D-Day Has Arrived At My Shop. Wish Me Luck.

Pete: Sounds depressing as hell. Unfortunately, lots of scenes like that lately, with management hanging out and/or disconnecting computers immediately when people are let go so there isn't any, as you called it, "funny business."

The only time our newsroom isn't like a morgue is on weekends, when all the MEs are getting off at home with either their bottles or their mistresses. Hope they all catch an STD.

 

Pete,

I'm sorry for what you and all the others at your place are going through. Your situation, though, sounds very typical and familiar in many bad ways.

"Bumping" happens everywhere, in every business. And, I hate to say it, but, perhaps it should. Otherwise, a person's years of work experience and their advancement (i.e. their seniority, or yours, as the case may be) would mean even less than they already do.

Your shop is not the only one on a bumper-car ride, and that's just an indication of how bad things are in the business right now.

This whole thread only highlights the fact that there are no good ways to make these decisions.

I think you should take solace in the fact that, even though you are now officially a "photographer" and not a reporter, that could possibly be a good thing. Remember, you'll be the only one.

Sure, someone else will be taking photos. But in these situations, the official title is usually what matters. And a newspaper (and web site) will always need at least one photographer. My suggestion, for now, would be to concentrate on that, and get as good as you can at your actual, official job.

This is also a good idea because the industry, and the skills of the people in it, are now tending toward specialization, not versatility and the Jack-of-all-trades mentality. All that means these days is that you're pretty good at a lot of things, but not great, or completely relied upon, for anything.

Also, someday, when they make more cuts and eliminate another reporter (you know, because there is, officially, more than one of those at your shop), maybe you can move back into being, officially, a reporter if you're asked, and you want to do that.

For now, my advice would be not to blog, unless you are asked specifically to do so. You have enough to do, and if management isn't really interested in it, well...there's no point. Do the things to which management gives priority, and serve your readers as best you can by doing that.

Something else to keep in mind -- and this is important, for your own reconciliation and peace of mind -- is that this bump was not your decision. It was management's.

Management made up and decided on the scenarios, decided they were the ones that could be lived with at this point in time, and management presented them to you.

You were simply given the options, and you could not go outside of them. Now, you are choosing to do what you think best in light of those options.

You made the best choice you could, given the circumstances. That's all anybody can ever do in life. Remember that.

 

where are you seeing this trend?

 

I wrote what I did based on a combination of my own past experiences, what I'm doing now, my own sense of where things are headed, some conversations I've had with people in the business, and some advice I've gotten from several people, including some editors for whom I have a lot of respect.

I was once Pete -- a Jack-of-all-trades who did a lot of different things, and was willing to do anything -- although I think it probably was at a larger shop than his.

It made me "useful," as someone once told me, trying hard -- really -- to keep any unintended disdain out of his voice. It also made me versatile and able to back up or fill in on a lot of things whenever it was needed (along with my primary duties). Accordingly, I got opportunities to do a lot of different things, in terms of both beat and production work.

But it also left me easily taken advantage of, and in a position of being pretty good at several things but not considered the best at anything.

In these days of minimal staffing, not being the best at something makes you more easily expendable, despite any overall "value" you might offer.

When I write now, it is sometimes for web sites, which often are specialty-related or topic-oriented. I also read and still work with enough newspapers to see that beat work is also becoming more specialized, with narrower focus. And blogs -- even those on newspaper sites -- definitely are specialized or topical.

Production-wise, specialization is also why many papers now have a separate web staff. The specialization is necessary, at least in part, because of technology and the technical skills involved. But it's not like journalists couldn't learn this stuff. Still, they're often treated as if that's the case.

The internet, itself, and all its Web sites, is a collection of topical information -- again, specialized. This is part of why newspapers are hiring bloggers who have already blogged for years on certain topics, instead of simply assigning a staff member to start and immerse him or herself in such a blog. The outsider, not a staff member, is considered the specialist, or, "the expert," despite the journalist's probable years in the industry.

As for the future, I've been told outright by several editors, at a couple different papers, that it would be best to become such a similar specialist or "expert" in something -- my past versatility and experience with practically any sport, recreational activity or level of competition be damned. And, given the nature of the web and how it targets audiences, this advice makes sense.

With regard to production-oriented things like video, TV and podcast production, sure, knowing the basics of those such skills certainly can be, um, useful. There's no doubt about that, but here, again, you really want to become an expert. Or, perhaps more important, at least be considered the one who is such.

Because if you're not the best, or most popular, or most recognizable, or some such thing, there will always be somebody else considered to be a better option.

And you will be expendable.

 

unfortunately, we're all expendable, chief.

 

I used to agree with Write Thinking. I thought the only way to survive was to become an "expert" at one thing. And I did. I was the go-to guy covering the college and conference I did. We also had two photojournalists in every sense of the word. They took photos that told stories. They created slide shows. They created video presentations. But guess which two got let go? The two specialized people. Who stayed? Me. Because I can also "take pictures" and can make a slide show of my daughter and family photos on my iMac at home.

I've quickly realized the print profession wants "good enough" not the best.

I'm the best at what I did — that college and conference beat. I'm good enough at what I do now — report, take pictures, some web stuff. I plan to be the best at all three while I'm given the chance.

That's the thing. I don't know how to do anything half-assed. I played basketball in college, and I wouldn't dream of half-assing it at practice. I bartended after college, and I wouldn't dream of half-assing it because my income depending on being the best I could be. And I sure as hell wouldn't half-ass being a dad. So I can't half-ass being a reporter/photographer/webby either. I just can't. It's not in me.

Sure, I still think I'd be better at one thing than three things at once. But where'd that get me? It got me this job, but then didn't save me my job.

I'm not silly enough to believe I can the best at all three things at once. But I can damn well try and keep my job for another year or so.

I spoke with an old journalism prof at my college. She told me they are actually teaching "convergence" because "that's what papers want. Editors want and need people who can shoot pictures, write a story and blog."

 

I understand WriteThinking's, um, thinking to a point, but the opposite take would be that the people who can combine a lot of skills -- writing, editing, photography, multimedia -- and are willing to embrace a lot of new things will make themselves valuable too.

 

Our place wants designers to be able to design any section. Sounds reasonable.

But designers are not supposed to do any copy editing.

"We want you to be versatile . . . but only in our limited definition of the word."

And that subtle organizational change is why someone like me, a "designer" whose design skills are a "7" and whose copy editing skills are a "9", soon will be out of a job. When the next cuts are made, only the "8", "9" and "10" designers will survive, regardless of whether any of them can spell "cat."

 

Pete, when I was a kid, I played right field. I was an awful right fielder. My father told me to learn how to catch. I was an awful catcher. Then he suggested that I learn how to play first base. I was OK at first. The one thing I could was hit (when I wasn't thrown a curveball).
I asked my father why should I play the other positions and he said "Son, the more things you can do, the more valuable you become. It's hard to cut someone who can play many positions but its easy to cut someone who can only play one position."
I adapted that same attitude with journalism and learned how to report everything from a three-alarm fire to a World Series game. i learned how to paginate and copy edit. In short, I evolved.
The problem with many people in this business is that they don't want to evolve. As a result, they sometimes become a casualty.

 

If I read/hear this again, I think I'm gonna scream.

Who in this business who's in their right mind would not want, or at least be willing, to evolve right now? Especially among the troops?

 

no one...

 

Never have met anyone in a newsroom who refused to evolve because of the technology. But I have known a few who are reluctant to evolve into everything at once, when it's clear that their bosses are just throwing crap at the wall in the hope something might stick, and they're forcing that crap to come from the same 1-pound bag of 40 hours and 40 hours pay (or 37.5 these days).

It's the easiest thing in the world to unilaterally tell someone already doing this to do this, this and this, too, with the implicit threat that you'll be replaced by someone cheaper or more mindlessly pliable. That is not leadership. That is not creativity. That is not innovation. That is not collaboration. That is not respectful of the staffers' experience and hard-earned insights.

That is simply bullying and CYA behavior by the one giving those orders. It is top-down panic at its worst.

That is what I have seen people reluctant to evolve toward.