Word for word from a New York Times story about USA Today Publisher Dave Hunke's newly announced plans to reorganize the struggling daily:
The paper has experimented with ways to be more innovative about generating revenue, though not always in ways that hew to long-accepted practices in the newspaper business. In July it wrapped its front section in an advertisement for Jeep that obscured the entire front page. The ad stirred outrage in the newsroom and prompted the paper’s founder, Allen H. Neuharth, to complain in a letter to the publisher that if he were still there, “I would have led the entire news staff walking out in protest.”
Taking a shot at Mr. Hunke, Mr. Neuharth, 86, added: “If such a stupid decision is ever made again, I hope that will be the result. That would leave those who apparently don’t understand what a newspaper is to try to put one out without a news staff.”
Monday, August 30, 2010
30 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)
There are plenty of reasons why this NYT story carries an extra, negative-sounding bite, starting with the fact that USAT's reorganization plan comes off as a bit half-baked.
ReplyDeleteBut there's another reason, and it's contained in this paragraph:
"The publisher, David L. Hunke, declined to answer questions afterward about the restructuring was revealed late Thursday night in an article by The Associated Press. A spokesman for USA Today, Ed Cassidy, said that the paper’s announcement and the A.P. article were all that USA Today had to say on the matter, 'and that pretty much closes the book on this for us.'"
Nothing -- NOTHING -- motivates an aggressive beat reporter more than hearing a publicist tell them to move on.
Would the NYT reporter have been in touch with Neuharth anyway? We'll never know. Whatever the sequence, however, I wouldn't dismiss Neuharth as an 86-year-old has-been in Cocoa Beach, Fla. USAT is his legacy, and he can't be happy to see its fortunes getting trashed in plain sight.
Why should big G give two cents what Neuharth thinks? What's he going to do, start another nationwide paper? If he gets too lippy, they toss his column and he loses his weekly soapbox.
ReplyDeleteFor all his supposed indignation, he's not himself dropping his column, tearing up his stock, or giving up whatever perks he still gets.
Wow. A couple years ago, Big Al made his first ever comment as non-officer at a Gannett board meeting to heavily criticize the ridiculous show Jim Hopkins put on there.
ReplyDeleteNow, if I am correct, for the first time he has publicly blasted USA Today managers.
He may be an SOB, but at least he brings credibility. And he ran a newspaper company that made money.
There is a lot to discuss (pro and con) with regard to the Hunke era at USAT, but let me note this:
ReplyDeleteAny story in which Mr. Neuharth attempts to take the journalistic high ground should be dropped into the circular file post haste.
Big Al is the guy who brought McPaper to life and foisted such non-news content as Buscapade and Jetcapade upon us.
And his columns in USAT? Almost always an unneeded consumption of ink and newsprint.
How many jobs across the company could have been saved if Al hadn't been left on the payroll for literally decades after the expiration date on the useful part of his career?
Three cheers for Al!
ReplyDeleteIt's about time someone from above spoke his/her mind to the people in the ivory tower instead of the "yes-men".
I think it's time to bring them down a notch or two into the real world.
If the staff put pride in journalism over paying the bills they would all walk out. Let's face it, with the "vertical" relationship being emphasized between editorial and sales, USA Today will be nothing more than advertorial for whoever many remaining months it even survives.
ReplyDeleteHalf-baked it right! Very few journalists are against progress or change, but this isn't about moving forward. This debate is about a loss of confidence as a result of the folly that has taken place here in the last three years, culminating with the assembly of the worst leadership team ever at USA TODAY.
ReplyDeleteThis is about dismantling something that was worth preserving. Very few people who helped build this brand are very confident that anyone who has been hired or promoted in the past couple of years is up to the task.
The NYT article says a lot without spelling it out. There is little faith in this regime and that is causing the foundation to rot. Whether from a business, ethics or journalistic standpoint, these newcomers (not an age reference) lack the right stuff. This decline started two administrations ago. Their core values are seriously flawed. They don't have an attachment to the product or simply don't have the life skills to lead. Their inability to answer questions directly, whether in a one-on-one meeting or in group setting is becoming frighteningly common.
The ability to deceive shouldn't qualify someone to head a department. How many times have you gotten the runaround when asking a simple question of your supervisor? How many times have you seen others punished for speaking out? Do you think any of the 130 layoffs will be the yes-men or women? Doubtful. Competency is no longer a valued trait which is why the quality of the product (print and online) continues to decline.
Al isn't just some casual observer. The guy still knows a thing or two about journalism and business. He can't be written off as an over-the-hill whiner. I would have followed him right out of the newsroom if he were still in the editor's office.
We have spineless editors and MEs (or whatever they are called now) who cave at every opportunity. Editors who stand for nothing other than collecting fat paychecks. Pretenders. Editors who want to give the impression of playing nice but will stab you in the back at the first opportunity they get if it will benefit them. Some are just scared.
Where are the hard-nosed editors, the guys and gals who drew lines in the sand and stood for something other than collecting a paycheck? Bosses who told you to your face what you were doing wrong and didn't use things like layoffs to get their revenge. They didn't hide behind "job eliminations" or the struggling economy. They led with confidence, not insecurity. They didn't just proclaim they had an open-door policy and then run from you at every chance they got.
Content has slid. Morale is worsening. And those at the top keep collecting big bonuses while promoting their friends.
There is a way to enter the digital market in a smarter more targeted manner and still maintain the print operation that still pays the bills and acts as an advertisement for other USAT platforms. I am guessing Al would have come up with a better plan -- a plan that preserves the best of USAT, brings in revenue and limits layoffs. Instead, we have slash-and-burn empty suits and folks who know very little about the nature of this business and its role in a free society. Al understood that sometimes you have to lose a little money now in order to make money later. He added staff while losing millions of dollars. He upheld certain journalistic standards that eventually made USAT a respected and trusted brand. That has all been torn apart.
Al was an innovator, and that is a trait that doesn't disappear with age. I am sure he appreciates the need for change. I am also positive he is correct in his perceptions of USAT going about things in all the wrong ways. You might not have liked some of Al's antics, but there was never any doubt about his love for this newspaper. That passion trickled down and eventually drove the brand to great success.
Maybe in the way Apple had to bring back Steve Jobs to rescue it from itself, USAT should bring back Al!
It always amazes me that Gannett, supposedly a communications's company, is such a non-communicator.
ReplyDeleteWhat the heck are they are trying to hide? That they really don't know what they're doing? That they're really not sure how this thing is going to turn out?
Heck, they have to do something and there are never any guarantees. The issue is that GCI has dissolved over the years into a yes-man, yes-woman culture. Everyone's watching their own ass and hoping to find ways to blame others if the quest falters.
I was never a wide-eyed fan of Big Al, but at least the guy was creative editorially and no schmuck business wise. He's 100 percent correct in the NYT article. The paper is really in danger of becoming a mouthpiece for its advertisers. They're treading an extremely slope.
Many people have a lot of respect for Al. Regardless of his age or this new era of reinventing the wheel every other week, I would listen to what he has to say if I were USAT/Gannett. And, BTW, respect is what is important. Seems USAT managers nowadays just want to be liked. No wonder the content is no longer there. There is no one driving it.
ReplyDeleteAs for USAT leaders not answering questions, yes, it's an absolute travesty and reveals some of what we've been dealing since about the time we moved to Tysons. It's gotten worse in the last two years.
Thanks, Al. Appreciate you passion and wisdom!
ReplyDeleteThe only ones knocking Al are probably the folks who are threatened by his stature in this business. Regardless of how things have changed since he retired, his basic insights and instincts are as legitimate as ever. Mother Gannett would be wise to pay attention. Dismissing what Al says just because of the existence of iPhones and iPads would be like paying no attention to Thomas Jefferson if he were to be resurrected to write one more paper. I consider Al's speaking out as one of the most damning indictments of recent trends at the nation's newspaper.
ReplyDeleteBig Al should update his Friday column photo and let Hunke run the business.
ReplyDeleteAl, just like Ben Bradlee or any number of other industry giants from yesteryear, would be just as successful today as he was in the 1980s. He had two essential ingredients that are timeless: love of THIS business and the ability to motivate people through honest means. I get the impression that today's usat leaders (and some staffers) could just as easily be working in PR or for some website that sells widgets. They pretend they are engaged, but I don't sense the ink (or pixels) in their veins like I did with folks from 10 years ago. They cling to their gadgets and are masters of sounding like innovative team leaders, but there is something missing. Sadly, the more experienced folks have gone into "stay off the radar" mode. There's just no one left here who you can get a straight answer from. They will even tell you there are no answers right now, as if that's ok. Well, regardless of how much turmoil the business is in, the troops don't want to hear there is no battle plan.
ReplyDeleteHighly successful people would most likely be successful in any era, regardless of changing markets or technologies. They wouldn't shrug their shoulders or arrogantly proclaim they aren't going to answer any questions. Successful, wise and honorable people possess something intangible that today's current crop of leaders don't. They demand answers and live to iron out and share the details. That's why we have so much confusion here. The lack of details of yet another plan isn't something new. It's a continuation of something that began to inflict this place after Al left and has gotten far worse as the years have gone on.
Wrapping ads around the newspaper and laying off really good people who help create a product that made tons of money are knee-jerk reactions to stock prices. I understand why these miscalculations occur, but I don't think true leaders would fall into these short-sighted traps as often as this present group does. Therefore, I think Al's perceptions are fairly on target. I also think good journalists will one day do a piece of the rise and fall of this once-proud news organization. And it will fall if things continue the way they have.
Good for Al. He's seeing what he loved and created torn apart both in public, and privately behind the closed doors at the Crystal Towers. USA Today was his baby, and was lavished with attention and money as long as he headed the company. But after he left, it has been a steady downhill. Jack Kelley, who wrote most of his Jetscapades copy, was exposed as a fraud. His loyal lieutenants were shoved aside for cushy jobs at the Newseum. Years of promoting ass-kissing executives produced a corps of yes-men at the top too timid to speak up and risk losing their jobs. Those who work at USA Today know what happens to dissenters and those who speak too openly in opposition to a company plan. Hear the congratulatory words in the newsroom given Hunke's plan, which I think is an unmitigated disaster. Big Al has no power left and what he says isn't going to change anything. But it's nice to hear someone who once ran this company agree with those of us who think these greedy managers with their bottom line viewpoints are leading us to disaster.
ReplyDeleteI can't avoid pointing out the poetic irony: a former magnate with a platinum parachute complains about his employer's success in generating a large sale, the revenue from which will help pay that magnate's contractual "retirement package."
ReplyDeleteAs Beck's rally showed this past weekend, there's a huge audience of fiscal conservatives out there. And the Lamestream Media dismisses them with their agenda; very little rally coverage in your Gannett paper I bet, right?
Well, I guess most eDUHtors' excuse would be: It wasn't "Local, Local."
What a great opportunity for journalistic innovation in the next decade.
It's this quote that has really struck me, "...and that pretty much closes the book on this for us." This sounds like a politician telling a reporter that there's nothing to see here. Ha!
ReplyDeleteThis is the dumbing down, the "Idiocracy" of a newspaper turned "Profit Center."
I'm not a newspaper guy, so let me get that in up front. But I am a former Ganneteer (on the TV side) and a frequent business traveler in my second life. The only time I see a USAT anymore is when one shows up outside my hotel room door. The only paper I subscribe to and buy every day I'm away is the WSJ. Somehow, Rubert Murdoch (not someone who is unconcerned about profits) has succeeded in maintainin the editorial integrity of his paper and not stooping so low as to sell what amounts to the front page. Somehow, it seems inconceivable to me that one day I'll pick up the Journal and see full-page ad for BP or BOA taking the place of the familar front page! Bravo, Al, for taking a stand against what has to be a low point (and there are many) in Gannett history!
ReplyDeleteMay I just say that I've just developed a man crush on Al?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete>>As Beck's rally showed this past weekend, there's a huge audience of fiscal conservatives out there.<<
ReplyDeleteOriginal, oft-imitated USAT cover = '63 Civil Rights March;
Jeep sellout USAT = Beck "No usual nasty signs allowed" Tea Party rally.
New reality show. Bring Al back to gannett for one year. I'd watch it!
ReplyDeleteFollowing is an edited version of a comment posted by 8:25 p.m.:
ReplyDeletehow many people are we actually paying to be spokespeople? Ed Cassidy? WTF? Who taught this guy how to communicate on behalf of a media company? What happened to the highly compensated Robin Pence [XXXXX]?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFollowing is an edited version of a comment posted by 9:32 a.m.:
ReplyDeleteBut you left up the original comment about Robin. [Jim says: That was a careless mistake on my part; I've now removed it. Also, it included a possibly pejorative allegation that isn't backed up with a source for that information.]
After all, she was "most proud of the work I did as Director, Corporate Communications, Consumer Market during the height of the "telecom wars" from 1994 - 2000. Directed public relations for Sprint’s $3 billion consumer long distance business, which represented the company’s brand. Successfully positioned Sprint as industry leader in consumer marketing. Publicity campaign I developed for Sprint’s “dime-a-minute” calling plan helped drive record revenue and established the product as a popular cultural icon."
Is she still with us?
[Jim says: To the best of my knowledge, Pence is still Gannett's chief corporate publicist. Ed Cassidy is a designated publicist for USAT, so his speaking to the NYT is to be expected.]
In an e-mail, a reader writes:
ReplyDeleteHas anyone noted that the commenting paper quoting the criticizing founder is an expressed rival? Just thought it should be mentioned, in the interest of journalism.
Btw, Robin Pence is a puppet for Gracia Martore. She is Gracia' personal PR agent. She spends most of her time "telling on" all the divisions.
ReplyDeleteI would have thought that Robin would spend her time building a proper marketing website and brand for Gannett and worrying less about who approves what press release.
Can YOU BELIEVE IT, Gracia Martore APPROVES EVEY SINGLE press release from all divisions across all of Gannett.
Talk about a MICRO-MANAGER!!!!
Hunke...Enjoy that Chivas on the rocks. You might need a little bit more Chivas and less rocks to get through this rough patch. Oh, actually Rudd will take care of all of this when he gets back from the skateboard park.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe Ross Shuffleberger will take care of it after he gets done lobbying Gracia for another job in the company.
You should all be embarrassed.
I'm not a fan or a detractor of Gracia's but come on, of course she has to see every press release from the divisions before its issued. What President of a public company doesn't need to know and sign-off on something when its news worthy enough for public announcement? Judge her appropriately on the other short-sighted and narrowly focused decisions she's made that have hurt so many of us but this is one issue where she's doing her job.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that Pence cites her work at Sprint as a career highlight. That was a decade and four p.r. jobs ago.
ReplyDeleteVice President, Communications
AES
(Public Relations and Communications industry)
August 2004 — October 2008 (4 years 3 months)
Led worldwide communications for $16 billion global power company that generates and distributes electricity in 29 countries and employs 28,000 people in diverse markets ranging from the world’s most highly developed nations to some of the fastest growing and emerging economies. Responsible for overall brand, external communications, corporate website, annual report, internal communications and Corporate Social Responsibility. Managed integrated communications across 130 decentralized subsidiaries, ensuring consistent messaging and brand application. Member of senior management team; reported to CEO.
Senior Director/Senior Principal, Corporate Public Relations and Analyst Relations
AMS
(Public Company; AMSY; Information Technology and Services industry)
July 2003 — August 2004 (1 year 2 months)
Led public relations and industry analyst relations for global business and IT consulting firm, serving the telecommunications, financial services, defense, intelligence and civilian government markets. Responsible for CEO visibility, national and international media relations strategy, crisis management and community relations.
Associate Director, Office of Media Relations
Federal Communications Commission
(Public Relations and Communications industry)
2002 — 2003 (1 year )
So Garacia is a micro-manager? Then she's the perfect fit to run this company. And her management style is alive and well at USA TODAY...we are filled to the brim with micro managers would wouldn't know strategy if it bit them in the backside.
ReplyDelete