Friday, October 05, 2012

USAT | For this top editor, the ampersand is in

[Updated at 10:50 a.m. ET Oct. 8.] The title has now been fixed.

The original post: A reader drew my attention to the staff lists on USA Today's new beta website -- and to the title given for Editor-in-Chief David Callaway.


42 comments:

  1. *sigh*

    I give up. Go on an bury me. I just can't take it any more.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I just got done banging my head on my desk and crying. A lot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This drives me crazy. Is all hope gone?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Does the copy desk simply not function at all anymore? Cant believe how many silly mistakes and bad headlines there routinely are, in print and on line.dont use the overworked excuse on me. I dont buy it.

    If there are that many mistakes, why do we even need a copy desk?

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. At least four of those names are useless, clueless and not needee.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Makes us downsized, unnecessary staff who were axed in times past feel very relieved to be gone.

    If I were still there, I'd have caught this. Live with it, Gannett!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Who is doing all this bad editing?

    Where are all the journalism standards at USA Today?

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's been 12 hours and no one has had this fixed? I mean, come on.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Still not fixed.

    We're laughing at you, Gannettoids.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The 12 year olds running digital dont see a problem. But then, they arent journalists.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Perhaps it is correct. Suppose he works on a newspaper and is the head of a police or fire department or maybe an indian tribe.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The 12 year olds don't realize it's wrong. That's the sad part. It's only the old-timers that know how it should read.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I imagine it happened something like this:

    Web page builder [shouting across a room]: I gotta get this done. Quick: What's Callaway's title?

    Co-worker: Editor-in-Chief.

    Page builder: Editor 'n' chief?

    Co-worker: Yes.

    Page builder: OK, editor and chief it is.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What a silly group of folks you "journalists" are. Sorry but no one but you cry babies care. In fact no one has ever cared. Throughout history when there was no one around to challenge your holyerthanthou club you were happy to look diwn your noses at the world. Now that the web has enabled any kid with a smart phone to do your job, you can't stand it. Your club gives out insider awards that no one but you care about and now even citizen journalists are vying for those same awards. Must suck to be you now that the emperor has no clothes. Let the outrage begin!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. 8:42 If USAT's top editor doesn't care whether the paper gets his title correct -- well, you can turn out the lights right now and everyone may go home.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Now that the web has enabled any kid with a smart phone to do your job, you can't stand it."

    Point is, 8:42, this is proof that the kids with smart phones can't do our jobs, at least not with any degree of skill and professionalism. The technology is great, but it's still garbage in, garbage out, if there's no brain attached to the fingers on the keys.
    Only us oldtimers can hear Perry White bellowing at Jimmy Olson, "Don't call me editor and chief!"

    ReplyDelete
  18. 8:42, there's no such title in journalism. Someone got it wrong. It's no different than a typo or misspelling. It makes the organization look even more amateurish than it is.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 8:42, really dug your lack of grammar. The USA's excellent K-12 system, at work! Korean bosses, hello!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Still not fixed. No OT budget, obviously.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 8:42 here. I can see from your responses the truth indeed hurts. It's over for you pompous windbags and you know it!

    ReplyDelete
  22. To everyone responding to 8:42:

    Please don't feed the trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 10:19 Let's revisit your comment in October 2013, when USAT will have logged a full year under its redesign and new leadership.

    By then -- but likely well before -- we'll be able to measure the success of the paper's latest reorganization. The trend in digital revenues will be key.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim you have t been a journalist in years. Running a nasty gossip site is not journalism. If you think it is then you prove my point. Anyone can do it. You were never a distinguished journalist. You were average at best. That's why you took the buyout. If you were good you'd still be there. If you did t have a sugar daddy you'd still be there.

      Delete
  24. Just change Callaway's name to Perry White and it will be fine.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 8:42 let me guess. You are 22 and couldn't get into a decent college/journalism school so you started a tumblr and now think you are a journalist?

    LOL. Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 5:02 The late-2007 buyouts were offered with a significant warning: Take one, or risk being laid off under less-generous terms.

    As it turned out, the paper followed those buyouts with years of layoffs that included, as promised, severance worth much less.

    But more important to my decision, the buyouts were a sign USA Today was entering a period of at least temporary decline. As I told my boss back then, I didn't see any point in continuing to invest my career in a company that was no longer investing in itself.

    Besides, I've always believed that if you stop believing in your employer's mission, it's time to move on ahead. And that's what I did.

    ReplyDelete
  27. F U, 5:02

    5:02, that was way out of line.

    If you knew anything about bell curves, you'd know, there IS a 1%. Really great performers, with native skills, early on. They're at NYT-National, New Yorker.

    Most of us aren't 1%. It takes years of experience to get good, be good, and stay good. You and the hate-crowd here just don't get it, you were never very street-smart and only passable journalists.

    GCI is owned 92% by institutional investors (e.g., money-center banks, pension funds who BTW, contrary to Chicago mob, have holdings in the Caymans and Swiss banks. Duh.)

    Bet your house, they watch this site carefully, for insights and non-public information. They ought to be sending Jim, some $$.

    And no, I am not Jim's mommy. There is a lot of things that we'd disagree on -- tax levels, services.

    We'd agree on this -- "without fear or favor." Free markets require free speech. And full and fair journalism.

    Look at the FOIA records of politicians -- that will tell you a lot. And today's mob leaves a lot to be desired - google (if you can) FOIA and some popular names. You'll get a real surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 8:42 is one of those "whiz" kids with a title on the digital desk. She doesn't know copy editing style, how to report or write a story and has no knowledge about news or historical context. To her, tweets and facebook and google searches constitute news gathering. She probably feels that windbags are holding back her advancement at Usa Today because she knows html and how to put photos in stories.

    Call me a windbag, but that's not journalism, hon.

    ReplyDelete
  29. But 5:56, wouldn't you agree that news gathering now includes "tweets and facebook and google searches?"

    ReplyDelete
  30. Not when they're the prime newsgathering tools, along with cribbing from AP & TMZ.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Just checked out the Linked In Profile for Brent Jones.

    The Director of Standards and Staffing at USAToday merely has "college degree" in the field for his Education?

    Yikes!

    ReplyDelete
  32. NOW FIXED.

    NYT-Android this AM - "War of 1912 & Canada" -- off by 100 years. The USA's K-12 system, producing great results!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Its the fault of Chet and Teeuwen that people like this are running digital. The inexperience and incompetency is telling.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Remember when Hunke was hiring SVPs and VPs practically every day? Someone thought it was a good idea to put all these people on the masthead instead of our most senior management as had always been the case.

    The result? A masthead that took half the Forum page and everyone listed except the janitor and the guy who parks Gracia's car.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This is so symbolic of everything that has gone wrong at USAT in the last four years. Not only has this brand's credibility been tarnished countless times and in a variety of ways via errors, oversights, plain stupidity, etc., the people running the show still won't admit that driving out the time-tested employees who used to catch these kinds of mistakes was a destructive way to trim the budget. Look at the people at the top. They hire and fire people for all the wrong reasons. They themselves were not good editors. And, sad to say, they are selfish and insecure as Hell. No backbone. No ability to fight for what is right. So the clownish embarrassments continue to multiple because they rather have yes-people on their staffs instead of people who can actually get the job done and aren't simply focused on winning popularity contests.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The only sensible comment in this entire thread is the one calling out Brent Jones.

    Hate to break this, 8:05, but 1912 could be just a typo. It's still embarrassing, but I am not sure that mistake constitutes a failure of the whole education system, Einstein.

    They should call this place the Jamestard Colony.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Brent Jones.

    He got that position after the Jack Kelley (sp?) scandal, more or less to ensure accuracy, kinda like an ombudsman.

    He's there to ensure accuracy and act as an advocate by what measure - obfuscation?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Brent rose up the ranks from research assistant to editing letters to editor.I'm not sure what his qualifications are above those grades. The job title he has now seems to be glorified cooy editor.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jack epitomizes exactally what ails Gannett newsrooms. Clueless management.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 11:40, who are you talking about? I think the voices in your head have won.

    Jim, I am certain your boss was REALLY worried about your investment statement. In fact, I bet the company invested in a party once you were out the door.

    ReplyDelete

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.