'Black Wednesday' in Tampa

Absolutely not, and I don't think that's how anyone is playing this. We're discussing the latest development in the events coming out of Tampa, a development that has become industry news in and of itself. This in no way diminishes what we've discussed about those let go or those who made those decisions. It's just another facet of the story.

 

She has not become a villain in this because she was to blame for any of the company's bad moves, tough decisions or unjust layoffs.

She has become a target -- after we had already spent, oh, 11 or 12 pages of this thread on discussing Carter and those other aspects of the situation -- because we are afraid that this is, seemingly, the future of journalism.

That's scary, is it not?

This is not a misdirected tangent. She has become a face on a bad situation, and, as such, we're objecting to her, and it.

Anybody on here should realize and understand that.

 

Fair enough, Cadet.
Just felt like the anger on this thread had been redirected to a 21-year-old's inane ramblings, instead of where it really belonged. Of course, there were already seven or eight pages directed to the Tampa execs, so maybe the thread had to go in another direction.

 

I think she's an idiot. (at least at this stage of her life)

I'm slightly embarrassed that she went to my school ... though I'm sure others are embarrassed that I went there.

But I don't think she represents the future any more than the promising two or three kids that I know breaking into the biz right now.

The only difference between her and the young and dumb kids we all went to school with is she has a platform ... they all do now.

Not saying you can't rip her ... have at it. I just think we're inflating her importance by devoting so much time to her. But whatever. Not a big deal to me either way.

 

Again, fair enough.
Object away.
I just choose to take her for what she is --- a young, naive intern who knows not of what she writes.

 

Point being, I don't think this particular intern can (or should be) held up as the object of those fears.

She fucked up, yes. She's not the end of the world as we know it.

 

WFW...

 

I think we all have enough anger in us (spend enough time gathering and presenting the news of the day and it happens) to spare. She's just collateral damage.

I don't think we've lost the plot. These reorganizations suck. Real people are getting really hurt.

Meanwhile, little blonde chippies who think the world is their oyster just go to the pool and have another beer or seven because the reality of life is nowhere near her yet.

God, if only it was nowhere near us yet.

 

It's not her, per se. It's what she represents, at least in light of these entries, and the changes that have been going on in the business, particularly in the past few years.

You don't think there is more and more of this type of stuff going on now? With no editing, no rules, no restraint, no respect, or empathy for the situation in which you find yourself, whether as a bystander or as a reporter?

You aren't afraid there's going to be a prevalence of this kind of thing, given that this type of interactive, very public airings of thoughts, voices and messages is almost all that the next generation has grown up with?...And given that all of us --- everybody, and not just Jessica DaSilva -- is being encouraged to blog, react, interact and do more and more other immediate, live, and, therefore, spontaneous and not-well-thought-out things all the time?

Was there any chance whatsoever that this type of thing, coming from a supposedly credible newspaper-affiliated source (whether it be the reporter, or the platform/outlet) ever would have seen the light of day, even on a small scale, as little as, say, four years ago?

I doubt it.

 

OK, I guess maybe it's for another thread. But that's what I, at least, was getting/taking from that aspect of the discussion.

If I went on too much, my apologies to all.

I think I'm done now.

 

I think the hostility we feel toward some higher-ups who let go of good, talented people is obvious. The vitriol directed at Jessica comes from reading her own words and her lack of knowledge whatsoever involving the newspaper biz. I suppose the thing that grates on my nerves is that anyone in this business for longer than a few weeks (which was the amount of time she apparently had been at the Trib before this meeting) have heard all this before. This whole "we have to keep up with the new age and the Internet, and engage young readers, and bridges are burning" crap has been going on for years. And with all that, all the layoffs and letting go of good talent in favor of young (cheap) faces, we still keep going backwards, economically and intellectually. I get angry when I read her blog, because I expect this kind of corporate speak from the Janets of the world, I just get frustrated to see some naive future journalist fall for it, and worse yet, fawn over it. I'd rather the higher-ups treated people like Scott, and those who have been doing this for awhile, not like new interns, but like real hard-working people, and say we aren't making enough money for the company so we're letting people go. I could at least respect your honesty. No one likes to be treated like some gullible idiot (except apparently 21-year-old intersn who are at their first gig).

 

This thread is not linked to on DaSilva's blog.

In my own small corner of the industry, in dealing with PTers who are DaSilva's age, I've seen a similar lack of concern, even a carelessness, in regards to details and making sure you get everything right. The response more often than not, when I talk to them about it, is "no big deal."

It is a big deal. Now sometimes even the best of us slip up. But if we don't treat our ethical and journalistic standards seriously and with the utmost respect, and strive to live up to them each time, we have nothing.