Gannett strikes again

Doc, you're probably right about this.

But I just want to give a hat-tip to Matt for (a) posting what he believes about his employer under his own name [you can count on one hand the number of people among the hundreds around here willing to do the same], (b) explaining the best he can his feelings about the changes, (c) and keeping an open mind about an industry that was first driven into the rocks years ago by people unwilling to change a damn thing.

 

I have to join the chorus in applauding Matt for posting under his real name and for debating what he believes in. It's admirable and if this business was made up of more Matts in management and corporate board rooms, maybe this business would be in a lot better shape.
However ...
Matt, You can argue about being called a Coloradoanoid or Gannettoid but the fact of the matter is you are drinking the corporate kool aid by the gallon. And for every person hailing the "bright, new Gannett digital horizon" on this board there are 10 people who also worked for Gannett that will say otherwise.
Answer this Matt -- Do you think 90 percent of employees in newsrooms go into their jobs dead or apathetic and as they are writing stories think "Gee, I really want to fail my readers today!" Name these bright untapped digital elements. How does producing a live shoot with half as less staff with equipment that doesn't work half the time and where the quality looks worse than a cable access show serve the readers? You think you are going to have time to really get to explore these other digital elements in depth and get trained to do it well? It is going to be teaching yourself and still you are only going to tap one tenth of the potential these things have if they are done right. Also good luck getting the equipment to do even do the job at a satisfactory level.
Gannett has said often during its many reincarnations and buzzwords that they best they are looking for is "good enough". Not great, not average but good enough.
How are Gannett newspapers serving readers when every job is now up for being reapplied and the process is like a real life Hunger Games where we all know very well that the editors and management know who they are going to put in their jobs and where a tragic amount of people are leaving either via layoffs or by opting out and saying they aren't reapplying. Most of those opting out though aren't doing it voluntarily. They know the writing on the wall.
I want to cite something else Matt -- "If we're not doing meaningful work in our communities, if we're not telling amazing stories, if we're not looking at the analytics of what people are reading or taking time to be on the streets to get to know our readers on a more personal level, then we are failing."
I know many Gannett journalists who have done meaningful work and telling amazing stories who are being kicked to the curb. Analytics and talking to readers on a more personal level also means something else to Executive Editors and Publishers -- partnering with business to make money and look the other way. That is also what Picasso is.
Maybe Matt and Fort Collins buck the trend and prove to the anti-Gannett and it works for them. I and many others doubt it.

 

The Coloradoan isn't and won't be bucking any Gannett trend. This isn't the first time it's happened there and probably won't be the last. In fact, the paper did the reapply thing before Matt got there, Matt might even have his position as a result of that vetting. So it's only been a few years since the last time it happened.

I know more than a handful of very talented journalists who left there willingly, a few after making it nearly a lifetime career there, that are thriving in other areas and still in Fort Collins. Reasons obviously vary, but this Gannett way of life definitely are factors. Who wants to worry about this every few years, if not more often? Who wants to sit there and work and feel good about what you're doing after the carnage?

I will give Coloradoan staffers this. This week there have been a lot of remorse and sadness coming from the reporters and even top editors after this happened, and although they all eventually transitioned their talk into the Gannett sunshine stance, I haven't seen a lot of the former when it's happened at other places. Definitely didn't happen at the Tennessean. So that's something. If they can make something good or better come out of it, more power to them. I wouldn't count on it, but at least they are trying to have that outlook.

 

I can't imagine being a 27-year-old in this business.

My career strategy is basically "try to run out the clock."

 

No fucking way in this world I'd enter newspapers at 27 and sing the corporate line like a stooge. Sad and pathetic.

 

By 27 I was already jaded and I wasn't even at a Gannett shop! So more power to him I guess.

 

Nice!

Exciting!!

Reorganization and teams and stuff!!!

Yeah.

Update your resume, dude.

 

I have a feeling that at least part of Matt's optimism comes from liking the people he works with. Whenever the shit hits the fan, that always helps to have people you consider friends and even family to ride it out with.
It won't last.
This is a transitory business. Most of us are hobos with a keyboard. The people you work with now will eventually move on, or get laid off, or just get run into the ground once someone realizes that six or seven people are handling the work of eight or 10. And if they can do that, then they can handle some more because, technology! And digital!
They prey on our vulnerabilities -- our work ethic, our sense of pride, our fear -- and exploit them until we're no longer of use. Once you reach the point where your value increases to an unacceptable degree, you're cut loose into the wind of the latest "reorganization."
The reason most of the veterans on this board aren't excited isn't because we're "dead" or "apathetic." It's because it's the same old bullshit-scented snake oil they've been peddling for years now. The industry vets were probably like you once upon a time, but after a while they wised up and saw it for the never-ending cycle of despair that it really is. One day, maybe in five or 10 years, you'll get there, too.

 

Sorry for the delay here. Been swamped with meetings today (which, go ahead and say it, reporters generally shouldn't have to deal with). With the tools I'm talking about, no, not Twitter or video. Those have been around and tomorrow we'll have something new to use. I mean the way we can present stories online now and make information easier to understand, which has been one of the drawbacks to digital vs. the freedom to design whatever you want in print.

We can make long-form stories more interactive and engaging:
http://www.coloradoan.com/longform/news/local/2014/06/25/deadly-allure-longs-peak/11379673/

Timelines to have fun with:
http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/local/fort-collins/2014/04/12/long-will-take-build-new-stadium-csu/7651801/

Cool databases:
http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2013/10/23/test-of-luck-compare-colts-andrew-luck-other-quarterbacks/3169861/
http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/indiana/2013/10/29/indiana-basketball-mens-database/3308409/

And what I really enjoy, being able to interact with our readers and do storytelling with people they're interested in with podcasts, live streams, etc.:
http://www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/csu/football/2014/09/04/special-guest-ricky-brewer-join-rampage-live-next-week/15088533/
http://noconow.co/rampage

They're not all Gannett-specific, but I'd say the majority of us aren't utilizing tools available to us to have some fun.

Are we still telling great stories? We write more and more and more with less quality just to have more updates on our websites. Keeping the web fresh is important, but so is taking time to remove yourself from the daily to work on a great enterprise package/feature. You hear veterans in press boxes laughing about the quality of story they're writing about a game all the time. You read about Mike Wilbon disappointed in the quality of the BASW stories compared to what they used to be.

With analytics, I mean looking at the web numbers and not wasting a lot of time on stories people don't read. Preps don't drive a lot of web traffic. Do we still need to cover preps? I say absolutely. Do we need to staff every game? Probably not (size of your coverage area can change that). Instead of spending so much time on a prep gamer that gets 500 page views, focus on finding a good a prep feature that can appeal to a wider audience. Program mobile and desktop section fronts differently based on reader habits. Listicles or stories with subheads are much more suited for web than anything beyond 600 words. Why spend the time writing stories readers aren't as interested in? You're never going to make everyone happy, but you might as well try to make the majority happy.

How is this move going to be different than the IC or any other? I don't have a good answer. I can't predict the future. The workflow changes are going to be a difficult adjustment (every reporter loves a copy editor). I hope it is. I hope it works out. I hope, even if it's slightly, we start to see the needle move in the right direction in the next few months.

I'll get back to the others later. Supper time.

 

That's absolutely true. When other Gannett editors come here, they see what we have going on in our newsroom and how often we spend time together outside the office or collaborate during the day for cross-desk projects and they're stunned. I am blessed to be in this environment and it's a big reason I haven't taken other jobs. Who I work with is extremely important to me. It helps keep morale as high as possible in this punishing industry. But it's also a big reason why we've had success, locally, while some other shops haven't. There aren't many internal walls between editors and reporters.

And, Batman, you are right about other folks not being apathetic. I phrased that poorly and I apologize. But I get excited about things we COULD do if we utilize what in front of us. I like our field of work. I could double my salary by being a technical writer, but I'd be miserable.

 

In other words, things that have been done for several years now.

Also, it's not about making the majority happy. It's about covering the news that's most important that affects readers' lives. If a majority of readers prefer pictures of puppies and kittens to a story about the city budget, are you really serving them well?