Sports editor's OT lawsuit against Gannett

1. What Moddy's buddy did was against federal workplace rules. MG could be in a ton of shit and fined pretty heavily if someone reported it. (Of course, no one will.)

2. I worry about doing my job well, and I even worry about things sometimes when I'm off the clock. But I'll be damned if I work for free ever again.

 

The things they are evaluated on are generally not "quality of the product." It's things like making deadline, staying within budget and all kinds of corporate things. His boss does not care if all the high school events made the paper. His boss cares if the paper went to press on time.

Moddy hit the nail. The SE can see that the product gets out, make deadline, stay under budget and do everything (or almost everything) acceptable to his bosses by working 40 hours.

But the product would be substandard in the SE's eyes. So out of professional pride he covers the event he could have ignored. He writes a feature or preview story that he could have not written or let the wires handle. He puts the second set of eyes on a story that he could have let only one pair see. He comes in early to give a centerpiece a professional touch, when he could have just slapped a piece of art and a headline on a story and called it a centerpiece.

 

Well, my shop is quite different, then. My previous two sports editors were both placed on 90-day probation for the quality of the product. It had nothing to do with making deadline (which we were doing) or staying under budget (which we were doing). It had everything to do with the publisher thinking our product was not up to his standards. Both of those sports editors lost their jobs shortly thereafter.

So, maybe this place is just doomed to fail.

 

All I can tell you is that at my shop editors are ENCOURAGED to use as many Tribune modules as possible, regardless of how badly they are designed, how badly they are edited and how poor the content is.

We must run a briefs package that may very well duplicate news that we have separate stories on elsewhere in the paper. We are encouraged NOT TO TOUCH those briefs packages, even though editing them would eliminate any duplication and give us a chance to add local items.

We are, in effect, encouraged to put out a worse product because a worse product requires fewer copy editors, designers and reporters.

That is the state of today's industry.

I'm a little curious. Had these editors each worked much longer hours, would the quality have improved (or improved enough to make a difference)? Remember, some people simply are not qualified for X job. Not saying yours weren't. But it happens.

 

ATTFT

 

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/76193/

 

The first one worked 65-70 hours a week and busted his ass tying any and all loose ends. He was there during the initial wave of staff cuts and worked extra to try to make up for the lost bodies. He always said the publisher didn't like him and wouldn't have been happy no matter what.

The second one probably fits into the category of not being ready to be an SE. And he worked his 40 hours and went home, whether the work was done or not. He knew that one of us would pick up the slack because we were all stupid. LOL

 

The only thing dumber than working 80-hour weeks is not wanting to work "too hard."

 

Why? I get paid for 40 hours, I put in my 40 hours, and then I go live the rest of my life, such as it is.

 

Working for free is foolish. The readers don't care and management doesn't really care about the product anyway.

 

To the folks still dumb enough to work for free, I don't know whether to pity you or laugh at you.