An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
Seems to me that if you're going to swipe an idea, including the very name, you ought to improve on it -- not do it worse. Case in point:USA Today's daily "need to know" segment vs. MarketWatch's -- yes -- "need to know" segment.USAT's reads like it's strung together from briefs editors write at different desks as they're racing against deadline.MarketWatch -- where both USAT's publisher and top editor worked -- writes its column with some attitude, to make it a fun read.A picky criticism? No, not when you see similarly flat copy elsewhere at Gannett's best-known brand. These aren't more pronounced voices.
You are forgetting about Michael Wolff, Josh Gad and Rem Reoder, our brilliant new voices and FOKS (friends of Kramer). Who cares about the flat, lame copy we are mostly reccpying from elsewhere?
Not picky at all Jim. It's a great example of how original thought has left the building.
We're forgetting that Gannett doesn't care about Journalism. They care about one thing, cutting cost. There is no doubt that they have made these cuts, to make the papers more attractive to a private buyer. Years ago, news could make you a 30% profit, now maybe only 15%. Gannett, on the other hand, wants to make the same profit they made in the 1990's. As long as the board keeps getting their fat salaries and stock incentives, it will never change. What's it boil down to? The average Joe being out of a job!
With all of the cutbacks, not just the most recent, Gannett needs a huge lesson in efficiency and use of limited resources. For example:The lead story in today's Clarion-Ledger (print) is about a missing teen now presumed dead (a body was discovered yesterday). This story has a byline and is about 10 inches in length; not long by any measure. At the end of the story is a paragraph stating that four (4) other reporters contributed. So it took 5 staff members to contribute to a 10-inch story that took at least a third of its information from a Facebook page?smh ... One only wonders what other worthy stories are being missed by this lack of focus, lack of management, lack of leadership.
It's funny when people who don't really know what they are talking about decide to post and try to sound like they do.For those types of cases, it is not uncommon for 2-3 writers to seek out information. Possibly while they were doing so, more information came in that required others to join the effort.The story length raises a question, but not a big one.The moral, as always: If you don't know what you're talking about, don't post. That would eliminate a good 25-30 percent of the posts at this site.
2:35's words spoken like a Gestapo of posts content. Who are you to judge who and what are posted here?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
@2:35 ... I used to cover a Big Ten athletic program for a Gannett newspaper. On deadline I would produce a game story, sidebar and column. Without assistance, or referencing other's work on Facebook or other social media.Regards,@12:32
I would do all the content for the special local election tabs, interviewing all the candidates, profiles of them all, stories broken down by race and key issues for all with bio boxes, voting data, graphic spreadsheet breaking down the candidates and issue and the like. Will withhold comment on how comparable coverage is done today.
12:32/3:46/5:39, the self-congratulation is admirable but useless.All you are doing is proving what I said -- you really don't know what you are talking about.For a case like a missing person or a dead body, there will often be 2-3 people working it, simply because there are lengthy lags with no information, and then all of a sudden a lot of details come at once.Clearly neither of you has worked a story like that, or likely even left the desk to do a story.
One other thing to point out for the people who think they know what they are talking about but don't.The 10-inch article seems short, but it's possible that only that much of a hole was left. If the jump pages (if such things still exist in that paper) were gone, that's all the space there might have been.
You're so smart 6:15 / 6:17 that you totally missed my point. Yes, in a previous era two to three reporters would be assigned a breaking story such as the missing girl (and discovered body); I wasn't the only reporter working breaking news regarding a coaching or AD hire. (But certainly never four or five as in this instance.)If Gannett is to provide the same level of comprehensive coverage with a depleted workforce, then management needs to better allocate / distribute those resources. In my initial example, two at the most.And if news of this magnitude is breaking, as a reporter (or editor) I don't leave until the story is complete, or the print edition is put to bed. Crossing of shifts and handoffs shouldn't be a consideration -- especially now because there are fewer resources. A good Gannett executive will manage payroll expense and not worry about the OT.Continued success to you.
GPS asking pressmen if they would volunteer to work in Phoenix if they strike.
Source? Location? Anything to give this a shred of credibility?
phx pressmen at impass on contract. GPS gave last best final offer, union can take it or stike.
Gatehouse plans a design center in Austin, Texas. Wonder whether anyone at the GCI design centers will see that and decide Austin is a nicer place to live than Des Moines, Nashville, Louisville, Phoenix or Asbury Park.http://www.statesman.com/news/business/media-company-plans-200-journalism-jobs-in-austin/nZPKs/Gatehouse also plans to offer design services to pubs other than its own.
"Gatehouse also plans to offer design services to pubs other than its own."Any company that "takes advantage" of that service should be out of business.
My hometown paper is Gatehouse, and the editor there had told me what it's like have central design/editing. After hearing a description of how Gannett's Design Studios work, she thinks they're infinitely better than the Gatehouse model. Isn't that a frightening thought?
Remember that Susie Ellwood is now the publisher of the Austin newspaper. She knows the Gannett way!
The Gannett design studio plan could work, in theory, if it was properly staffed. But therein lies the problem. Gannett does not staff anything properly anymore. There are some talented designers in Nashville, who care about making the various papers they work on, better. There's just not enough of them. They are overworked and stretched too thin. And they keep leaving for better jobs and/or working conditions.
The Rodeo Clown is really Tom Donovan!
The Rodeo Clown is really Tony Simmons!
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 in a reader