McClatchy layoffs?

Maybe I'm just too old-school, but the virtual begging, the "support local journalism" pleas really rub me the wrong way.

My old paper kicked that into overdrive shortly after laying me off, so maybe that why I cringe about that.

If you deserve to be supported, put out a product that people can't live without. Put more resources into the product, not less. Don't "do fewer things better," do more things better. Show, don't tell.

And yes, "Get off my lawn!" while you are at it.

 

Totally agree. Just get a cardboard sign and stand on a street corner. I love how journalists talk about how they do their work as a "public service" and how much they sacrifice. Please, the comfiest jobs in all of America were newspaper jobs, people safely ensconsed in union gigs making pretty good money (I'm talking bigger papers obviously). Most of the people I worked with cared more about their comp and vacation time than of "serving the public good."

 

Today McClatchy laid off product development folks, including in Raleigh.

 

What's that mean? Are these highly paid suits or ?

 

If asked to "support local journalism," I'd respond with a few questions:

In return for my support, do you plan to add reporters so you can adequately cover local news and sports? Will you keep copy editors and designers with institutional knowledge or even rehire those who've been laid off?

Do you plan to make the newshole larger?

Will you rescind ridiculously early deadlines that result in readers getting yesterday's news tomorrow?

We all know the answers.

 

Spot on.
Here is what I've thought about my former paper begging for paid subscribers:
For more that 18 years you paid me to make this paper the best it could be. Now, you've made it horrible and you want me to pay you for it.

 

Ding ding ding ding. The DFM papers are the maestros of this con

 

My response fit in this thread. The paper I was talking about now is DFM, although it wasn't yet when I left.

 

Like I said on the last page, it's a pledge break, except without a tote bag or boxed set of Dowton Abbey DVDs.

 

One theme I've seen in some of these that really, really bothers me is worker bees playing the "after all, I've got to feed my family" card when asking people to buy subscriptions and support local journalism.

Like it's a fucking charity. Once they go down that road, I'm 100 percent out. It tells anyone paying attention that the most attractive draw they have isn't investigative journalism, isn't riveting news that people need in their lives, isn't top-notch writing and photography, it's keeping them off welfare and food stamps.

 

Good post. The Bee begging for subscribers really is an example of that editor selling out again to the upper management types. Look, like folks have said on here, the product is awful compared to what it used to be. It's getting worse as layoffs aren't stopping and newsholes won't stop shrinking. So the person begging for subscriptions at the Bee is being really rotten to the reader. The product is terrible compared to what it once was, it's getting worse every year, but I'm supposed to buy it? Sorry. Maybe if the article begging for subscribers mentioned upper management ruining the product yet still pay the CEOs gobs of money, then I could respect the plea for subscriptions. It should read: "Look, we want to keep our jobs. We realize our parent company's management team is making so much money it'd make your head spin if you count count it all. But ... have pity on us. We're not seeing the money. Please order a subscription so we can at least try to cover the news. But yes we will admit to you we're doing a very poor job compared to what you are used to because of our bosses." Now I'd accept that plea.

 

I would too. It’d be honest at least. I love how we hear now “well, who is going to do the thankless job of holding the powerful accountable?”
Well, it sure as hell wasn’t you when it came to your own bosses, now was it? And you’re sure not doing a very good job of it with the rest of society.