1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

1972 all over?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Giggity, Jul 3, 2007.

  1. Giggity

    Giggity Member

    From Slate:


    The gist of it is, newsroom staffs got artificially large over the last 30 years or so, and we'll still be able to put out a quality product with fewer bodies. Bad for journalists, but not much different for the reader. Wasn't in the business 30 years ago, so I don't have much to add.
  2. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Paging DyePack ... OH WAIT! ;D
  3. chazp

    chazp Active Member

    Here's hoping not a lot o publishers read this. They come up with the ideal of more wire copy and fewer journalists is the way to say money. From some of the cuts in the past couple of years, maybe some of them are already thinking that way.
  4. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Active Member

    The connection between quality and head count would seem intuitive, but a dip into the microfilm archives of the New York Times and Washington Post shows that decent newspapers have been produced with far fewer hands.

    Yeah, and baseball owners can use creative accounting to show they are "losing money."

    "Far fewer hands" can mean a lot of things, but it gets tricky when you compare the days when you had people cutting and pasting and laying out copy after you drew it on the dummies and sent it in the tube and started working on the next story or the next page or the next photo.

    Not to mention there were "far fewer" sports regularly covered ...
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page