I started as USA Today's entrepreneurs reporter on May 1, 2000. First assignment, of course, was making the official photo. My hair is much more gray today; I'm now 52.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Occasions | Nine years ago today
I started as USA Today's entrepreneurs reporter on May 1, 2000. First assignment, of course, was making the official photo. My hair is much more gray today; I'm now 52.
2 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
USA TODAY's newsroom is not what it was nine years ago. Sadly, it's a place without soul now. Here's what has led to the decline since you worked at USAT:
ReplyDelete1. Of course, the economy. But more importantly, the paper's reaction to it and the misguided buyouts and layoffs that resulted. Simply too much talent vacated the building all at once, including disheartened folks who left on their own without a buyout or severance package. Graphics was hit particularly hard and lost probably five or six print managers who drove visual journalism here for years. In fact, I don't believe there is an editor left in that department who wasn't connected exclusively to web site, and now are pretending to care about the newspaper. (They don't really care about print regardless of what they say.) From where I sit, that department has changed the most, and not for the better, unless you consider fewer meaningful graphics in the paper as an improvement. The few graphic proofs that come across my desk are now littered with silly errors, I presume because there are no front-line editors left downstairs. Wasn't this the "graphics newspaper" at one time?
2. Poor hiring. In its quest to fill the newsroom with cheap help, the paper abandoned requirements that new hires have significant journalism experience coming in. There are several folks who, prior to coming here, did not have any professional experience. I know two people who don't even have four-year college degrees. Nice enough folks, but they have absolutely no clue about what it means to work in the news media. With staff reductions and furloughs, these unreliable staffers have become a real drag on the system. There are not enough people around anymore to compensate for their shortcomings.
3. Page 1, above the fold, has become so bland and predictable that I am not sure why anyone would stop at a newsstand to look at it, let alone pay for a copy. The writing remains acceptable, but the packaging is pedestrian at best. The top of page 1 was always something folks took pride in. I don't see that same innovation anymore. I think it speaks volumes that page 1 has lost its luster.
4. There have been too many meetings where we are told one thing by top managers, only to find out it wasn't true a week, month or year later. USAT managers seem to want to spin things more than politicians in recent years. It feeds into the underlying mistrust already created by the betrayal of dedicated employees who were shown the door for no apparent reason, the furloughs fiasco and the constant stream of white lies that are apparent in so many ways that I've stopped counting. Remember when they told us that shutting down the international edition would do nothing to save jobs? Then they said the layoffs were "job eliminations," yet as so many of us know now, people had to pickup all (not some) the responsibilities of those lost jobs. Ask anyone who was already up to their ears in their own work whether they have any faith in management. It just seems managers/editors are saying anything to prevent a mutiny, but then constantly having to cover their tracks with cute little phrases they learned in management school when they are exposed.
5. Where is all the tech help? Can anyone fix a printer anymore or get my e-mail flowing?
6. Meetings that go nowhere and accomplish nothing. I honestly believe that some editors meet simply to justify their existence. Nothing substantive comes out of these meetings. There is a lot of jockeying and posturing, and sometimes phony "look how we all get along" antics, but no results. When decisions are made, most of us shake our heads in disbelief that "this is what they came up with?"
7. Too many top editors who only selectively got involved in the newsroom. Not sure Ken Paulson even knew what half of his MEs were up to on a daily basis. KJ, well...'nuff said.
I will stop here because it's not likely most blog readers will even get this far. Suffice to say that USAT a decade ago was a more vibrant, rough and tumble place that was turning the corner and becoming a legitimate news source. There was character. Yes, there was also dysfunction. I want to be fair about that. But there were also real news people, real editors and a lot of institutional knowledge. There were tech people who could fix things. The only ones without a fair amount of experience were interns and the occasional loaner who would earn their ways onto the staff. There were support staffers who were pretty sharp and loved newspapering. I get the impression that many of our current people could be just as happy working in the mall if the mall paid well.
I didn't know Jim personally, and am not sure what his role was back in the day, but I am guessing he would not recognize the vibe in this newsroom in 2009.
1:14 p.m. you are a breath of fresh air citing all the reasons why Gannett isn't on top of its game.
ReplyDelete1. How often did we hear "it's the economy". Yeah, I'll get that, but it certainly wasn't the only reason Gannett lost many valuable customers (and I'm not talking single-copy either).
2. Poor hiring. Check. But I believe it is not only the newsrooms that were hit hard. Look around Gannett - doesn't it fit the bill in all departments, including the Gannett tower itself? One only needs to take a look at HR and their hiring techniques. After hiring new personnel how many times did I hear the sentence: "Where does HR find these people?" Incompentence marks the spot and efficient personnel that survived the layoffs are taking on the burden of helping out on that front.
3. Meetings, meetings, meetings that accomplish close to zero. It has become so repetitive that one asks the question: What now? Was it a successful meeting - anything close to a plan? But then, if even Craig Dubow doesn't know what becomes of the company, why should the rest care???? If one has no vision, how can the staff have one?
You mentioned the following: There is a lot of jockeying and posturing, and sometimes phony "look how we all get along" antics, but no results. When decisions are made, most of us shake our heads in disbelief that "this is what they came up with?"
True - I believe these meetings are held for the most part out of exactly these reasons. Maybe it's a tool to self-grandize oneself. What better way?
4. Tech help. We have to be honest here. By cutting also into the tech sector and laying off employees that leaves the remaining staff with very little to work with. Hours are tighter than before, because they are also picking up the work layed off personnel left.
Yep, the vibe of being proud working for Gannett is gone. For the most part it's going to the job, doing a good job and going home. Nobody is complaining of a bonus for the "chosen few" if it is earned. But looking at the reports and the numbers tell a different story. Laying off employees and then sacking big bonuses just doesn't cut it. Furthermore, receiving a bonus of over $800,00 and then taking $40,000 from the Gannett Foundation giving it to a pet charity is shameful.
It just shows the employees how management truly doesn't give a rat's behind about the employee or the company.