What follows is another excellent commentary -- this one, by a writer identified as Anonymous@11:58 p.m. It's the latest in what may be a rising grassroots effort to rescue USA Today from The 11th Floor, while there's still time.
If USA Today keeps stripping away what made it successful, it's going to have a hard time taking advantage of a market with less competition. I happen to believe that competition is good for journalism, and as a result, the country. But I also understand the business realty. USA Today can make some gains now if it plays its cards right.
USA Today still has many assets and advantages, but there is no denying the newspaper is diluted, not as well edited or designed as it once was.
All about content, packaging
Blame it on layoffs, buyouts and people just getting fed up with the place and leaving. The current talent pool is shallow and there are some at USA Today who just make me shake my head in disbelief that they've survived as long as they have or were ever hired in the first place. They have no business working at a newspaper, let alone in the newsroom. Yes, they are mostly nice folks, but please. Their limitations are in full display each and every day for anyone willing to acknowledge the truth.
Somehow, the flagship needs to attract better journalistic talent on every level, from assignment editors, reporters and department heads to copy desk staff, designers and others. It's all about content and packaging, and USA Today has slipped in those areas.
Additionally, just like Apple had to bring back Steve Jobs and support personnel beneath him to rescue Apple, I would say some of the institutional knowledge that was lost at USA Today in recent months and years needs to be rehired. Reclaim those who knew how to make things function. USA Today is unique in publishing, and some of those people had unique talents.
Time to start 'rebuilding'
This isn't an attempt to recapture the good old days, but rather a commonsense approach to blending experience and skillful newcomers. Identify the people who made things work for the brand, and rehire them, while also focusing on new recruits with a broader understanding of the business. Don't make the assumption that because someone is brand new to USA Today and comes with a bag of tricks and a big resume that they are what is best for the paper. In some cases, narrow, targeted skills and specialists are needed, but so are generalists. There aren't enough people in this newsroom capable of doing multiple and different tasks.
The time is now to start rebuilding USA Today with proven former employees and bright new hires who don't have to learn on the job. The time has also come to admit to some hiring mistakes in the past and to fix that situation. Too many people aren't pulling their own weight and are creating issues for others. If USA Today is going to make a comeback and take advantage of fewer competitors in the big cities, these things need to be done soon, before the paper and staff deteriorates any further. Before its reputation is tarnished to the point of being unable to revive it. The Apple model is a good one. I would urge those who have only focused on growing the web site to reassess the importance of having a solid and innovative print product on the streets.
[Images: Jobs on the cover of Newsweek, July 2004; this morning's USAT front page, Newseum]
USAT is doing just fine after buyouts and layoffs, so why should they consider rehiring. These are all has-beens or used-to-be's. Many could not adjust to the new digital age and demands of the information center, so it is useless considering bringing them back.
ReplyDelete2:25 SOME couldn't adjust to new technologies, not all. I strongly disagree with you pitting experienced employees against younger, more tech-savvy workers. Your stereotyping of older workers being being technophobic is ridiculous. I've known many good and older journalists who embrace technology and would have embraced it more if given the chance. What I don't see enough of is younger, tech-only people embracing journalism and the value of the newspaper. I also don't see enough good managers coming from the tech ranks. Sorry. They just seem like snake-oil salesmen to me. I am sure they are bright, skilled people, but the ones at the top just seem to be secretly bent on destroying the newspaper. Somehow the paper is a threat to them or they've had some bad experience in print that they don't want to relive. Whatever the case, it's transparent to those of us who pay attention and have access to inside conversations.
ReplyDeleteIf the best of the best were willing to come back and fill in those gaps which are apparent to me (not sure why they aren't apparent to you), I would hire them back in a second. I know some have moved on and found other rewarding jobs. Some haven't. If you find that concept as threatening, then I have to question your sense of security and range of knowledge, not to mention your loyalty to the brand as a whole.
USAT is not "doing fine." Even if it were, is fine good enough for you?
There is discontent in the newsroom. There is a newspaper that doesn't really resemble the paper in size or content of a few years ago. It is a broken product that isn't really exciting anyone. There is a web site littered with mistakes, style errors and lack of objectivity.
So I am not sure why you are opposed to welcoming back some decent and talented folks who are no threat to anyone who is there now. I think it would actually boost spirits. I am not saying everyone needs to come back, but there is a select group of people out there with plenty of thread left on the tires who probably would welcome a second chance as long as there aren't too many more people here who think like you and who continue to feed into this civil war in the newsroom.
This is an very interesting comment. It would be more interesting and useful if the writer named those s/he thinks should be rehired and why... I understand no-naming if you're bashing, but why keep praise secret?
ReplyDeleteMoon should be rehired and Webber should be fired!
ReplyDeleteWas Apple "doing just fine" too prior to Steve Jobs returning. The way I read the post, the writer was calling for more versatility in employees and balance in staffing. They were playing on the notion that the paper could turn the misfortune of other publications into a gain for USAT if some people with print know-how were to come back. Maybe that can be done without those people, but it is an interesting and worthwhile theory to consider. Not sure why you felt the need to lash out.
ReplyDeleteHey, 2:25, open your mind and try to tolerate opinions that vary from your own without labeling anyone who has ever worked here for any length of time as a "has-been." It's disrespectful and likely you wouldn't have a job if not for the people who sacrificed a lot to build USA TODAY. Yes some people who have left were anti-digital. I don't support them anymore than I support anti-print employees. But some just got a bad rap. Maybe it's time to fix that.
I know of a couple people I would rehire. I've seen what has happened in their absence, and it hasn't been good. I am reluctant to give names because I don't want anyone to bash them. But I do think we all know a few out there who did a pretty darn good job and could still help us out.
ReplyDeleteNot sure why some people on here are so mean and unwilling to give second chances to people. To me, that just creates more bad karma.
As I said, I wish I could name the people I would like to have back, but I don't want to do so and expose them to unfair criticisms from a small minority of people.
3:15 xxx USAT is not "doing fine." xxx
ReplyDeleteMore than 2 million contented USAT readers a day would seem to disagree with you. What was the circulation when these discarded but great journalists worked here? USAT has gone to greater successes without them, and that speaks volumes as to their worth to the organization. About the only loss is they no longer serve prunes in the cafeteria.
Great post. I concur, a return of a few ex employees would benefit the paper. I believe mistakes were made in letting a some people get away. In the case of layoffs, isn't that always a possibility when the financial tide begins to turn back? Those people weren't fired, or so we were told. If things are improving, and the new leadership wants to make a push into regaining some circulation and improving the paper, while getting us all some relief, wouldn't it be wise to snatch up some of these former staffers who did good work and had good reputations?
ReplyDeleteI too don't understand the hostility in the first comment above. Many of these "has beens" were highly qualified and performed well for this company, even as the digital age approached.
John, hire some people back!!! We need the help regardless of what some think. We need newsroom people, across the board, who know the ropes. Let's get the paper fired up again and do the right thing for the product and for our friends who are really hurting. It would be a grand way to start your term.
ReplyDeleteI vote to bring back the people who did the work, if they are willing to come back, that is. I am talkin' about those who showed up every day and cared, and had a broad-base knowledge of this place and this crazy business. Not sure we need to bring back anyone way up the ladder as Apple did, but some hands-on help would be nice to have, and I know there are people available out there who made a big difference when they were here.
ReplyDeleteTired of being shorthanded. Tired of deadline scrambling. It so exhausting and restrict us in so many ways.
Hope JH is listening.
I am sensing a movement here...and support it 100 percent.
ReplyDeleteNo one is trying to go back to the past, 2:25. But sometimes it is healthy for a company to reassess what it has lost, gained and what new conditions exist that might require some rethinking. There is a growing opportunity for USAT to recapture some circulation and to also improve the product and working conditions of some of us who have been struggling since we've lost the help from our former coworkers. Your comment was bordering on insulting to many of us. Not everything is fine. Please refrain from calling my friends and people I respect "has-beens."
ReplyDelete...unfortunately, many will never agree to return. But some might. Worth a shot my opinion if the paper really is serious about making a bigger move into some of these markets that are suddenly not all that competitive. I would add that it's not just the newsroom that could use the help. We all need help, particularly from new employees who can hit the ground running and don't need to be trained for months or longer. As with Jobs-Apple, I do agree that sometimes the best ideas come from those who were part of the original magic that was USA Today. I don't sense the same investment in the brand from many of the current employees who probably will leave on their own once the job market gets better.
ReplyDeleteBeen following this. Really fascinating. Unfortunately I have to get some work done. lol. Good luck to all in support of USAT doing the right thing.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be some belief here that we are all out of the woods. But, wait, look at the stock today and it's back to double-digit daily losses. Rather than hiring people back, I am not convinced that the layoff era isn't over and that more reductions in payroll aren't in the cards. The rumor mill has it that Moon left after a blowup with Dubow over further USAT cutbacks, and we don't know yet what Hunke-Hillkirk are doing. In summary, don't count your chickens....
ReplyDeleteHiring people back would serve us all well because I think it would be an indication that we are out of the layoff era. So I support it for that and other reasons people have mentioned here.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if more layoffs occur, it will break the spirit of this newspaper at a time when we should be energized to capitalize on metros biting the dust.
I have to have faith in John and Hunke to rise to the occasion. If we continue to lose people, this paper won't be any better positioned to survive, let alone grow, than any of the metros that have been lost or are struggling. Let's get back the newspaper people who know how to produce content, design and so forth. Let's NOT continue with the layoff madness.
It's up to the department heads to lobby Hillkirk-Hunke to restore positions and good people. If they are inclined to do the right thing, we will all be better off for it. If the department heads don't step up, we will just limp along as we are, without any moral or practical support from the top, which we could really use right about now. A lot of people are afraid to complain, so it's going to take some reading between the lines for the top brass to make proper decisions. But that's what they are paid for, to be intuitive and in touch with the realities we all face on a daily basis. Contrary to the first comment, we need help and it would be great to get back people who can provide that help on day one.
ReplyDeleteI hate to say this, but if there are anymore layoffs, I am not sure I can work here any longer. While there are some jobs that have not been impacted significantly by layoffs/buyouts, there are others that are now running on fumes trying to do the jobs that were vacated.
ReplyDeleteBring back some of our brothers and sisters, and provide some relief and hope for a change.
Amen!
ReplyDeleteKudos on the Jobs analogy, but we don't necessarily need top-of-the-food-chain people to come back. We need the roll-up-your-sleeves types who got the job done when they were here.
ReplyDeleteJobs would lay off anyone that answered his hallway question incorrectly. The question was "what do you do here?" anyone who answered with their job title was fired.
ReplyDelete"I'm a product manager" would get you fired. "I make sure product x meets spec, is great, and ships on time" was what he was looking for.
I'm sure lots of people got upset about it, but now they have prepared answers. Maybe it helps people stay focused.
The names of potential candidates to be recalled or rehired would be better served going directly to Hillkirk and not splashed across this blog. If you think it's important for the paper that any former employee be asked back in their previous or new role, I would tell John directly. If it can't be done now, maybe it plants the seed for a few months from now. We won't know unless we try and unless we feed him the information he needs in his new position.
ReplyDeleteBring back Tom Curley as CEO!
ReplyDeleteI've always thought USAT needed to take a Jobs approach. If you look deep into the archives, I mentioned just that!
ReplyDeleteNow...who do we tap? This person, like Jobs, should be a dream, rebel, stands against the status quo. There's only a handful of those within the company.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI think some people would have a hard time explaining what they do here. Still not sure how some survived layoffs while others, who appeared to do a lot, were given the shaft. Maybe this is a chance to right some wrongs and start moving usat back where it belongs. If we don't bolster this staff and improve content both in quantity and quality, someone, maybe Murdoch, is going to seize the opportunity and takeover the No. 1 print position. Print sliding won't do the brand, not even the web site, any good.
ReplyDeleteHire competent people back. Plain and simple. Do it now, ahead of the curve, and while other newspapers are down. Let's get this paper looking and reading the way it did a year or two ago, and grab the biggest audience possible.
ReplyDeleteAND PLEASE, no more layoffs!
Don't we all have deadlines approaching?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I like the enthusiasm and positive thoughts, but I am not certain this will happen. The Moon-Paulson departure still leaves me with an uneasy feeling. What did they know? Why did they really leave?
With that said, I would love to see some of my friends return. Not just because they were my friends, but because I have full faith in their abilities and passion for this paper.
This place has changed in the last year. There is no going back. There would be a learning curve facing rehires just as there would be for new hires. It is wishful thinking. We won't see either rehires or new hires anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteOut of sight, out of mind. If USAT is rolling in the cash again, then I want my full salary back before anyone gets hired back.
ReplyDeleteTerrific to see some hopefulness for a change. It's been too gloomy for too long around here. Now let's see if the new editor and publisher are coming in to rebuild or to tear down or just maintain. Two of those three choices are not that appealing to me, so I am hoping for the best.
ReplyDeleteWonderful idea to potentially welcome back some who served us well in the past. Not all past employees bash this company. Some truly miss being here. Just keep in mind, there will be those who fight against that, just as there were people who didn't want Mr. Jobs returning to run Apple. I believe they will be in the minority though. Those of us who do the bulk of the work know what it would mean to have a few people return to our ranks.
This was once a paper where people wanted to come work. Loaners sought jobs here. More experienced journalists saw it as a stable and vibrant place to practice their craft during the second half of their careers. While other media outlets were laying off people because of rising newsprint costs and other factors back in the day, USA TODAY kept building. It worked. We got to be number 1. Most of us never imagined a day when we'd be coaxed into taking buyouts or laid off.
ReplyDeleteThen the betrayals began, which I am sure Jim can relate to. People on all levels were pressured to leave or just terminated in the blink of an eye. It wasn't just this current recession that led to the "family" being torn apart. We know there are many reasons that people left or were thrown overboard. Some of those reasons were simply horrendous.
There are lingering bad feelings about what has happened in the last two years. I really hope we can go back to future, sort of speak. In small ways, things can be repaired and we can still move forward with digital initiatives and other innovations. Repairing print should not be a threat to anyone. No one should have been sacrificed in the first place. So I do hope some coworkers get an opportunity to return.
Is Al coming back?
ReplyDeleteIf he can edit, write a headline or design a page, you can sit him right next to me. I am tiring of the 12-hour work days.
ReplyDeleteAre you guys writing this stuff from your desks? Isn't being on this blog in the office dangerous?
ReplyDeleteMy vote: Restore some jobs!
ReplyDeleteNo more layoffs. With all the furloughs, we can't get the work done as it is. Some days are impossible.
And how about looking at the paper as an asset instead of something delaying the success of the web site. That's really gotten out of hand in some quarters.
I want to work in a place that has heart. Where higher-ups admit to mistakes. Where we correct those mistakes, whether it be in hiring people back or in simply treating people in an honest manner instead of all of the spinning that seems to be growing by the month.
I still believe in the paper. I want to see it dominate every market. But that can't be done with limited resources and all the bad feelings still eating at us. Too much fear. Hiring people back might alleviate that fear, even more so than just hiring new people. It would send a good signal out to those who want to work here in the future.
I believe in the web site, but don't care for some of the attitude. I enjoy new technology but believe it has to work in conjunction with other skills, talents and abilities. Without true leadership and open management, technology will not save us.
Yes, we have some people with severe limitations, but let's be careful with who we get rid of right now. This might not be the time.
OK, that's my two cents.
Not sure we have a Steve Jobs type who could help in a similar way, but we do have a bunch of very good former employees out there who I would not mind seeing sitting across from me again, especially if there is going to be a campaign to improve our numbers in these newspaper-less towns. I see no shame in admitting we could use some help on the print side.
ReplyDeleteYou people are living an unreality. USAT is in no shape to rehire. I agree with a few of the commenters who say the layoff era isn't over, and I think we will hear soon of new cutbacks and reductions. Moon didn't leave abruptly for no reason. Corporate has plans for us, and they aren't pretty.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like the workload, then leave. I am fed up with all this negativity. Be thankful you have a paycheck.
ReplyDelete5:32. It might be dangerous to view this blog. But since so many people have left, there is no one around to see what's up on my screen.
ReplyDeleteIs this just one of those blog things that gets kind of viral, or is there any possibility that layoffs are over and that some folks might even come back? I am not talking about the recent retirees, but the others with a lot still to offer.
5:50. Leave, huh? I am not going to stoop to name-calling, but am always amazed at the simplistic minds that exist in this company. If someone says they need help in their department and are tired of working 12-hour days (and not getting paid), they should just leave? And go where? Truly amazing! Do you realize how you sound? That's not waving the company flag, that's just being small. Ironically, you aren't even serving the company well to say something like that.
ReplyDelete5:53 Look around. I could name incompetents who stretch the small amount of work they are assigned to do into a mountain that they insist cannot be completed in less than 12 hours. Then they complain about being overworked. In other less tolerant workplaces I know, this would never be accepted. But it is here, day after day.
ReplyDeleteCould these former employees be trusted if they were rehired? I wonder. How many harbor hatred for this company that they would act on, if given the chance.
ReplyDeleteRE: Anon 2:25. Older workers are not technophobes or Luddites. It's that they want to do good work.
ReplyDeleteAnd the crap Gannett uses new media for is not, by any definition, good work. It's crap. Metromix? Crap. Moms Lick Me? Crap. Videos of drunks in bars? Crap.
Rushing stories on line, without adequate editing is not doing good work. It's destroying our credibility with readers who recognize that stuff is going online without adequate vetting.
The New York Times, Washington Post, BBC have great news web sites with a mix of news and entertaining material. They don't put crap online. Gannett can't seem to grasp those concepts though.
Nice to see a fairly rational discussion.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, managers at Gannett have been toldvthat rehiring past workers, either laid off or who have finished their buyout periods, should not be rehired because it raises the danger of lawsuits for unfair labor practices -- I.e. firing people and then bringing them back at lower wages.
That seems kind of crazy, but...
In this economic environment, I bet a lot of people would be so appreciative to be reemployed that lawsuits or harboring of ill will would not be a factor, even if they returned at lesser pay.
ReplyDeleteThere are people here now who left years ago, not always under the greatest terms, and were rehired. They continue to be valued employees. Hiring people back would not be a first for USA TODAY.
The pluses far outweigh the minuses, not just for those who come back, but for the positive message it would send to the rest of us. In our hearts, we still want to believe this company and paper have a soul. We want to believe things are going to turn around and that USA TODAY does have some loyalty to people who did a good job while here, who got good reviews and made sacrifices for the sake of the paper.
With a few rehires, even at discount rates, I think much more than the obvious would be gained. A good message, more help in key spots and a clear indication that the paper is still a key component at Gannett. But the hires have to be the right hires. Just hiring anyone back won't do much. We need the people back who performed a role, had good performance reviews and the respect of most people. This is no time for personal favorites. This is a time to objectively evaluate who the paper would benefit most from by hiring back. Of course, that is assuming they want to come back.
I know of several folks who have been rehired. They've turned out to be some of the best coworkers I have here. Maybe they appreciated things more the second time around.
ReplyDeleteI am in favor of rehiring. It's a good morale booster. As others have said, it is the right thing to do, particularly in cases where people left or were removed under odd circumstances that may no longer exist.
Bringing in brand new people may have some advantages, but mixing in some rehires strengthens us in a variety of ways. As the last comment said though, it really has to be the right rehires. Let's face it, some people were let go or driven out because they just didn't have much to do. But there were some who vanished who did a lot on a daily basis for this paper for years, and were still getting it done.
I hope this just isn't a lot of wishful thinking. I hope someone in high places is reading all of these comments.
Make targeted rehires. Not just talented folks, but productive, honest people. Talent is great, but if one isn't dependable or in possession of maturity and solid life skills... Well you get my drift.
ReplyDeleteIf that can be done, I would be in total favor of having some people come back to lend a hand.
Anyone who says he or she couldn't use the help must not have enough to do themselves.
The thing about people coming back and seeking revenge on the usat is just absurd. I also believe that employees don't necessarily have to come back in the same exact roles or pay grades to be a significant help to our question to grow circulation through improved content and/or management.
Fewer dollars is not cause to turn down a decent job in this economy. If people liked working for this newspaper, and want to continue their career with a the brand they called home for years, and are willing to pitch in on the digital end and look forward, why not rehire?
From a totally selfish point of view, I would sure feel better about the security of my job if I saw some people rejoining us. It doesn't have to be Steve Jobs. Anyone with a sense of decency and ability will do. Anyone who I don't have to train would be an added bonus.
I believe we could be onto something here.
Agreed. Now lets see if USA Today does the right thing.
ReplyDeleteUSAT use to do the right thing with some regularity. Nobody questioned the integrity of Bob Dubill. Sure, we had problems, and we worked really hard, but there was a fair degree of competency, dedication and selflessness. I haven't seen that in quite some time. I hope either through rehiring or other tangible actions, that this paper regains some of what it once had, and can put aside some of the politics, favoritism and rush to find the magic bullet. I hope John makes that a priority. Identify problems, see if they can be fixed through either rehiring or other means, and recapture that positive energy that drove us to success. In no way am I advocating abandoning the positive steps we have taken recently, whether on the web site or anywhere else, but I am suggesting that rehiring would not only serve a logistical purpose, but would also be a symbol that this paper is still on top in more ways than just circulation. Come on John. Listen to us. We might not all say these things to your face because of the current climate, but we are looking for signs that the editor's office can be trusted again and is willing to restore what has been broken.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that John Hillkirk was named editor. It's a positive, and I have a lot of respect for him.
ReplyDeleteOn the negative side, my biggest problem is that I work for an ME to whom I must be invisible. The only time he talks to me is when he needs me to do something for him. If my work gets referred to in the daily "Hainer" note, he has nothing to say. My work was even mentioned in our annual USAT awards, but he didn't utter a word of gratitude to me for the nights I spent staying up till 1 a.m. getting it done (because of short-staffing). Heck, I'm not even sure he knows I was involved in the project.
I could probably not show up for work for a couple of days, and he just would not notice.
I work all hours -- days, nights, weekends -- making sure the stories and graphics I'm involved in get done and get done well. Does he care? Maybe. Then again, I wouldn't know because HE NEVER TALKS TO ME!
If Gannett and David Hunke and John Hillkirk want people like me to be inspired, to innovate, to own this product and make it better, they're going to have to teach their managers how to inspire us.
The parallel to bringing back Steve Jobs would be Al -- a control freak founder, a brilliant, manipulative, obsessed tyrant. Even if GCI could find the like, most could not handle it.
ReplyDeleteAs for rehiring -- there's more likely to be fewer newsroom jobs, not more. So to get good people back or make room for new specialists, make a list of 15-20 current staff you would lay off or not replace.
I'll play the contrarian here. I think there are still too many people in some of the sections that don't have enough to do. Namely editors. turn them into something productive, like reporters, or think about other things they can do. News and sports have too many chiefs, deputy chiefs, senior assignment editor chiefs and others. Others who've been assigned to rewrite and the copy desk have been immune.
ReplyDeleteI can't speak to targeted rehires. I'm against them. There are too many talented journalists out there who've been laid off from other organizations who could beef up our staff. Why not target a few? It would only benefit and build upon the weak reporting staff we now have. I'm sure they would be happy to have a job and the access and forum USAT provides.
I'd also like to see us up our marketing budget to sell the paper as a product. Ads in the style of the irreverent Sport Center promo spots would be perfect.
10:45 p.m.--I work for a different ME, and she NEVER talks to me either. I have never heard of a news organization where editors totally ignore a big chunk of their staff the way they do at USAT. It's just plain weird. How can someone move up in newspaper management if they lack basic communication skills?
ReplyDeleteBTW, people who took buyouts aren't allowed to ever work for Gannett again. But that was not made clear to them before they took the buyouts. I do not know whether the same is true for people who were laid off.
11:55 you are full of crap. Folks who took buyouts can return to any Gannett site once their salary continuation is over. You are spreading ignorant rumors.
ReplyDeleteI side with 1:22 am: When I got my USA Today buyout, I was told we could return to work for any Gannett business (assuming we got a job offer) after our severance ran out. (Understandabily, Gannett doesn't want to be paying severance and wages to the same person simultaneously.)
ReplyDeleteLet's bring back Tom Curley - as CEO.
ReplyDeleteRupert Murdoch expects to start charging for access to News Corporation's newspaper websites within a year as he strives to fix a "malfunctioning" business model.
ReplyDeleteEncouraged by booming online subscription revenues at the Wall Street Journal, the billionaire media mogul last night said that papers were going through an "epochal" debate over whether to charge. "That it is possible to charge for content on the web is obvious from the Wall Street Journal's experience," he said.
Asked whether he envisaged fees at his British papers such as the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World, he replied: "We're absolutely looking at that." Taking questions on a conference call with reporters and analysts, he said that moves could begin "within the next 12 months‚" adding: "The current days of the internet will soon be over."
Plunging earnings from newspapers led the way downwards as News Corporation's quarterly operating profits slumped by 47% to $755m, although exceptional gains on sale of assets boosted bottom-line pretax profits to $1.7bn, in line with last year's figure.
Dwindling advertising revenue across print and television divisions depressed the News Corp numbers despite box office receipts from Twentieth Century Fox movies such as Slumdog Millionaire and Marley and Me. But Murdoch said he believed signs of hope were appearing.
"I'm not an economist and we all know economists were created to make weather forecasters look good," he quipped. "But it is increasingly clear the worst is over."
He continued: "There are encouraging signs in some of our businesses that the days of precipitous declines are done, and things are beginning to look healthier."
This post will probably be deleted by the blog administrator - again.
Layoffs are just that. Those people, assuming they left in good standing, should be the first to be hired back if the newspaper gods decide they want the flagship to be all it can be again.
ReplyDeleteThe people who took buyouts should also be considered because there were some quality people in that group, too. But not before laid-off workers. The laid-off employees did not volunteer to leave. In many cases, they were cut because of reasons that had nothing to do with their abilities or productivity.
Bringing back good workers has many benefits for the company. In this day and age, where you really don't know what you're getting with a brand new employee, this is a chance to hire people who know the ropes and aren't going to go postal or anything like that.
Rehiring former employees to help with the paper during this opportune time seems like a logical suggestion, and I hope USAT leaders consider it. However, we all know that these same leaders don't always do the most logical of things, which is why our faith has been rocked. Perhaps that will soon change for the better. This could be the first step in repairing much that has gone wrong in recent years.
I'd be delighted just to have affordable, reliable health insurance.
ReplyDeleteI too see no downside to re-hiring laid off workers. I can't imagine being without benefits or a paycheck. I don't see why anyone in that situation, presuming they are still in the area and enjoy newspapering, wouldn't come back this Monday if given the chance. I can't see why anyone internally would object if those who are rehired are competent and can help the paper.
ReplyDeleteLet's also remember that some good buyout victims are out there. These were people who voluntarily took the buyout, but in some cases, under tremendous pressure or because they didn't see eye to eye with the top dogs. Well, maybe now they would realize they do have a future here and could be an asset under the new regime.
Point is, if what happen in December was truly layoffs, then those people should be rehired as jobs tailored to their skills open, new initiatives arise, etc. Of course, I am assuming there weren't other problems with those folks. If they had work ethic problems. were absent constantly, etc., they shouldn't come back. We have too much of that as it is.
I'd really enjoy this paper making a push to become better than it has ever been. But it's going to take more resources to reverse the downward trend USAT has been suffering. It's going to take better attitudes and greater faith in management. Managers could restore that faith by rehiring.
11:25:
ReplyDeleteI am constatntly amused by people who say USAT has "too many editors" and "needs more reporters." USAT has ALWAYS been an editors' newspaper where packaging and news decisions drove the product. I agree with some who have said the paper has lost some of this (partly because of layoffs, partly because of thinning staff with other publications and website and partly because of shrinking newsholes). But reporters who believe they have all the answers make me laugh. There are many more reporters and USAT that do very little on a very regular basis (there are also some who work incredibly hard). There are far fewer editors who do nothing (albeit some editors don't always do the right thing but at least they're doing something). USAT would truly benefit from a hard look at what everyone is doing and adjusting duties and reorganizing staff.
I'm a former USATer who left because everything seemed to be falling apart around me. I think most people thought I did a good job and most people were sorry to see me go. But I just can't imagine coming back under current circumstances because...everything is still falling down.
ReplyDeleteUSA TODAY has lost it.
ReplyDeleteStories are repeated from section to section multiple times each issue.
Example in todays issue:
Nissan Zippy Electric Car FP & Money
Obama/Polar Bears FP Tech
BMW Z4 FP & Money
KFC Rainchecks- FP & Money
Berkshire Post 1st Loss FP & Money
SunMicro FP & Money
Smokey Mountains FP & Travel
This duplication goes on daily as the true non-repeated news hole gets smaller and smaller.
And we wonder why circulation is falling. I sure hope Hunke can bring some quick resolutions to all the problems.
USA Today had its chance with Craig Moon but Dubow couldn't stand the competition of somebody smarter than him so Moon got the boot. Now Dumbo and Gracious have their lapdog in place with David Hunke.
ReplyDelete