(Updated.) Managing Editor Richard Curtis, who oversees photography and design at Gannett's flagship newspaper, has just told colleagues that he's retiring, effective Dec. 23. One of six MEs, Curtis has been with the paper since January 1982, nine months before its launch. News of his retirement comes as USA Today's newsroom staff was said to be meeting today. I'm looking for a final count of jobs cut across the paper -- details like this comment by Anonymous@4:10 p.m.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
USAT: Top design and photo editor Curtis retiring
(Updated.) Managing Editor Richard Curtis, who oversees photography and design at Gannett's flagship newspaper, has just told colleagues that he's retiring, effective Dec. 23. One of six MEs, Curtis has been with the paper since January 1982, nine months before its launch. News of his retirement comes as USA Today's newsroom staff was said to be meeting today. I'm looking for a final count of jobs cut across the paper -- details like this comment by Anonymous@4:10 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Also comment on reports a certain bureau chief is on her way out.
ReplyDeleteWe talking SP?
ReplyDeleteInformation from the staff meeting? Go suck an egg.
ReplyDeleteWell it has begun at USA Today, 12/11/08. Three Marketing people were left go in the Minneapolis Market as well as many more accross the country.
ReplyDeleteThe employees at the Minneapolis Market were informed by Brad Jones today that Gannett is planning to cut 5% at USA Today across the board. It was to be 10% but the poweres to be said only 5% and this after a Single Copy price increase that took effect this past Monday, 12/8/08 from $0.75 to $1.00 per copy.
ReplyDeleteGood. Now the paper can come out from under the tyranny of his horrible ideas about "design."
ReplyDeleteHorribly bland design was the least of his problems. He unmercifully drove out some very good people from USAT, the latest victim being a graphics editor who he laid off just last week for suspicious reasons, as this was a position that was crucial to operations and held by an individual with a lot of credibility and versatility. It was a layoff that made no sense to anyone. It didn't fit the mold of what the layoffs were suppose to be about. USAT lost a good editor who could have had a bright future beyond print, while Curtis eases into a comfortable retirement. Something just isn't fair about this place. I wonder what that laid off editor is thinking tonight, assuming he's heard the news?
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDelete"Top Designer and Photo Editor". Who are you kidding. Have you seen the USAToday paper lately? The design is as ancient as Craig Moon and Al Neuharth!
Good riddance!
Probably the worst manager I have seen at a newspaper in my 20 years in the biz. Zilch in the people skills category. Terrible judge of character and horribly intolerant of opposing views.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't have a genuine or sincere bone in his body. His false praise or folksy chit-chats with staffers were as transparent as could be. How he lasted so long is a mystery for the ages.
From what I know first-hand or have heard, he surrounded himself with yes-men, which may explain why the department has seen so many good people depart. Not everyone enjoyed doing things they knew were wrong just to please this so-called design guru. USA Today lost a lot of fine editors and staffers as a direct result of this man.
I only met Curtis one time, over 20 years ago, and that was one time too many. A friend of mine, and myself, were touring the USAT building. A really nice staff photographer named Acey (veterans will know who this is) introduced my friend and I to him.
ReplyDeleteHe took about 1/4 of a second to look our way, said nothing, no handshake, and then proceeded to converse with someone else off to the side.
My friend's wide-eyed expression was unforgettable, and Acey just shrugged. It was the rudest introduction I've ever experienced in my life.
Since I had worked as an intern at a Gannett paper 2 years prior, and was treated with disrespect there too, I concluded that was par for the course amongst their managers.
To those of you who had to put up with him longer than the 1/4 second I did, I fell sorry for you.
Good riddance is right!!! He laid off a truly decent, straight-shooting, competent graphics editor just last week as an earlier poster said. Showed what a disloyal monster he could be. He rarely went to bat for any of his people if there was even the slightest risk of it putting him in a bad light. He was all about payback and backstabbing. Even people he liked weren't safe. A couple of us know of several he wanted to get rid of badly, people who he spoke nicely to when he faced them during the day, but was degrading them behind their backs, ruining reputations without them knowing of it.
ReplyDeleteI am not ordinarily a vengeful person, but this USAT ME and his act had to come to an end. Just sorry so many had to fall victim to him along the way and that people in HR and in higher offices didn't realize sooner what he was capable of.
8:58
ReplyDeleteThere were a LOT of good employees let go. I know that this guy at USAT must have been a god of something, but what about all of the others? A lot of good, talented, smart people got left behind in this round of layoffs. They were the type of people who all of their coworkers said "they're immune from layoffs." I feel bad for the USAT guy (it sounds like this Curtis guy jacked him around) but there were way too many talented people let go. Most of my ex-coworkers feel that the goal of Gannett 3.0 is failure. I have a tough time justifying a lot of these decisions as anything else. Let's put it this way: If it were my business and money, I wouldn't have made a lot of the decisions they made. But that's the point. There is no accountability for a lot of directors and managers at this point.
Curtis built careers and then ruined some of those same careers. Those who survived walked lightly around him. Curtis managed through perceptions rather than realities. And those faulty perceptions, and ignoring realities, doomed many a solid citizen in that department. It also made the paper weaker. He actually believed he had friends at USA Today, which always gave us a chuckle, but no one really knew him, nor did he really know anyone. He himself was a perception and not an authentic human being. He should have left years ago.
ReplyDeleteA horrible man. Deceptive to the end. Ruled by the sword most of his career. His kinder, gentler act was a joke. Hope he was forced out just as he forced many others out.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone here! But still baffled how Curtis lasted so long. His judgment was nortoriously bad.
ReplyDeleteWhat goes around comes around. Sometimes it just takes awhile.
ReplyDeleteIronic that this happened the week after Curtis jetisoned one of his editors under the guise of the company layoffs.
Richard Curtis has been forcing people out in a variety of ways for years. He's threatened by anyone with a strong spine and a good, sharp mind, particularly if they are on a management level. Question is, will the new leadership be any better? Probably different for sure, but will it be better? There are some real concerns about that. A lot has been coming out of that department that makes no sense to others at USA TODAY. How much of that was Curtis and how much of that was the rising leadership remains to be seen.
ReplyDeleteI'm expecting flames for this, but "photo editor" is such a horrible and misleading term. A real editor uses his or her judgment and skills to fine-tune content. A Gannett "photo editor" at MOST selects photos for the paper. In my experience, those decisions are based not on good judgment but on whims, fancies and personal opinion of the photo staff (i.e., that guy mouthed off to me, I'll bury his stuff... I'm sleeping with that freelancer, she'll still get assignments even after the layoffs...).
ReplyDeleteAnd I doubt this guy even did that.
I used to work for Curtis at usat. It was the worst stretch in my career. There wasn't a day in which I didn't feel compelled to kiss his ass. That's what he responded to, so that's what I gave him. He had no clue as to how much I disliked and disrespected him. Probably others "handle" him in the same manner. But I just had to get away before I imploded. He's no design czar IMHO. He knows some stuff, sure, but he was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time...then rode it out for 26 years...mostly the backs of others.
ReplyDeleteSounds like a polarizing dude! Flame on brothers and sisters.
ReplyDeleteUSAT is a template. Why does this guy get credit for anything?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI just removed a comment that included an incorrect assertion.
ReplyDeleteThe posts on this blog are a shame. Richard was a good friend of mine who I worked with over the years and respected. Obviously many of you had different experiences. But, from what I know about Richard, he could care less what anyone on this blog says about him. I'm sure that none of you would say to Richard's face what you're saying about him on this blog. I know that for a fact. So, flame on if you want. You're just wasting energy. Karma is definitely a game changer. Richard, I wish you all the best. Enjoy your retirement.
ReplyDeleteSo, which of the yes-men that 9:21 PM mentioned are you?
ReplyDelete12:13 a.m. You're in the minority opinion about this man and/or just don't know his true character. He governs behind the scenes based on his personal feelings and agenda rather than professional realities, and makes some of the worst business/moral decisions I've ever seen in a newsroom. Now that he's leaving, if I ever run into him, I will say this to his face because he will be powerless to do anything about it. You see, if you even mildly disagreed with the man while he had a title, he'd use that title to crush you. So most people just avoided speaking their minds to the man. He took that silence to mean he was respected, when in most cases nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us are happy to see him go. He overstayed his welcome by at least a decade, wrecked careers and only tolerated some because of what they could do for him and his image. He wasn't a true friend to anyone as far as I know.
ReplyDelete"Top" only in his own mind and on the organizational chart. Not the kind of man I would ever want to be in foxhole with. Not the kind of manager I would ever work for again.
ReplyDeleteDemanded his employees be loyal to him; rarely return it. Sure, he was capable of the rare humane act, but even then it was usually for other not-so-honorable motives. He put a few people up on pedestals over the years, and had a major blind spot with some, but overall this was a managing editor who most people won't miss. They'll be a party and a lot of warm wishes, but not much sincerity. Proper protocol.
ReplyDeleteWe've heard it all from this man, from the public Nordstom's speech to his privately manipulating his editors to come down on people he had personal problems with. He liked wearing the white hat, often didn't want to do the dirty work himself, and forced his generals into often wearing the black hat.
With that said, his and others leaving in recent months and years, marks the sad end of print graphics. He cleared most everyone out, then fell on his sword, apparently. Any print staffers still holding on would be best served to form an exit strategy. You and your salaries are not going to be absorbed into the web operation. Sorry to be so harsh, but it's time to deal in reality and to protect yourselves.
I am not usually the type to kick someone when they are down or on the way out, but many people had problems with R. Curtis. From what I have been told (I am fairly new), many who liked the paper left because they couldn't work for him. I too am not sure how he lasted if all the stories I have heard are true.
ReplyDeleteI've worked for a lot of bad bosses, and even some outright pricks, but I can't imagine stooping to the level of the cowardly and immature workers above who are eviscerating Richard Curtis.
ReplyDeleteRichard was a difficult character to be sure, but he brought far more to USA TODAY than his negatives, and he was a fierce and tireless advocate for graphics and photography. He was a visionary in a profession where most people simply want to do the same thing over and over again. He leaves a rich and deep record of achievement.
In 25 years, any manager is going to make mistakes, even have blind spots, make bad moves and the rest. Richard did too.
But to use this blog to attack a man so outrageously and personally here is the sign of weak, powerless staffers. Acey Harper introduced him to someone and he turned away? Get the firing squad!
People may have left USA TODAY prematurely or whatever. But ruin careers? Are there ex-graphics folks panhandling, working at Macys? Please.
Richard wasn't perfect, but no one deserves the kind of venom contained in most of the posts above. If anything, it shows why Richard had to be tough because of the childish mindsets he was dealing with.
Grumpy and remote, brilliant and driven, Richard did a great job for USA TODAY. If people are happy he's gone, that's one thing. Bosses are not paid to be popular. But he deserves better than the schoolyard reactions above. Way better.
I totally agree with 10:32. He did more good for USA TODAY than any harm done to any of these people's feelings. And he's right... it wasn't his job to be popular or well liked, but to get results. I think he did fairly well there.
ReplyDeleteHe wasn't popular or competent (as a manager) in my opinion. He lived off his early contributions, but did far more harm than good in the second half of his career. If he would have allowed open dialogue, maybe there wouldn't be so many people who are taking a shot at him here and now. If you weren't one of his more flagrant victims, you'll never understand most of the comments here. This was a man with far more issues than just being grumpy. Count yourself as lucky if you never saw that side of him.
ReplyDeleteMy two cents: Curtis was a decent designer but a horrendous leader. It wasn't his moods or lack of being able to sincerely connect with people that bothered me. It was his actions and inactions, and lack of appreciation for some of the people who did the heavy lifting. His lack of loyalty to some of his closest managers was shocking at times.
ReplyDeleteThis has been a great discussion, everyone: Thanks for all your input. And with that, I'm turning out the lights!
ReplyDelete