More from Lean Dean

I have a genuine, non-snotty question here. How does a central copy desk save any money? If x amount of editors process y amount of copy every day for your chain, how does putting them under one roof increase productivity enough to make up for the disruption in the papers' production process. If it's an excuse to cut down on the number of editors, why not just do that, and leave the rest where they are?

 

I just assumed he was reducing the number of copy editors and making each read and edit more copy. I could be wrong. I didn't read every word of every link on the thread.

 

I'll take a stab at this one.
Well, first and foremost. Dean Singleton does not make a move unless it is cost-saving. He wouldn't do it, unless, in the long run it trims costs.
How it will work here? And, I apologize for the bluntness and the matter-of-fact delivery. But, I've seen it before.
Let's use a round number here. And say, 50 copy editors make the move to the "centralized" office. (Nothing is "centralized" about it. It's not in the middle of anything. It is a common building.) Well, in one or two years, there won't be 50 copy editors there. It will be 40, or 35. Minus 10-15 employees and their salaries and their benefits and their retirement compensation.
It's a fairly simple and accepted savings model.
You see, it's a easier to trim from a core than the peripheral. If he were to make cuts at each office, scheduling would quickly become an issue. Under one roof, it's made much easier. Someone will always show up. And the workload grows exponentially.
What does the reader lose? Local expertise. An editor that knows a region with specific and unique knowledge. The reader also loses quality. The product suffers, because each copy editor now will process more copy, write more headlines and miss more errors. Dean Singleton has -- and will never be -- bothered by any of this.
It is shrewd and uncaring (except for the literal bottom line).
Any other questions?

 

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. If it makes money because fewer copy editors do more work, that can be achieved without centralizing them. You're right about the local knowledge, of course. I repeat my constant refrain. Why do these guys bother? Cut to the chase and publish a daily shopper. That's where they're headed. Let the parents send in high school copy for free. Better yet, charge 'em. You know they'd pay.

 

Not at staffing levels kept at most Singleton papers. You remove two people off a desk, and the paper doesn't come out. Unfortunately, I know way too much about MediaNews and their operations.

 

lol, I always had the same concern, and now it's apparent that we were the good guys all the time. Those people we were trying to impress with our hard work and our loyalty to the cause were playing us for suckers all along.

Generally speaking, of course. But I'm reminded of how it is on the battlefield: Put your faith in your sergeants and those with you in the trenches, and don't trust anyone lieutenant rank and above.

When the smoke clears, there's gonna be a bunch lousy newspapers out there.

 

Wow, I just went back and read this link. Scary and cold.

What a quote at the end:

Former Executive Editor Bowman looks back on his career with chagrin: "The newspaper business I got involved in, some say it's dying. I say it's dead. The last 10 years of my career has been hospice care."

 

Michael, what happens is there is less local content. One sports section in a Singleton paper in southern California, except for a couple of stories and football Friday, looks pretty much like another one. I don't mean merely a standard format, I mean THE SAME STORIES (sorry, didn't mean to shout, I just wanted to put some emphasis here). The sports section is San Bernardino will, with a couple of exceptions, have almost exactly the same content as the LA Daily News and the Long Beach Press Telegram.

 

Can this guy, and this business, get any more demeaning? Singleton buys the Stamford Advocate and the Greenwich Time, and immediately announces a plan to put yet another group of experienced journalists through this career humiliation:

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-sold2oct26,0,3521716.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines

Singleton said newspaper employees will be required to interview for their current positions next week, but the "overwhelming majority" will be rehired.

Forget going "postal," someone some day is going to go "periodical" on this guy.

 

Haven't you folks heard? Dean is our "unlikely hero" now:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_45/b4057061.htm

 

Boy, if Connecticut isn't just turning into the absolute shithole of journalism, which it was beginning to do when I worked and lived there. My deepest sympathies to my former fellow Nutmeggers.

 

The thing is, Dean has no money. Hearst bought the papers but MediaNews is running the shops. Incredible.