Denver Post to cut possibly two-thirds of copy editors

One advantage of the system now is that a story can serve two masters -- the story filed for the Web can also be used (if slightly adjusted) for print. What you're advocating is two separate stories, one of which carries depth that the other one lacks. Almost two separate staffs.

You set out to generate that kind of coverage every day and you're going to eat up a week's work by Wednesday.

 

Nope, not saying that at all. Same material goes in both places, just as it currently does. I'm simply trying to think of ways to fill and produce a major metro newspaper with two-thirds fewer copy editors and page designers.

Sure, there may be a philosophical shift -- earlier deadlines for print is almost a guarantee anyway with what the Post apparently is planning -- but there's no need for additional writers. At its oversimplified essence, it boils down to this: If you have fewer people to get the paper out the door, maximize their time; live news goes online only, while advance material and off-deadline features go to print (and online, as per usual) with a more magazinesque approach to presentation.

So what's your idea?

 

I don't have one. And I don't think anybody else does either. I think the whole thing is going down the shitter and within 5-10 years the people working at newspapers are going to fall into three categories:

1) 25 and under and living with their parents
2) spouse/second income (already a popular hiring choice in smaller dailies based on not needing health coverage
3) those who make the conscious decision to live close to the poverty line

 

Well, there are ideas out there -- none of them particularly ideal, though. I'm certainly not offering myself as the Oracle of Delphi, either, but it's an interesting mental exercise to try to figure a reasonable way to make the best of a bad situation, starting with two assumptions:

1. The Post wasn't overstaffed with copy editors in the first place, and -- as I suspect -- these cuts will severely cripple what we've come to know as normal publishing procedure.
2. The Post yet intends to produce a daily newspaper with whomever is spared.

No arguments there.

 

Yeah I didn't mean to imply there were no ideas. Maybe one will work, but I don't think so. I don't know if I'm overly pessimistic -- I think I'm a realist -- but I'm certainly as close to 100 on the pessimism scale as anyone you're going to find.

BTW MediaNews (and JRC) CEO John Paton has been making the speech rounds with his "Digital First" philosophy and getting a lot of run as the next guy with the answer for newspapers. It's all a bunch of steaming bullshit, and it obviously isn't doing a damn thing for the bottom line either. In six months there will be another guy at all the conventions with all the answers.

Nobody falls for snake-oil salesmen quite like the newspaper industry does.

 

LTL, I don't think it's so much falling for snake-oil salesmen anymore (there's a long history there, I know). It's more like the cancer or other terminal disease victims who're not reponding to conventional medical treatment who seek "alternative" treatments. Anyone offering any shred of hope gets a hearing despite the obvious flaws in their approach.
I just don't see any way for the traditional metro daily to make money anymore. The Web won't generate the revenue, that's for sure. We may see big cities devolve into a bunch of loosely affiliated neighborhood and suburban news entities which publish on an irregular basis both in print (seldom) and online.

 

So, is Moore doing the layoffs by email?

 

Any word on this one?

 

Talked to a writer there who said both sports columnists and maybe one other guy in sports took sizable pay cuts a few weeks back.

 

The Post had 25 copy editors. Now it has 7 or 8. Brutal stuff...