gannett plans to layoff 3,000 by december.

I've had only one bad sports editor and in hindsight, it really wasn't his fault. He was put in a horrible situation and was basically set up to fail. We had our share of battles during the course of his tenure.

All of them pale in comparison to the time he was forced by upper management to redo my evaluation because his initial evaluation of me was "too positive." Three edits later, I went from doing my job well to having anger management issues and going on 90-day probation.

At the time, I hated his guts for selling me down the river, but one night after he was relieved of his position as SE, we had a long talk where he admitted that management was "looking to make examples in the newsroom" and my evaluation just happened to be at the wrong time.

He said he was literally pressured into writing a bad evaluation and likened it to a police interrogation where they keep pressuring you into admitting guilt. At one point, he said, the executive editor said "Has he (referring to me) ever physically threatened you? Remember, it's your word against his."

My current SE is a real standup guy. I'm sure he shields us from a lot of the corporate BS. Like I said earlier, for the most part, I've been lucky to have some solid SEs in my corner.

 

I guess I have to continue to keep in mind that I've been out of the modern newspaper newsroom for 11.5 years.

 

I was going to post a few similar stories about Gannett yearly evaluations, but I can't top that one, Stagger Lee. When managers feel pressure from above to fabricate or exaggerate "negative" comments for an employee's evaluation, what does that say about the corporation's commitment to truth, accuracy and fairness?

 

JD, What it says is that it's cheaper to lie than print up some new forms.

 

Somehow I knew money was involved.

 

The local paper's sports section averages one typo per day, which admittedly is down from the standout high of 8 in one sports section a couple of months ago. Typically they're cropping up in the live TV sports listings, which is even more unfortunate because that's the one thing everybody looks at.

 

My gosh, I'm trying to take the other side here and point out the problems in our business. I am sure you are one of the rare good ones Ace. I have integrity to this profession. I realize it is dying and the reason are mostly the 10 a.m. meeting people who speak gobblygook Gannett speak. My fight began too late. I realize the Gannett corporate types have won. They convinced the publishers the internet is the way to go. No newsprint costs. No ink. No presses. The old model works. It was just given up on. I despise Gannett for those evaluation forms and making the editors lie about people's performance. I feel any 10 a.m. meeting person that agrees to give grades below what people are worth are sellouts. Sorry.

BTW. I wish everybody would read Frank's post again and again. Frank hit the nail on the fricking head!!!
"But "through the years," editors have become much more corporate, a trend noted in the early 1990s in books like Doug Underwood's "When MBAs Rule The Newsroom" and James Squires' "Read All About It." A lot of the people who were running newsrooms when we broke in would have mercilessly mocked many of today's corporatespeaking drones -- who, by the way, tend to be far less tolerant of philosophical disagreements than newspaper editors used to be. There has been a gigantic cultural change in newsrooms over the past 20 years that, IMO, has hurt the product even more than the decline in resources has. Certainly there are some good editors out there, but I would argue that the percentage of them is way down -- and so is the amount of intellectual honesty in news meetings."

I agree with Frank!!
If you don't agree with Frank I'd really like to know why. Because what he wrote there is the fucking truth. The 10 a.m. meeting people should not be able to live with themselves. Cause they are big reasons this business is done.

 

I've had good editors at Gannett, unfortunately they rarely last and tend to go someplace outside of Gannett once they realize they'll always lose the argument.

 

It is just sad, at least for those of us still in the business, to see more and more of the best in our profession quit, get fired or get pushed out.

Every year more throw up their hands and go elsewhere. There are definitely some good ones left, but I am not sure enough to turn the tide and save our industry. Just too many suits interested more in making a few extra bucks than informing our readers and treatly their employees with respect and appreciation.

 

I don't think mocking all managers while giving no specifics show much integrity to the business, Freddie.

And I see very few newspaper editors wearing suits.

 

Yeah, TV graphics are a mistake that people remember for much longer than a bad headline (the 867-5309 North Carolina snowstorm caper).

 

I meant the listings in the paper of what live sports programs are on TV that day.