Sunday, May 10, 2009
12 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)
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteLooks like the staff is wising up and not doing any messages on here. At least USA TODAY has caught on that big brother is watching and reading.
5/08/2009 9:27 PM
Anonymous said...
The USA TODAY employees are too busy working to make things successful. They realize things could be worse and want to make them better. They care about what they do.
5/09/2009 8:33 AM
Amen to that.
USA TODAY needs reinforcements and somewhat of a makeover. It has a big mission and right now things aren't even functioning at early 1990s levels. Some aspects of the paper have gotten stale. Most people are drowning in work, and those who aren't probably shouldn't be here anyway. The loafers continue to loaf, and those of us who are working our assess off, doing a million different things, don't even have time to eat on most days. However, I do see plenty of people enjoying the campus amenities. How do I get one of their jobs? Editors in charge refuse to address this situation. It has been going on for years. We have too many blind managers who don't want to have the tough conversations. But that's another matter for another day.
ReplyDeleteI would really like for the paper to consider getting us some help so that we can think things out instead of always playing catchup and putting out brush fires, and so we are not as prone to oversights or mistakes. Many of us are trying our best, but it's sometimes not enough. This is a national paper with too many holes. Some of us have to compensate for others not carrying their fair share of the load or who are simply not newspaper people, yet somehow they got hired. We have to work around managers who aren't really managing. We have to innovate so that the paper can move forward (after a period where we looked like we were simply going to fold).
Some have suggested hiring back some former employees who know the ropes and who were productive, solid editors and creatively skilled staffers. I would welcome that. I can't do it all, nor can my well-intentioned coworkers. I can't be in meetings, but expected to conjure up sidebars, graphic material and track down a cover photo or illustration, then edit all that material and see that the designers play it the way we intended while fixing the printer and reinstalling my CCI software. And while I am at it, write a review, check staffing, fill in for someone taking their 15th sick day of the year and make sure the web site is updated. This is not the way a national media organization should work. Yes, we all need to where multiple hats, but this is ridiculous.
USAT heads need to make up their minds. Are we powering down in favor of bolstering the web site or just because we don't feel the economy is going to rebound? Does the paper need to be diminished? Or do we believe the paper has a future in which we don't just maintain, but can now start to build again? If we want to grow, changes and additions need to be made.
Many of us are working hard. Doing so, to simply maintain, is not a great feeling. We are competitive by nature and want the paper to improve and grow. What has happened in the last year hasn't exactly provided much motivation. When your boss tells you to "just maintain," and you do despite furloughs and job losses, and then things crash anyway, it creates very toxic work environment.
Now there is talk of cashing in on the demise of a number of dailies around the country. How are we going to do that under the current circumstances that I described? We need more competent bodies, more managers in touch with reality and some signs that things are getting better.
All right, I am done ranting. Plus, I need to go make sure the vending machines are working.
10:17 - if you are in circulation I feel sorry for you. From what I see in the field markets there are many, many, many good people doing great work. It's not all just trying to maintain. Some are moving ahead.
ReplyDeleteYou would be better off spending time where papers actually sell rather than making sure vending machines are working and I'll bet you aren't doing that on a Saturday.
Sad to say that any journalistic ethics that were left at USA TODAY walked out the door with Ken Paulson.
ReplyDeleteHillkirk has sold us down the river with his regular meetings with failing advertising gurus who dictate to us what we need to report so they ostensibly can sell it. Some clown marketing has permanently planted on the third floor with the journalists, dictating what we're to write and when so she can whore it out to the networks. The events department telling us where we're to appear and with whom and what to say, all so they can make a buck off the news room. And Live trying to sell fabricated reports to any advertiser willing to pay for it.
Good work, John Hillkirk. You've sold us out in record time.
John is simply following the marching orders from corporate. He needs a job, and knows his out the door without following order. Ken had a place to jump to on the other side of the Potomac.
ReplyDeleteI really hope Hillkirk isn't just a puppet, but I fear he might be and that we could be in for some rougher times. I don't agree that Paulson had much of a backbone, so I am not that sad to see him go. Paulson has the distinct honor of being the only USAT editor to layoff people from the newsroom. In fact, the last three editors have been weak. Seems most have taken that job simply for the money and didn't leave the place better than they found it. Some failures also fall onto the MEs.
ReplyDeleteTime will tell on Hillkirk. We will all be watching closely these first couple of months. We know he isn't an inspiring personality, but if he can quietly restore the faith of the newsroom, he will have done more than enough. I don't need a song and dance like we got from Paulson once a month in that disgraceful "staff meeting," but I do need tangible evidence that Hillkirk is going to strengthen the staff, weed out ineffective managers and restore the paper.
If all we see are more furloughs, layoffs and no hiring, I think we will know what motivated Hillkirk to take the job. I wish him and all of us the best, but I have no expectations that things will get better. Paulson and Moon bailed for a reason. I feel a tidal wave approaching.
Whatever happens, I just hope the lies and spinning can stop. It's unappealing for journalists, even those who are top management, to not tell the plain truth. I got into this business because I thought we were better than that. Yet for the last year or two, the deceit has been off the charts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIf Hillkirk can turn around News and Money, which both need infusions of management talent who can motivate and stay on top of news, he'll have done his job. Ditto with the front page of the paper. It's become a joke. We don't need a cheerleader or public speaking showman or someone to make excuses. We just someone who can revitalize and reposition existing resources.
ReplyDeleteWhat about Life section? That's been struggling for years with poor editorial management and a very disappointing lineup of features and writers. Let's start there first before nit picking at Money and at news.
ReplyDeleteLife may be lame, especially the depth of reporting and the celebrity-eccentric and fashion-oriented story selection, but on-line, these tend to be the most read pieces from the paper. They do need editors who've been in the trenches, not the copy desk. The view tends to be myopic. But you could say that of Money and News, too. The problem is sophisticated readers want better financial and news stories off the news. hey can live with the light stuff elsewhere. Ditto with sports.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 11:19 AND 12:24. But let's start with the paper's most important page, 1A, with an always lame lineup compared to the competition, and work back from there. And btw, if we send all those "news" people to the correspondent's dinner, shouldn't we have our own people doing the story?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete