USA Today recently reduced staffing again, eliminating as much as 10% of its editorial ranks in another bid to cut costs amid slowing digital revenue growth rates.
But even before the latest round of cuts, I noticed the paper was shifting toward more aggregation of other media to make up for its own diminished reporting resources.
Here's an especially vivid example from a story this morning about the slaying of a police officer in London yesterday; as I post this, it's USAT's lead story online. You certainly can't say the paper is falling down on attribution, based on phrasing I ran across:
But even before the latest round of cuts, I noticed the paper was shifting toward more aggregation of other media to make up for its own diminished reporting resources.
Here's an especially vivid example from a story this morning about the slaying of a police officer in London yesterday; as I post this, it's USAT's lead story online. You certainly can't say the paper is falling down on attribution, based on phrasing I ran across:
the Associated Press reported
ITV News reports
The Associated Press, quoting an unidentified British official, said
The BBC, quoting unidentified sources, reported
The BBC said
identified in the British media
told The Independent
In an interview with the the Daily Telegraph
the BBC reported
Contributing: Associated Press
The question: How can USAT prosper it if shifts toward aggregation over original reporting? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
This has been the direction since Craig Moon and Ken Paulson took their knives to the staff. And we know what happens when media has no voice, no original content, no original thinking, no original thinkers. Next stop, aggregated digital content only. Just think of the money Gannett will save now.
ReplyDeleteWe do know what happens, 12:39. We see it here at this blog every single day.
DeleteIs that what you meant?
Very interesting question you pose. Funny how it sounds precisely like what you now do, Jim, ever since you reopened this blog.
ReplyDeleteYou do know, don't you, about traditional blogging conventions?
DeleteYou do know, don't you, about how public corporations work? Must not because you comments indicate otherwise.
DeleteAs usual, Jim has no defense and no intelligent response.
Delete3:56, there's no point in engaging him. When he knows he's beaten, he turns to these types of non-responses.
Way to dance around the subject, 1:06. But Jim's always depended on aggregation and crowd-sourcing for his blog -- and he's not a billion-dollar corporation (assuming Gannett still is) with a staff of thousands.
ReplyDeleteStill amazes me how people come on this blog and rip Jim. Are we really comparing one person to a company the size and scope of Gannett?
DeleteWay to deflect Jim!
DeleteDance, smance. What did I dance around? If I stated the facts any simpler they would have been even more boring.
The facts are the facts and I'm just calling a spade a spade. If you perceive it as a rip on Jim that is your perception. It doesn't matter if it is an individual or a large enterprise, the behavior is the same.
Oh, wait - were you ripping on me? Boo hoo. I'm taking my toys and going home.
2:40, you beat me to it! I was going to post the same thing.
DeleteJim defenders, give it up. Jim is working from a point of peak hypocrisy here. If you can't see that, there's no hope for you.
Oops. Wrong time. 2:40 is just another of the defenders.
DeleteGood golly miss molly. There are some sensitive poeple on here today!
ReplyDeleteIt is so funny how some people feel Jim needs protecting and defending. I often wonder if some of these "protect Jim" comments aren't really Jim! I'm just saying, who really knows.
There isn't a thing on this blog you can actually trust without independent verification.
Fewer reporters, less valuable content, and more distribution channels than ever before. Sounds like Gannett all over.
ReplyDeleteWell, at least USAT uses attributions! There's a police beat reporter here who takes everything the cops say as the gospel, and rarely attributes. To her the word "suspect" is no different than the word "convicted criminal," as that is how the cops use it. But a journalist? I complained as a matter of a professional standard just being trampled in the gutter. Of course, I was ignored by some kid in charge 20 years my junior. Except for saying to me, "No one cares!" I thought to myself, "Jeez, I wonder why that is. Might be because her so-called editor is in the wrong line of work!" But I kept my mouth shut and kept my job (for the time being).
ReplyDeleteCraig Moon and Ken Paulson opened the floodgates back in 2008. Before them, layoffs were unheard of at USAT, even in other economic downturns or when newsprint skyrocketed.
ReplyDeleteLong before the Great Recession, other papers went through various rounds of cutbacks. Not USAT. Someone at the top knew that in order for the still relatively young paper to attract and retain talent, it had to offer its employees reasonably certainty that if they did a good job, they would be rewarded with the company's loyalty. In that way, USAT was run like a family operation.
USAT employees didn't get paid as much as most other large newspapers, but they had relative job security. It made working at USAT a prideful thing for many good journalists. And on their backs, USAT rose to the top.
Then came Moon and Paulson who caved to various economic and corporate pressures and threw people overboard without blinking an eye. MEs fell into line, carrying out the dirty work by ruthlessly letting people go -- people who they had known for years. Moon, Paulson and the MEs, as well as other managers outside of editorial showed no backbone, no character. There was no falling on swords. No sacrifice at the top. It was an awful time that continues to haunt USAT even today
Oh, grow up.
DeleteSeriously, in light of the millions of your fellow Americans who have been through the wringer over the last five years, to say nothing of the precipitous collapse of the entire print media industry, the whining is just a bit hard to take.
To 6:22 pm:
DeleteI beg to differ. I personally had to lay off a group of people at USA Today as early as 2001. I also saw it happen prior to that.
Don't act like you know what you are talking about if you don't really know. You are obviously only aware of what happens in your small world which must be only editorial since you skewered Paulson. He may deserve it but you don't deserve to preach like you own the gospel. And if you are in editorial I sure wish you would do a better job of getting the fact correct before you begin reporting your distorted version.
Most of the talent left years ago. There are now as many editors as reporters. Only a few carry much work load. The game long has been pretending involvement, but not actually getting your hands dirty doin actual work. Sad to say Callaway, on yet another out of town trip, clearly does not seem to care who gets away with murder day in, day out.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but has gotten far worse under Kramer's branding efforts. We are stealing from AP and citing other sources. Blatantly.
ReplyDeleteHow is USA Today "stealing" from AP? USA Today pays AP a lot of money as a member of the news cooperative. AP is a wholesaler. USA Today is a retailer. USA Today can slice and dice the copy to suit its news hole and needs, as long as it doesn't distort the words and/or the meaning. You are entitled to your opinion about Larry Kramer, the publisher. My opinion is that the guy has a lot of passion and ideas to make USA Today better. He is such a positive change from the corporate suits who preceded him.
DeleteIf Jim charted his attribution for the rumors and gossip here, it would go like this:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
And so on. You get the idea.
Attacking posts solely because they're anonymous all while using anonymity for yourself speaks volumes. Funny.
DeleteYawn. Tired response.
DeleteAnd you missed the point. The point is that USA Today at least has organizations for sources. Jim has only anonymous people who are frequently cited as being wrong. Just scroll up to see an example.
Here's a tip for you: If you have nothing original and no good argument to make, then don't post.
The people who are criticizing Jim must all be in management at USAT. That's the only explanation I can come up with for trying to compare a single blogger to "The Nation's Newspaper."
ReplyDeleteOf course USAT can't prosper when it's lost many of its most respected reporters. Centuries of institutional memory exited with the staffers who took the latest buyout.
And really, management doesn't seem to care. That's the way it's been for a long time. The editors can't tell the difference between mediocre work and outstanding reporting. It's really sad.
USAT would have been so much better off if some of those clueless top editors had taken the buyout instead of those experienced beat reporters. What's left is a joke.
No, 12:08, you missed the point completely. Not a surprise.
DeleteStretch your brain a tad, and you'll come up with a better explanation.
And what exactly is the point???? Why don't you enlighten us with your obvious brilliance, 1:37 a.m.??? We are in awe.
DeleteThe paper is a piece of crap and sinking even further, because all of the people with brains have left. Except you, of course. But oh, yeah, you're one of those cluelesss editors who've never worked anywhere else and can't hope to get a job anywhere else.
We already covered it. USA Today at least has organizations named as sources. Jim has anonymous gripes. Let's see -- which ones would be more credible?
DeleteIf you can't figure that one out, there's no hope for you.
Stunned by the idiocy of the Jim-haters. I'm sure this will result in accusations that I'm "not getting the point," and I'm sure nothing I say will change your mind - so feel free to attack me or whatever.
ReplyDeleteJim is a single person running a blog. That's how it works.
Gannett wants to act like a serious news source, but it's turning itself into HuffPo.
Can't have it both ways: You're either a little player (no better than what you hate: an aggregating blogger like Jim) or a major player (like the real news companies of the world).
Looks like Gannett has made up its mind.
Isn't HuffPo a blog - just like Jim's little endevor?
DeleteIt is all about clicks and advertising. The bottom line. Jim doesn't give two hoots about anything other than how many click and post.
That's sort of the point ... "Gannett wants to act like a serious news source, **BUT** it's turning itself into HuffPo (by aggregating instead of reporting)"
DeleteTo address Jim's original question, it depends. It makes sense to aggregate in some news situations, such as fast-moving, breaking news overseas where, even if USAT wanted to cover it with its own staff, they would need a day just to get enough people over the Atlantic to swarm the streets of London, and even then would be chasing the story, not leading it. USAT is at least being transparent about where they're getting information, and if they can help organize it and sift out the most useful bits for me, great, Thanks, USAT. Someday soon, the Brits in turn will harvest some USAT original reporting to assemble their own aggregation of a breaking U.S. story. It's not unlike newspapers sharing content within their own states.
ReplyDeleteIn other situations, aggregation is unacceptable. The use of AP to cover the fatal shooting in the newsroom lobby comes to mind.
Pick your battles, save your diminishing supply of gunpowder for the moments you really need it. In the meantime, link.
I'm still left wondering about USAT's consumer identity: What niche is it targeting?
DeleteNiche? None. A name as broad as "USA" is about as non-niche as you can get.
DeleteReally, what is aggregation? It's presenting to your audience any material that you didn't create yourself. Which is to say, it's AP. Newspapers have been selecting and editing -- aggregating -- AP news in their pages for 167 years.
The web simply removes the middleman and makes it possible for local desk editors from Peoria and Paris to cobble together widely scattered news content into a single narrative according to their own judgment and knowledge of their local audience.
Gee if some of these newsroom geniuses got together and bought their own paper maybe they could show everyone how it should be done. Jim why don't you look for some partners, bring your principal posters together and produce the newspaper you all pontificate about on this Blog.
ReplyDeleteHe can't. The reasons are numerous. I'll cite a few:
Delete* He can't get facts right.
* The other posters can't get facts right.
* They've been unemployed for years. How would they buy a paper?
* From what I hear, Jim wasn't good at working well with others.
There are more. Listing the more serious ones would get the post deleted.
I, too, would like to see these people do something other than bitch, bitch, bitch. I doubt most of them have ever filed a formal complaint against Gannett for any of the things they allege. They expect other people to do their work for them.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete642, i am curious about your role in the newsroom. What is it?
ReplyDelete1:35, I am curious if you have ever done anything except bitch. If so, what? Be specific. Tell us the result. I'm sure you failed, but clarify that for us.
Delete