Down-sized columnist on the state of newspapers

Maybe.

But I get readers asking why we've cut back on covering this or that. Or why we've got fewer pages than we had a couple of years ago.

They might not care about the overall state of the industry, but I think they care about the state of their local paper. If for no other reason than wanting to know why they're getting less for their money.

 

That doesn't really serve the paper though, does it?

 

Depends on the town. People can get pretty possessive about "my" newspaper some places. Some of them have a better knowledge of the paper's history than most of the people working for it. I could see running a column like this in some towns but not in others.

 

I know a little bit about that paper. Though I agree with much of what he has written, he probably should have seen this coming.

He was editor-in-chief for like two years, then got replaced basically because he was kind of incompetent. But as often happens at smaller papers, they didn't have the heart to fire a nice, grandfatherly chap and shipped him off to write a once-a-week column at the invented position of "editor emeritus" without cutting his salary.

So now, this smallish paper is basically paying for two editors-in-chief.

When the economic hard times came, he was an obvious place to trim.

But, yeah, I agree with everything in his farewell column. The business does suck.

 

That's why I like the conclusion to the column.
His point was, maybe it's time to start to "give a shit."
Because, one day soon there will be no one that "will cover a local City Council meeting, or check the local police blotter or staff the local football game."

 

Well, that sheds some light. Thanks.

 

So he was a failure at his job, got to keep his salary while doing nothing anyway and he probably got a nice severance/retirement package.

Sounds like he should look in the mirror, count his blessings and enjoy a can of STFU.

 

Yeah. A journalist of 42 years.
We should dismiss his thoughts because he wasn't a good editor.
Nice thought process.

 

Well, yes. Since he was part of the brain trust responsible for his paper's decline he deserves some of the blame.

The fact that he also got to keep his high salary long after he had become irrelevant is a far nicer deal than 99 percent of us will ever get.

I think the story he tells about the paper that "heroically" printed a four-page edition says it all. The reader never cares about what conditions you were under to put the paper out. Canceling her subscription hurts the paper, not her.

 

Is it really self serving? If part of our job is to inform, he does a good job of telling his readers what is happening at their paper, and of what the alternative looks like.

Without newspapers, Yahoo will generate a bunch of AP stories for you based on your preferences ("Britney In Standoff With Police!") and then provide you with links to a search database (outsourced to the highest bidder) which gives you lists of businesses in your area, half of which closed two years ago.

Welcome to the information age.

 

Some Guy,

I just got an email from a J-school professor at Univ. of Missouri. A former colleague.
He said Flippin -- as Editor -- was reassigned not because of incompetence, but because he was quoted by an outside publication that he feared there was still "covert racism" still alive in small Texas towns. Flippin went on: "Behind all the smiles and civility dwell old suspicions, animosities and prejudices that can flare with little provocation."
Appears that was a bit of a problem with some community members. And, under pressure, Scripps had him reassigned.

Again, I don't have any personal knowledge, just relaying what I'm being told. Sound familiar?

 

42 years in the biz. I bet he thought he would leave when he decided to retire. Bet many of us won't last 42 years like him. Damn good column.