Dick "Hoops" Weiss among layoff victims at New York Daily News

I don't think the public is stupid. I just don't think the public cares who produced the content as long as it's there.

The byline doesn't matter to the average reader, which makes it much easier for any reporter -- even one those of us in the business would think to be important, like Dick Weiss -- to be expendable. It also calls the idea of brand-building behind one's name on social media into question.

I work at a local paper that primarily covers high school and community sports. As long as SportsMama's child is mentioned in the story, she doesn't know or care who wrote it. She'll e-mail everyone except the specific reporter -- whose contact information is included on the story -- with her complaints when he isn't. She cares about the content which is relevant to her. Fans of a specific team care about content relevant to that team.

Most of us as individuals aren't relevant. Copy editors, whose names aren't on the product, are even less relevant. The quality declines, yes, but as long as there's relevant content available, somebody's going to read it. Whether they're willing to pay for it is another matter entirely.

 

We are only as good as our leaders. Sad to say, but it's true. If newsroom leaders choose to ignore who, and what, is relevant -- and what that relevance means to the product -- then the train wreck will continue.

But the accountability falls on them. Those of us on the front lines are working harder than ever.

 

If anything, these recent moves reinforces that journalism is a job.

 

My opinion remains the same: the public does not care as much about quality as it once did. They want information, and they want it fast. If that means the story hasn't been fact-checked four times, the reporter isn't as good a writer as Red Smith or doesn't have 30 years of sources, then fine.

Just give it to me, fast.

That is a byproduct of these digital times and it is not going to go away.

As far as provocation, SB Nation and Bleacher Report are no more provocative than a New York tabloid like the Daily News.

Dismissing the unquestionable success of sites like SB Nation and Bleacher Report is a mistake. To suggest that they are kicking newspaper's butts because of a "provocative" nature is to fall into the same trap game that is killing the newspaper industry.

Newspapers totally missed the boat on digital, laughed at bloggers, looked down their noses at AOL chat rooms, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

And look where we are today.

Holding on to higher priced talent for the past 10 years would not have prevented the deep slide newspapers are on. Even before the SB Nations of the world hit the market, newspapers were losing circulation at an alarming rate -- even while sports departments and newsrooms were fully staffed with a boatload of high-priced writers, reporters and editors. Print was simply dying for a variety of reasons, and none of it had a damn thing to do with how good the writers were.

Time-pressed families dropped subscriptions. Mom and Dad both had jobs and kids to take care of, all while the newspapers piled up unread. Teens were into video games. Cable networks and local TV stations were delivering the news faster than the morning newspaper -- which often arrived late -- or wet. And what were newspapers to do with circulation falling off a cliff and advertisers eager for an alternative? Newspapers and magazines had become fat and lazy, and were ill-prepared for a fight against digital.

I could go on. Like many people here, I have lived through the slide, and I know it had nothing to do with the talented men and women who tried to get the paper out every day.

Tim and Dick will be missed by all of us in the industry. But the Daily News will go on without them, and the readers will indeed turn to the next guy who gets the beat.

Sadly, losing them will not materially affect the Daily News as a business.

These are different times than 10 years ago.

 

"I'm young and cheap."
That gets you noticed now.

 

No one has answered the main question here. Aside from saving a few bucks (a very few), how does this help the Daily News? And let's face it, if people don't care about bylines, Lupica should be fired first. That'd save the most money.
PS: Let's see Bleacher Nation and SB Nation start making people pay money on a daily basis before we anoint as the future of journalism.
Lot of Stockholm Syndrome on this board.

 

Mike you hit a homer with that one. As quiet as its kept, canning Lupica would've made more sense monetarily but there are those who believe everything the little man writes is gold so that won't happen.

 

The real key for Lupica and his ilk is that they're on TV. And the public believes TV equals celebrity equals instantaneous credibility. Sometimes the public is as dumb and shortsighted as newspaper executives.

 

It's always easier to blame others, isn't it?

 

No question that came into reasoning but again, Hoops and Tim Smith, were commanding pretty hefty salaries.

 

With Lupica on local and national TV so much the Daily News reaps some free marketing and advertising. So you could attach a dollar value to that. Unfortunately, Tim and Dick don't have that kind of exposure.

Also, the money that the Daily News will save by letting Tim and Dick is not insignificant. They are probably both earning more than $100K in salary. Figure another 20 percent for benefits. Over the next five years, the paper will save more than $1 million by making the move. I know that sucks from where we sit, but newspapers are looking only at the cost savings.