The New Orleans Times-Picayune May Reduce Frequency of Publication -- NY Times

It's interesting that much of the recent posts have concerned the fate of a food critic who already has a landing spot, even if only for a year.

A Fellowship. At Harvard freaking University, let's note here.

He will likely be just fine, compared to most.

As for the paper itself . . . I think many of us already lamented its demise as soon as the "three days a week" thing was announced. Management doesn't care. Ownership doesn't care. It's shooting itself in the foot, deliberately. There is nothing anyone can do about it. I hope everyone remaining there finds new jobs immediately, and the whole thing tanks in a way that injures the higher-ups.

Mr. Food Critic will be OK.

And so will Mr. Sport Columnist who apparently started at the paper in 1945. He likely has no kids to feed, and hopefully managed things well enough that he owns his home.

I'm much more concerned about the many employees who were laid off, and now have no idea how they'll make rent for the foreseeable future.

Both statements are true.

Despite the recurring fantasies of its denizens, the media world is very much beholden to a "follow the leader" vision. Everyone had the John Edwards story back in summer 2008, but no one wanted to be the first to validate the National Enquirer. ABC News does it, and suddenly everyone has their own story up.

No one wanted to be the first national newspaper to drastically cut publishing. But they'll line up to be the second, third, fourth, etc.

If an Ann Arbor newspaper says "OK, we're going online only!" others look at that and say "Interesting. I wonder how that will go." But when a newspaper in a nationally known city like New Orleans - where the newspaper could have been perceived to be part of the fabric of the place with all the region has gone through over the last decade - does this . . . now other newspapers will have discussions as to whether they can get away with the same thing.

Does anyone think there won't be another such announcement before the end of this year?

 

A newspaper's circulation is often directly tied to the size of its staff. Staffing levels drop, readership drops. Staffing levels rise, readership rises. I saw a graphic depicting the exact correlation a year or two ago, but I haven't been able to find it.

If you want people to read your paper, you have to give them a product worth reading. That doesn't mean laying off your reporters and filling your pages with AP content. They can read stories anywhere for free. The way you sell newspapers is by providing a unique voice and covering stories that matter to YOUR readership.

A newspaper in Hawaii shouldn't rely on the AP for its Ironman coverage anymore than a newspaper in New Orleans should rely on syndicated content for its coverage of the foodservice industry.

Granted, there are certain problems within the newspaper industry that can not be addressed by keeping or hiring more staff. The move to online is happening whether we like it or not, and it's going to lead to a lot more press operators losing their jobs. But we still need to report, write and publish stories the public cares about if we're going to survive.

Fewer reporters doing less reporting is NEVER going to improve coverage or generate revenue. EVER.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens from here.... six months, maybe a year down the line. Will others follow suit? Will these papers retreat and build the print product again? We're in uncharted waters and no one really knows what the outcome will be.

Much has been made of the persons let go, and rightfully so. But what of those left behind? Seems akin to being one of the few survivors of a plane crash. Why me and not the guy sitting next to me? Not to mention, how will my job duties change? Sometimes, the ones left behind are worse off than the ones let go.

 

That was definitely the case when my paper laid off people last year. A guy I worked with directly had to absorb most of my responsibilities without earning an extra cent. But hey, he was "lucky" to have a job. :

 

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/177145/600-newspaper-layoffs-in-one-day-is-unfortunately-not-a-record/

 

Ugh!!!!!

 

Agreed. I have a particular soft spot in my heart for the slashed library staff. Where will they go?

 

Let's stipulate that Brett Anderson is a James Beard Award winning writer, with years of experience, working in a vibrant restaurant city, where the main industry is tourism (with the restaurant scene being a large part of the draw).

I don't disagree with any of that.

Are you trying to argue that the Times-Picayune/Advance/Newhouse didn't value his talent and experience as a writer? Well, I agree with that too.

But, this is a paper that just cut its publication to three days a week! They've clearly decided to treat their problems with a chain saw, and not a scalpel.

They're desperately trying to cut costs to a level that can be supported by the revenue they can take in. They're even willing to let that revenue drop, if they can bring down expenses even further, thus allowing for a profit. It's ugly, and sad to see.

But, here's the thing: it's not just Brett Anderson whose talents and experience are not appreciated. And it's not just the Times-Picayune/Advance/Newhouse either.

The executives running newspapers don't give a shit about the talents or experience of any of you. To them, you are content providers. And, they only care about the content in as much as it's a platform to sell advertising. It's a commodity to them. And, if someone else can crank it out for less, they'll take it.

I'm not defending this. It's just a fact.

I pointed this out previously when we discussed the value papers put on the "funny pages" and Dear Abby. I was criticized for that as well.

It doesn't matter that neither are high journalism, the funny pages and Dear Abby are content, and they can sell against it. Newspapers are not interested in pursuing excellence in journalism. (Another statement I've stated before, and was criticized for.)

So, the new T-P will have top 10 lists, slide shows, pictures of parades, and prep football stories written by Timmy's mommy -- plus the funny pages and Dear Abby.

Maybe it will work. But, wishing for better days, where newspapers actively covered a range of issues and industries, with a large news staff, talented writers, and excellent editors is folly. It's not going to happen.

So, if you want a restaurant recommendation, you're probably going to have to look elsewhere.

 

So, do you actually think this was a bad business decision? As in, this guy made the paper money, that they are now going to lose

I mean, it's a fine argument, but I think you'll have a very hard time even coming close to proving it.

And, especially the way they just gutted the paper, he was probably a luxury they couldn't afford.

 

YF, do you spend your spare time walking into the funerals of people you don't know and announcing, "Hey, everybody dies"?

 

No, you must be confusing me with Mizzou's cousin:

 

I'm am wondering how many people reading ths thread will jump over all the bodies to try to get a job as a " buzz reporter?"