Do as I say, not as I do --- Bham News spikes columnist's piece on buyouts

Re: Do as I say, not as I do

I know what you're saying, but I don't think he intended any slight toward copy editors ... I think he was gunning for the higher pay grades.

 

Re: Do as I say, not as I do

It's kind of beside the point considering the circumstances, but the actual column itself was a damn fine piece of work. Also, Steak, may I suggest changing the subject so people can find this thread more easily? Thanks.

 

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for posting the link to the Media of Birmingham story.

We've updated the story to reflect comments from John Archibald and his editor, and that he's back at work.

But, as you can see, the damage has been done.

 

My local paper of record spent years deriding companies for moving out of the city and into the suburbs or Mexico. Then two years later, built a brand new printing plant a full county away to catch a tax break.

 

i thought the Poynter piece was well done.
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=181928

 

Whether he intended it or not, it's still a slight. At best, it shows a lack of consideration for people who do jobs other than his own.

 

"He told me that Editor Tom Scarritt objected to the pessimistic tone of the column -- Archibald called it "funereal" -- and to the public disclosure of staffing figures."

Well, you're cutting jobs. What was he supposed to write, the same happy corporate-speak of "We're repositioning our products for the future matrixes so we can be more vertical!" or some crap like that?

The job of journalists, in many ways, is to be like an umpire. You have to call it as you see it. Cutting jobs isn't a good thing, unless you're the corporate idiot whining about his profit margin.

 

Quit whining desk jockey.

 

The last thing we need in this time of strife is in-fighting between deskers and reporters. Our common enemy is the bean counter. Let's focus on hammering the bean counter and not harp on real or perceived slights.

 

As an industry, we've taken so many hits the past 3-4 years that I'm sure many of us are absolutely punch-drunk, and it's easy to lash out when something we don't like happens along these lines.

And, when we as an industry have taken great pains to demand transparency in the institutions we cover, it definitely feels hypocritical to hide our own machinations from the light of day.

That said, in reading these pieces a couple of things occurred to me. First, there have been countless times on here and in newsrooms everywhere when we've had it driven home to us that the public takes a "don't tell me about the labor pains, just show me the baby" attitude toward how news is produced. They don't generally care about the size of the newsroom, nor do they want excuses about why this, that or the other is being covered. I'm wondering if the readers of the Birmingham News are any different. Maybe they developed a personal connection to those mentioned in Archibald's column, but I suspect not.

Second, and I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, the paper might have solid legal reasons for not revealing publicly who took buyouts, and I'm thinking the dreaded "personnel matters" here. We only get what happened in the coverage we have linked here. The whys -- other than the reference to the column having a funereal tone -- really aren't there. It's easy for us, being the hired help, to assume that management is a bunch of cowards. That may be, but they might also have had legitimate reasons for their actions. I'd suggest there's more to the story here. There almost always is.