"We've actually been able to step up our commitment to diversity,'' Brent Jones, USA Today's standards and recruitment editor, told the Maynard Institute's Journal-isms blog. "We've had great success in recruiting in 2008, particularly at Unity. In fact, 48% of our hires this year were journalists of color."
The Maynard Institute promotes diversity in media. Jones told blog author Richard Prince that, of 12 USA Today newsroom jobs cut this week, "two -- or 16% of the cuts -- were of minority journalists. That included one African American and one Asian American." He did not identify them by name, Prince said.Jones provided the figures as the National Association of Black Journalists issued its high-profile challenge Friday to the newspaper industry, Prince told me this afternoon. (When I first read his post, I thought Prince had called Jones after the NABJ issued its statement.)
NABJ singled out just one publisher: Gannett. The group, which claims 3,300 members, is the largest of four minority journalism professional associations. The other three are the Asian American Journalists Association, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and the Native American Journalists Association.
Gannett, the nation's No. 1 newspaper publisher, has been a major financial backer of the four groups through direct grants from its charitable arm, the Gannett Foundation.
Did USAT newsroom avoid layoffs?
In what I believe is the paper's first official acknowledgement of how it reduced its workforce, Prince quotes Jones as saying in an e-mail: "A total of 12 journalists were laid off, including four voluntary layoffs." Previously, USA Today had said it would cut 20 occupied jobs from its 450-person newsroom, because of Corporate pressure.
Jones' statement suggests the paper avoided eight forced cuts. But he may only be counting reporters and editors as "journalists." I know of at least one newsroom layoff involving a bureau office manager who didn't produce content for the paper or website.
Whatever last week's newsroom tally, USAT has yet to disclose the total number of jobs it cut across the paper amid Gannett's nationwide 10% newspaper workforce reduction. USA Today employs between 1,500 and 2,000, making it one of the company's three biggest worksites. The other two are The Arizona Republic in Phoenix, and the Detroit Free Press and its business affiliates.
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green sidebar, upper right.
[Image: Thursday's USAT front page; I would have illustrated this post with Friday's paper, but that edition isn't in the Newseum's database]
Doesn't this, then, beg the opposite question? Did race play a part in who was laid off? And how would one prove that?
ReplyDeleteIs there any way to get a breakdown by race of the layoffs, and then compare that to the overall pre-layoff racial breakdown in the areas affected by layoffs?
12:08 pm: I don't have those statistics. Heck, I'd be happy just to get two figures. 1. The total number of jobs USAT cut this past week. 2. USAT's total employment; I'm tired of saying 1,500 to 2,000; that's lame.
ReplyDeleteWill Gannett offer breakdowns of all protected classes hit in the layoffs and hiring decisions?
ReplyDeleteAnd a comment-----um, never mind. Like my grandma Momo always said, if you don't have anything nice to say, bite your tongue.
What I want to know is how many EDITORS were laid off from USAT. I haven't heard of ANY. Not that I'm surprised. They all stick together and protect each other. So the paper is going to keep losing reporters, who actually produce content, and keep all the editors? That makes sense, don't you think? Also, one newsroom person who was laid off was a librarian.
ReplyDeleteA year ago, Ken Paulson cited employee privacy in refusing to identify the 43 newsroom people got buyouts. I was one of them, of course.
ReplyDelete"Indeed, the 43 of us only learned each others names because I assembled a list on my own through some plain old-fashioned reporting,'' I wrote in the following post about my own buyout experience: http://tinyurl.com/55gzud
Why don't you guys build a list of jobs cut this past week, so you can find out yourselves?
Just to chime in on the diversity issue, at my paper, the Alexandria Town Talk, we might have six blacks in the entire building - two are in editorial. And besides a lady from Guatemala, the rest of the company is a sea of white.
ReplyDeleteNow that is not taking into account the press room or the carriers.
It's in stark contrast to the city of Alexandria, which is approximatley 50/50.
As far as layoffs, that was also a sea of white, but that's to be expected. Again, it's a sea of white.
I guess now with our soon to be new President that "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" no longer exists?
ReplyDeletePlease, let's not start the black -vs- white bullshit. Let's start the us -vs- corporate bullshit. ok? We're all in the same sinking ship. Sinking? Hell sunk!
ReplyDeleteWhat would be helpful is to know how many blacks, asians, hispanics, etc. graduated from American journalism programs last year.
ReplyDeleteA fair goal for the industry is that the overall number of hires so be representative of the number of people entering the profession.
It might be a better use of energy for NABJ and other groups to work on increasing the number of young people entering the profession.
2:39 PM wrote: "Please, let's not start the black -vs- white bullshit. Let's start the us -vs- corporate bullshit. ok? We're all in the same sinking ship."
ReplyDeleteThat was my point about NABJ.
EVERYONE should be worried about the future of journalism, not about filling some quotas.
USAT - Four in Production. At least two in Life. The librarian volunteered, I think (and is that really a "newsroom position," 1:05?).
ReplyDeleteI heard three in design, one in sports, three in life, four from production, two from research/library. Also, an editor succumbed to cancer this week. There may be more unaccounted for. At least two were in bureaus.
ReplyDeleteIt says something about USAT when its own news staff can't piece together a list of people who were laid off in the newsroom.
ReplyDeleteThat was a lot of pain and stress to go through to forcibly get rid of just eight people (the other four left voluntarily) out of a big newsroom.
Oh, and in the News section, two people left -- the researcher in the Wash bureau and the rewrite desk editor (he volunteered). We also lost a news researcher who technically works in the library unit.
ReplyDeleteSorry, it's four in Life and another who's position I don't recall. Sixteen by my count. At this point no count from the Money section.
ReplyDeletePieced together this much: Three in Money (one reporter volunteered, one reporter was laid off, one office coordinator laid off); three in life (a copy editor volunteered, a reporter and editor were laid off); one in graphics (laid off).
ReplyDeleteThree in money makes 20, including the editor who died. Taking a count is more difficult as we tap dance around the names. Wasn't it two reporters in life?
ReplyDeleteAlso heard one in GNS. Any confirmation?
Three in Life: A reporter on the West Coast, a recent hire who didn't work out as an editor and was in limbo (hence the confusion), and a copy editor who volunteered.
ReplyDeleteThree in Life: A reporter on the West Coast, a recent hire who didn't work out as an editor and was in limbo (hence the confusion), and a copy editor who volunteered.
ReplyDeleteJim... I know that these are tough times. But as someone who left Gannett several years ago, I can honestly say that there are better times ahead for the many who are on their way out. At the time, I felt like Gannett made people feel like they'd never be any good at anything else, working for any other company. I was one of them. I left during some pretty exciting times... we were making money, expanding, and putting out a great paper. But on the other side, there were other jobs. Better jobs. With higher pay. And much less stress. The stress that I thought that I needed to get to work and do a good job, wasn't that necessary at all. I wish all of those on the way out well... and for those that are still around after this latest round... getting out on your own schedule sure beats waiting for the axe to fall.
ReplyDeleteThere were two in graphics; an editor and an artist.
ReplyDeleteThe late Tom Fogarty in Money (a memorial service was held today in the auditorium), is not being counted among the 20. Thankfully...
I don't think it's a bullshit issue at all. We need to know if race played a part in who was chosen to be laid off.
ReplyDeleteThe "48% of hires this year were journalists of color" or whatever the direct quote is pretty meaningless without the actual number of hires. I would expect it would be low in a year of buyouts and layoffs.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if there were two new hires and one is minority, one journalist would be "50% of new hires." For 48% to be an accurate figure in proportioning numbers than cannot be anything except full digits, wouldn't there have had to have been a lot of new hires? Is that likely? Or is it more likely Gannett is being disingenuous with statistics?
I'm colorblind by choice. So are my kids. That's how I raised them.
ReplyDeleteI guess Gannett isn't colorblind in hiring and firing. I call that racism.
I don't support racism one bit. Therefore, I support nothing Gannett, including subscribing to papers or buying from their advertisers. That's my own little personal "you know what," and it's so very empowering. Try it. You'll like it.
I saw a pattern of targeting minorities in the last round of layoffs, but from what I saw at my place and read here, I'd be more suspicious of discrimination against people with chronic or major health issues. I wonder if there wasn't an ulterior motive to lower company insurance costs next year by showing one or more of its policy providers that it reduced usage of the plans.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of USAT people laid off in this round were white. But I seriously doubt race had anything to do with the cuts. Most of the people laid off were also some of the most veteran (hence highest-paid) employees, hired at a time when the newsroom was lily-white.
ReplyDelete