David Callaway, MarketWatch's top editor since 2000, has been named USA Today's new editor-in-chief, the paper just announced in a news release. He starts later this month.
Callaway, 48, becomes the most experienced digital news executive to lead a major U.S. daily's newsroom -- albeit relatively late in the digital publishing revolution.
He joins MarketWatch founder Larry Kramer, who was named USAT's publisher in May. He replaces John Hillkirk, who stepped down in November. Executive Editor Susan Weiss has held the job on an interim basis.
Callaway arrives at USAT at a crucial time. Kramer has vowed to rejuvenate the paper, where advertising and circulation have been slipping for years, by pushing for greater speed in reporting news and by hiring more high-profile writers. He's praised early digital efforts in the Sports Department.
In the news release, Kramer says Callaway "has successfully run a newsroom that produced regular television, radio, digital and mobile news products. Here, he will also lead a multi-platform newsroom that will provide our readers with the outstanding content they have come to expect from us."
Since 2009, USAT's circulation has fallen to 1.8 million from 2.3 million, and first-quarter national advertising tumbled 13%. On the future of Gannett's marquee brand, CEO Gracia Martore has promised Wall Street: "We know we can do better."
Big as it is within the company, USAT accounts for less than 10% of Gannett's overall revenue. In mid-morning trading today, GCI's stock was up 3 cents at $14.69.
Ripple effect likely
Callaway's appointment from outside Gannett reinforces the sense that Corporate and Kramer want big changes, with less regard for maintaining an existing staff that includes many employees who started with the paper in September 1982. Callaway would be expected to hire his own editing leadership team, and that would ripple down through the newsroom's ranks.
From this morning's initial announcement: "Callaway, a veteran of more than 21/2 decades in financial news, worked at the Boston Herald and Bloomberg News before joining MarketWatch as managing editor in 1999, two years after its launch as CBS MarketWatch."
Callaway and Kramer worked together six years at MarketWatch, until 2005, when Kramer left to become president of CBS Digital Media.
The release continues: "In recent years, MarketWatch, with 17 million unique users, has taken various top honors among large business-focused websites from Editor & Publisher, Media Week, the Society of American Business Editors and Writers, and other publications and organizations. MarketWatch, which went public in 1999, was acquired by Dow Jones in 2004 and is today a member of The Wall Street Journal Digital Network under parent company News Corp."
Related: Here's USAT's story on Callaway. Plus: Here's his Twitter feed, where his last post was June 9.
[Photo: Marketwatch]
 |
| Callaway |
He joins MarketWatch founder Larry Kramer, who was named USAT's publisher in May. He replaces John Hillkirk, who stepped down in November. Executive Editor Susan Weiss has held the job on an interim basis.
Callaway arrives at USAT at a crucial time. Kramer has vowed to rejuvenate the paper, where advertising and circulation have been slipping for years, by pushing for greater speed in reporting news and by hiring more high-profile writers. He's praised early digital efforts in the Sports Department.
In the news release, Kramer says Callaway "has successfully run a newsroom that produced regular television, radio, digital and mobile news products. Here, he will also lead a multi-platform newsroom that will provide our readers with the outstanding content they have come to expect from us."
Since 2009, USAT's circulation has fallen to 1.8 million from 2.3 million, and first-quarter national advertising tumbled 13%. On the future of Gannett's marquee brand, CEO Gracia Martore has promised Wall Street: "We know we can do better."
Big as it is within the company, USAT accounts for less than 10% of Gannett's overall revenue. In mid-morning trading today, GCI's stock was up 3 cents at $14.69.
Ripple effect likely
Callaway's appointment from outside Gannett reinforces the sense that Corporate and Kramer want big changes, with less regard for maintaining an existing staff that includes many employees who started with the paper in September 1982. Callaway would be expected to hire his own editing leadership team, and that would ripple down through the newsroom's ranks.
From this morning's initial announcement: "Callaway, a veteran of more than 21/2 decades in financial news, worked at the Boston Herald and Bloomberg News before joining MarketWatch as managing editor in 1999, two years after its launch as CBS MarketWatch."
Callaway and Kramer worked together six years at MarketWatch, until 2005, when Kramer left to become president of CBS Digital Media.
The release continues: "In recent years, MarketWatch, with 17 million unique users, has taken various top honors among large business-focused websites from Editor & Publisher, Media Week, the Society of American Business Editors and Writers, and other publications and organizations. MarketWatch, which went public in 1999, was acquired by Dow Jones in 2004 and is today a member of The Wall Street Journal Digital Network under parent company News Corp."
Related: Here's USAT's story on Callaway. Plus: Here's his Twitter feed, where his last post was June 9.
[Photo: Marketwatch]
Can't wait to see the folks start to trash him. Change, we don't want no stinking change
ReplyDeleteIt will take about a week for everyone to trash this great editor.
ReplyDeleteCallaway's first order of business, clear the old dead wood: Weiss, Colton, Chet, Dave T, Meddis et. all.
ReplyDeleteStart with a clean slate. Please.
Couldnt agree with you more. its a long list of protected souls and their pathetic underlings.
DeleteDave T. just turned 42 and is hardly 'old dead wood.' He has worked his way up over the past decade. But because he came from a digital background, most of the old print crowd believes he can't possibly be a good journalist. I'll agree that others are in over their heads but not Dave. He's also a cancer survivor who has had to overcome serious health obstacles while remaining committed to USAT.
ReplyDeleteHe is not a journalist, visionary or leader. he worked his way up from video editor. he has as much reporting experience as a cub reporter. he is not well liked or respected by the digital team or newsroom.
DeleteHe is not a good journalist.
DeleteRemember, you should always embrace change. I did, the last change being my layoff.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJim find a better photo he has lost weight
ReplyDelete12:31 As always, I welcome submissions from Corporate with better executive photos.
ReplyDeleteNot a very creative selection (get a guy Kramer already knows) but OK...I'm hopeful it works out. But, will he throw the baby out with the bath water?
ReplyDeleteCreative in that he is not Gannett. thats already an improvement. big time.
DeleteHere's some facts ... there are some good newer employees at USA Today AND some good veterans of that newsroom. Callaway's will have to resist the urge to classify people based only on seniority (too much or too little) at USAT because there are some serious weak links at all levels and all ages that need to be weeded out asap. Not everyone over 50 hates change. And not everyone under 50 is automatically a digital whiz kid. Same goes for journalism skills. Some have them, some don't and never will.
ReplyDeleteIn order to clean up the mess of the last four years, Callaway should try not to stereotype people or listen to too many opinions from people with their own agendas. But even more importantly, folks at USAT have often been perceived incorrectly, usually based on popularity more than talent. Again, this applies to young and old. I am sick and tired of good people leaving because they weren't the teacher's pets, and I tired of incompetents staying because they have a nice smile and manage to stay off the radar screen, but contributed next to nothing.
USAT has had some terrible MEs over the years, which is a big reason for decline of talent in the newsroom. Those MEs existed because the editors were naive as Hell. The trickle-down-effect has been disastrous. The horrid personnel decisions here played as big a part in USAT's decline as the recession.
It's time that USAT start judging people on their abilities and work ethics and stop with the high school popularity contests. It might sound cold, but I am no longer interested in trying to put out a good product with people who get the benefit of the doubt because they are cancer survivors or because they fulfill a certain quota. I am interested in working with people who are talented and truly dedicated (don't just pretend to be), regardless of whatever background or afflictions they might have. I want to work side-by-side with people who have integrity, who don't spend half their day kissing ass or hanging out in the gym.
So, Mr. Callaway, are you going to attempt to weed out the frauds and phonies or are you going to let this cancer fester even more based on nothing other than office politics? Please, open your eyes. Don't be taken in by the chosen few. Listen to all voices. Listen to the people doing the work, the people with ideas (not all of them sugary sweet), the people who place the job and the product above their own need to be liked.
Start with revitalizing leadership in digital and Money. The two sorriest places for leadership. even worse than News.
DeleteTo little to late. USAToday will take a miracle to survive and this guy is not a miracle.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very eloquent response 1:08 pm, but something tells me it won't go any farther than a comment post in the Gannett blog. Both Kramer and Callaway have email accounts and you should cut and paste your 'facts' into a direct mail to them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, insinuating that Dave T. got his job because he's cancer survivor means you don't know him at all and I'm guessing that's true for a number of other editors you don't like. So let's hope Callaway and Kramer have a better perception of 'talent' and 'dedication' than you do.
But you won't send the email and you'll continue to whine about how no one listens to you or hears your voice. And you won't quit and get a job that makes you happier because you'll be a martyr and say you won't let these incompetents ruin your paper on your watch.
I don't think you are a phony and I know you care deeply about USA TODAY. But before you call somebody a fraud, look in the mirror.
Good Luck Dave, your going to need it. I hope you can turn around that said rag, it needs a good kick in the rear. Get rid of the dead wood and do some thing out side the box. Please
ReplyDeleteBravo 1:56! I agree 100%.
ReplyDeleteThe senior leadership at Gannett is getting more and more diverse. They will certainly win lots of industry awards this year with all the new people from different backgrounds they've hired.
ReplyDeleteQuestions for the esteemed Mr. Callaway:
ReplyDeleteGiven the failed attempt at transforming a legacy print news operation into a multi-platform content delivery company under Hunke and Hillkirk, what are you going to do that’s fundamentally different?
USA TODAY retains 1.8 million daily print circulation comprised largely of a high-demographic business and pleasure traveling audience. Yet the print product today sadly reflects the exit of cream-of-the-crop newsroom staffers combined with spreading the remaining staff thinner and thinner to chase ill-defined, poorly-supported multi-platform content delivery goals. Do you think print needs to be revitalized and treated as the core of operations? If yes, what approach will you take? If no, why not?
A key part of USAT’s online strategy -- unwavering for the past seven years and reinforced daily -- is the blind call to seek ever more eyeballs. For instance, we increasingly pull in all forms of free and cheap content from outside sources to combine with in-house produced content of varying quality. We check the daily eyeball count without much sophistication and make judgments and decisions accordingly. Consistent, well-thought-out curation with the goal of serving a sharply defined audience happens, at best, unevenly. How will you change that approach?
Very rarely do senior managers and executives here ever frame things in terms of leveraging the institutional knowledge, contacts and street smarts of veteran staffers to pursue content quality. Has the news business in the digital age moved beyond such traditional notions?
The New York Times, the Economist and the Financial Times, among others, are learning and solidifying their grasp of pay wall. How far behind is USAT? How important is it for us to play catch up?
1:08 is right, and 1:56 shows this.
ReplyDeleteMakes you wonder what's going on with MarketWatch. Did these guys
ReplyDeleteabandon a sinking ship, or is the ship abandoning them? Seems odd that MarketWatch can't hold on to its supposed top two talents, with perhaps more expected to follow them.
5:15 is the perfect example of what's wrong with USAT. Please stop thinking about yesterday and start thinking about tomorrow. Today was the best meeting in years and yet you find a way to piss on it.
ReplyDeleteI like the choice, as well as Cramer. Interesting how LK expressed enough already with the complaints from staff about how they've been mistreated and continue to live through uncertainty and fear that's lingered for years.
ReplyDeleteYou should know, Larry, that you need to go a long way to change the gulag mentality of the place. Telling us that the management talent in the room was equal to any of the competition doesnt ring true, and ultimately, will derail the changes you want.
I have worked in several newsrooms. Never seen an operation as top heavy and disorganized as this. A psychotic chain of command that lacks true leadership. A poisoned culture perpetuated by long entrenched editors and managers who lack news judgement and have repeatedly failed at bringing in new talent.
I can only hope you and Dave spend some quality time with this crew and really get to know their level of competence.
Most reporters amd mid-level editors are rooting for you guys. Most managers, particularly those near the top, are not. They're primary function is survival mode after years of blissful entitlement. They don't like giving up power and they really are adverse to change.
If you are as smart as we think you are, you'll weed them out or make them actually do something productive. If you want the whining and wound licking to stop, do it fast.
Right on!
Deletein a meeting Larry Kramer stated that he wanted to "fire the fuck out of people here".
ReplyDeleteThis guy is a certifiable lunatic!
Too bad all here are more worried about editorial content than ad revenue. Sorry, but without a better cash flow, whether at 1.8M circ or not, the patient will soon die... Kramer or Callaway, no matter.
ReplyDelete1:08 Aren't you just too smart and too holy to work in a real newsroom? What a sel-serving sermon written by someone who clearly thinks more of him/herself than he/she should. You should be the first one shown the door. Please send an email to the new editor. If he has brains, heart and empathy, like any good editor does, you'll be looking for work in another profession. You imply by your "side by side" comment that you have integrity. Better spend some time in self-reflection. Integrity should be at the core of every decision the new bosses make, all of which will be tough. You have none and should be gone, no matter how talented you (think you) are.
ReplyDelete6:11, his background is not in video. Further proof that you have no idea what his background is and you simply dislike him. I'm in the newsroom and you certainly don't speak for me.
ReplyDelete1:12 no he didn't.
ReplyDeleteAccording to his linkedin profile, his background is not in reporting or editing, but visual media.what am i missing regarding his vast background as a working journalist?
ReplyDeleteHe is not a good journalist or leader. I dont care what his background is. He is petty and autocratic, as is his young deputy clockwatcher.
DeleteTo 5:15 So let me get this straight, you want to put a product that has been losing circulation and ad pages for the past five years at our core?
ReplyDeleteIf the print product was so core to success then the New York Times wouldn't have gone from $6 billion company to a $900 million one.
Our newsroom has always been driven primarily by print needs. Digital has never truly been "first" at USAT but I do think we have a real shot at it now.
To 2:14, So visual journalism isn't journalism? Ever heard of USA TODAY?
ReplyDelete2:14, do you even know what visual media is? It's reporting a story that requires researching, writing and editing but is delivered in a different format than print. Video editors, photojournalists and producers are all working journalists. Welcome to 2012.
ReplyDeleteWould love to see them report and write something to establish their cred. i bet they have a lot to teach the rest of us.
Delete7:23. Sounds like someone touched on something a little too close to home for you.
ReplyDeleteUnlike you, I happen to agree that this whole profession is a mess, mostly because of under-qualified people scattered about the newsroom. I believe public polls show that most readers/viewers don't trust the news media. That seems to run in direct correlation to the lack of integrity I am seeing in the business as compared with 20-30 years ago. The further we move from the values and ethics of yesteryear, the more the audience mistrusts us.
So I am not so sure what you are so upset about, except for the possibility that deep down inside, maybe you know that you're one of the complete incompetents that make putting out a quality product so difficult. Maybe you know that you're the one who should be booted the hell out of this business because you don't really grasp what it means to put in an honest day's work in an environment that puts the product and the readers first. I suspect you are one of these entitled people who doesn't have the chops to secure your position, so you do all the other plotically correct b.s. to make sure the paychecks keep rolling in.
5 am is unfortunately correct although he could have worded it better. The problem with USAT isn't the editorial content -- 'Ghost Factories' was fantastic -- it's the industry. If you don't sell ads and don't diversify to take advantage of revenue from mobile and digital platforms, then it doesn't matter what's in print. Changing the editorial heads won't change that. You'll complain about the new heads just like you complained about the current heads and the ones before them. The problems are higher up and outside of editorial.
ReplyDelete5:46 I'm always struck by the fact that people who jump up and down touting their own integrity never have any. You're one of those. Spend less time preaching and picking everyone else apart and more time working on your journalism. Maybe some integrity will accidentally rub off on you.
ReplyDelete"I don't think you are a phony and I know you care deeply about USA TODAY. But before you call somebody a fraud, look in the mirror."
ReplyDeleteSo 1:56, you say you don't think 1:08 is a phony, yet you then turn around and call 1:08 a fraud. I can't tell if it's a glaring logical contradiction, or if you just don't know the definition of fraud and/or phony. Either way, you're clearly one of the children (all female, under 30) whom Dave T and Chet have entrusted with the future of our news operation. Thanks, guys, and thank you, Gannett "Talent" Development Program. This company is in the best of hands.
1:39 is right. The lack of experience is telling. But lets forget sbout basic news gathering skills or judgement. Most lack even rudimwntary copy editing skills.
ReplyDeleteWho is responsible for hiring and staffing digital with thes people? Why is the most important link to the future staffed by the most inexperienced, naive staffers?
I dont get it.