use their company computer for any personal communications. The company has a right to listen in on conversations on company phones, and monitor any and all communications on company computers without obtaining any prior court approval. If you don't believe me, review what happened in the Jack Kelley case, where Gannett hired private detectives, listened into Kelley's phone calls, and tape recorded his phone calls, and went back through his computer to reconstruct stories he wrote. That was all legal. Gannett has done and will do these things.
ReplyDeleteThe message is clear, if you want to make a private communications or computer e-mail, use your own private computer on your own private phone line or computer connection.
9:39....I thing you confuse what is and what is not confidential. A mass email, unless it's got the attached confidentiality statement is unlikely to be deemed legaly confidential. On the other hand, if someone were to have one on one emails with their HR head regarding leave time or other matters, over corporate email, that IS confidential information. Even the IT departments need to disregard that.
ReplyDeleteMass emails, unless stated confidential, are subject to being shared.
The "free speech" comment was in response to comment on Gannett "warning" people not to post on this blog. Is commenting on layoffs, buyouts and the general misery index really passing on company confidential information?? Or is Gannett's warning an indication of how afraid the company is of its own employees sharing information?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the company have to have due cause to listen in on phone conversations? We alway had to have telemarketers sign an agreement that allowed the company to monitor their phone conversations.
ReplyDeleteI'd say this, if the originator of a mass email is scared of the information being shared, they should be more conserned with the ultimate integrity of the source, rather than the sharing of the information by the recipients.
ReplyDeleteIf you've been warned about posting to this blog, can you tell us what was said?
ReplyDeleteThanks.
10:12 pm No the company does not need to have any cause to listen into your phone calls on company telephone lines. They own the lines, they own the phone, and the courts have held they can do anything they want with their property.
ReplyDeleteThe company does look the other way while employees make the occasional phone call on a company phone, or get email on a company personal computer. But that does nothing to the company's right to look back through your email history to see who you have been talking to, and what you have been saying. The same with your personal phone calls.
If you don't like this, don't use company property for personal purposes.
ie r
10:12 pm: Listening into personal phone calls is covered by state laws concerning wiretapping. SOme states require both parties on the phone to be informed that a third party is listening, some states only require one party have knowledge of the taping or wiretapping. So the warning to telemarketers depends on the state you are in. This, incidentally, is why when you call a credit card company, a bank, or some stores that you get a warning that your call could be monitored for training or other purposes.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me the answer is simple: if you can, purchase your own personal laptop or use a friend's computer or go to the library. They legally can't do a damn thing to you if you're using your own property. I have always used my own. I didn't want Big Brother Gannett telling me what programs I could or couldn't install. Now, it gives me the freedom to say what I want (as long as it's not libelous, of course).
ReplyDeleteBottom line: Be smart about what you do and what you say, but say it, just the same. Keep the pressure on.
Aren't the computers and phones owned by the same publicly traded company that owns the aircraft those corporate retirees are allowed to use for non-business purposes when, in fact, the ethics policy seems to dictate otherwise?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me Gannett takes the old "ethics are relative, not absolute" approach.
You should already know this, but if you want to get personal email at work, set up a personal account under your name with gmail or hotmail, and get your friends or relatives to use that for personal mail. You can reach them anytime from the Internet, even while at work, and that keeps your email messages private.
ReplyDeleteThis way, Gannett would be required to go through a court proceeding to get your gmail or hotmail mail conent, a process which is not easy and is quite costly. The courts have not been friendly to fishing expeditions into someone's email.
If you are using your office account as your personal email account, that is very foolish, because Gannett does not any court order to read your mail that comes into their computers.
Businesses recognize there is non-business use of their equipment, and look the other way while people make dental appointments or talk to their kids after they come in from school. In theory this should not be done, but life is not iron-clad. Having cases of violations of ethics rules is helpful to management when they want to get rid of people. That is how these people operate.
ReplyDeleteIt would sure be interesting to know who was told - directly or indirectly - not to read or post on this blog. I certainly haven't and I know of no one else who has.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is often informative and interesting. Other times it is amazing to see how serious and personal people take things that are just business. It is also interesting to hear how perceptions get twisted around so radically.
I enjoy this blog when conversations are practical and and on point and skim over a great deal when it's the same thing over and over. It's much better to deal in fact than to have the sky is falling approach when there is no basis for that kind of speculation. It becomes like the oil speculators when they raise prices because there "might" be a hurricane someplace, sometime.
Anon @ 11:05 pm - Do NOT use gmail or hotmail at work if you're concerned about privacy. The IT department logs everything inbound and outbound via the Internet, and the content of webmail in any form is quite simple to review when requested.
ReplyDeleteI've had to do that - among many other things - when there was an issue of "appropriate business use" of email or web browsers.
Unless it's an emergency, do your personal email at home!
The so-called ethics policy all USATers sign every year is void in my opinion. It's void because the company, and it top managers, violate the policy every single day in some way while dealing with personnel. In fact, management is the worse violator of ethics rules. If the company wants to silence us, then the people at the top need to behave in a way that is respectful, truthful and sincere. Set the example.
ReplyDeleteAs a publically traded company, corporate officials take an oath not to release information that can harm the stockholders.
ReplyDeleteIf there were no "shareholders" there would be no Gannett. Like it or not, we are a public company ruled by SEC communication rules.
I was surprised to walk past a coworker in the newsroom the other day and see that he was surfing the Gannett Blog. I just looked at him and said, "you sure you want to be reading that here?"
ReplyDeleteI might do some webmail at work, but I'm not that crazy.
At some point someone in the ivory towers is going to suggest IT block the site. Wonder how long before that happens?
ReplyDeleteCutting headcount and still sending about 100 staff to cover the Conventions? Can't 90 of these people stay home and watch TV? Airfarem, meals, hotels, drinks, productivity hits - come on
ReplyDeleteNOTE: What follows is a rather long comment about the state of the newsroom. It is targeted for USA Today folks, as they meander through mergers with online and other challenges, but in some ways applies to the entire industry. I posted it in another section of this blog, but I am afraid it might go unseen, so I am posting it here too. I've also asked Jim to separate it out into an individual item. It seems to be getting a good response. I am encouraging those who read it to direct people here, or copy and paste it and send to your supervisors or others at the top. I don't ask this out of ego, as I am just a humble, lower-level editor, but I think some of what is said is very important to our futures and to USA Today. I am hoping for a greater good to come of it. I intentionally tried to steer away from malicious attacks and gross speculation. I tried to be constructive without being blantantly insulting to anyone. However, some things just have to be stated somewhat bluntly. My intent was not to offend, but to shine light on a massive problem and to spark deeper thought about how we going about reinventing our industry, and how decisions big and small are reached. It's long. It starts off slowly but hopefully makes points that resonate thoughout the newsroom, so please stick with it. I am refering to myself as 12:27, so any direct comments or questions for me can be addressed as such. Here it is:
ReplyDeleteI concur that many USA TODAY editors are lacking in various ways as managers and visionaries. Too many are into simple labels and simple solutions. While some folks might be afraid of change, I am not one of them. And I am an editor! I am a manager who,perhaps surprisingly to some, tends to agree with a lot of what is said here. Where I see smoke, I tend to think there is fire. And I see a lot of smoke on this blog. Granted, there are also some purely personal grudges and malicious comments here. I think most who read this blog are educated enough to understand the difference. I also think most are wise enough to respect varying opinions, though some seem overly defensive for whatever reason.
I have been accused of being an obstructionist, and it hurts because my bosses simply do not know my heart let alone my mind. To label someone unjustly, I've come to realize, is to lose that person in spirit, loyality and productivity. Trust becomes fractured. Victims of stereotyping shut down. I try my best not to do that to the people who I supervise, although there are instances when it is clear that someone is exactly what they project. Sometimes they are incompetent, limited in their work ethics or skills. Sometimes they are complainers with no honorable motives. Some do abuse the system.
I try to judge each person's actions and comments on their own merit and don't look to cubbyhole anyone based on limited interaction with them or vague perceptions told to me by others. However, I know that some of my fellow editors are incapable or unwilling to look beneath the surface of what staffers or other editors are trying to tell them. These editors are under pressure to do certain things, meet difficult demands from the highest levels. The critical mistake they make is in abandoning comments and input made by folks on the frontline. Those folks on the frontline are the ones who have to deal with the consequences of decisions made at the top. They have a large stake in how things go, and a wealth of experience to provide insights that might prevent some major errors and damage that can't be reversed. Day in and day out the staffers and editors who are out front have to overcome the poor planning that was done by their bosses. I am a boss; I see it. It's maddening and exhausting to continually be led down the wrong road, knowing as you go down it that you're simply following orders to march off a cliff. But good soldiers do just that. And to do anything else is to be thought of as a renegade by some. That's unfortunate for some individuals, and it's ultimately bad for business.
The burnout level of lower and mid-managers in particular has always been high in all companies for reasons we all know. But when mid-managers and their staffs have little or no say in their futures or day-to-day tasks, it can be unbearable just coming to work. They are put into losing situations before the day even begins by short-sighted planning from the top, by a gross lack of resources and by longtime issues that have never been resolved. These issues are fixable, but the will has to be there. I don't always see that will in the USA TODAY newsroom. I see some lip service. I see some surrender and even denial. Once in awhile an honest attempt is made to fix something, but because this is a territorial newsroom, things aren't always easily resolved.
All this frustration can lead to confrontation. I have witnessed an increase in newsroom conflicts in the last year. It's a disturbing trend that I was just discussing with another editor and staffer on Wednesday. Much of it is subtle, but to someone in the middle of the storm each day, it is quite obvious.
Editors making broad-based decisions need to understand that the pressure they are feeling from above is not a valid excuse to make bad decisions. Those decisions feed into the anxieties of staffers when not processed well. While some departments are functioning reasonably well, some aren't. Some are faced with far broader changes than others. Those changes must be handled correctly.
MY MAIN POINT: MEs, DMEs and other top managers need to understand that just as it's counterproductive for someone to be afraid of change or argue groundlessly againt it, it is at least equally destructive to change JUST for the sake of change, so that an ME or DME can show the top editor that they did something. That "something" has to really be thought out. Critical decisions can't just make superficial sense, but when examined more closely, have unlimited holes in it. That something often leads to major problems. I see this pattern repeated over and over. Some trial and error is understandable, but not every major change should be approached with the attitude of, "Well, if this doesn't work we'll try something else." We're not in a position anymore to experiment on a large scale. We have to be more reasonably sure things will work before they are enacted.
A lot of things work well at USA Today. If they didn't, the paper would not have risen to No. 1. Many of those things that worked well for the paper could be adopted in the future. There are some proven principles and people that should not be abandoned just because they aren't trendy. There are certain relationships and alliances that should be maintain and nurtured. Some workflows are highly efficient and help us do the impossible every single day. Details about everything from seating arrangements and schedules to flow charts and titles need to be put under the microscope because neglecting just one of those details could bring down a pretty good and broader plan. The big picture is important, but so are the little "quality of life" issues that can make work much more rewarding, or can turn a job into an impossible situation for one person or an entire team.
Yes, despite USA TODAY's success, there are also many things that need to be fixed and changed dramatically. I am a huge proponent of change and of repairing things that don't work. But, thus far, I see a lot of things being tinkered with that do work and a lot of other things being introduced that have been proven failures in the recent past. I feel like some managers are forcing a nut onto a bolt, even at the risk of stripping the both. They appear to just want to say, "Look the nut is on the bolt" regardless of whether it's on there properly and without damaging either.
There is a way to change but also preserve what is working and has always worked. There is a way to move forward but not abandoned lessons learned from the past. If editors making key decisions can blend change/new ideas with respect for history, there will be greater efficiency, more buy-in and less concern about being wrongfully labelled.
I truly hope this makes sense and that certain courses of action can be examined further as the industry evolves both at USA TODAY and other newsrooms.
I somewhat regret having to express my ideas (I had to avoid specifics, sorry) here rather than to my supervisors directly, but I simply don't feel comfortable stating this in any other venue at this time for reasons I can't reveal. It's not like I haven't tried. I know some of the ideas I have outlined don't relate to every department at USA TODAY, but I feel I have heard enough from around the building, and certainly have been adversely impacted by decisions from my team leaders to validate my opinions. I believe that most of my remarks here are a reflection of how the folks I supervise generally feel, though I don't claim every observation is universally seen.
I am also asking Jim to post this as a separate item on the blog so that it will be more visible and that something good can come from it. Regardless, I hope everyone will take this in the spirt it is given. I don't want to be confrontational or alarmist, but some things just need to be brought to light for the sake of USA TODAY and a number of people I respect and whose careers hang in the balance for various reasons.
Good job! Lots to mull over.
ReplyDeleteI don't think glancing at this site at work is grounds for being fired. There is actually some legitimate info on here. And the percentage of workers who actually spend time commenting from work is probably fairly small. People waste far more time on cigarette breaks.
ReplyDeleteIt is not like this is a porno site! Geez, if Mother Gannett can't take people scanning the blog for a couple minutes, there is something wrong.
ReplyDelete