Tampa drops a really big shoe...

Yeah . . . Fatman's cheesy production values, or Beck's broad obliviousness.
That's a choice.

 

Converging TV, radio and newspaper is silly and wasteful.

Developing a Web platform that kicks the shit out of TV and radio every hour of every day makes more sense. And is a helluva lot more fun.

Disclaimer: I work for an outfit that owns the top TV station and top radio station in the market. We looked at convergence. Decided we'd rather beat 'em like a drum. We're the news source. They do the entertainment.

 

I have a lot of friends there... I'm worried about almost all of them... I'm fairly confident one or two of them are safe...

This really sucks...

 

I agree.

What Tampa does isn't truly "convergence" by that definition. They were trying to combine two different operations.

 

Am I the only one who thinks this is going to result in massive cuts at the Times as well?

 

Yes.
Poynter's structure, I think, will keep many people safe.

As to Jones's point. I think some papers -- single-player, smaller, non-union markets -- are still very good buys. And still can makes lots and lots of money, particularly if they aren't in need of need of major upgrades like a new press or new computers.
Larger market papers, like a Tampa, might be good buys just to get the real estate that the Trib has around. I don't know the situation there, but at the Strib, when it was bought by the new group, one of the things that made it appealing was all the downtown property and the printing facility.

 

I hope you're right. I just worry that if Tampa cuts its coverage by a fourth or a third or whatever, that the Times is going to have nothing to compete with and can pull coverage in certain areas...

 

The "all those words" phrase reminds me of Mozart's critics, who complained about "too many notes" (according to the movie).

Most of us ain't Mozart, but it sure seems that readers -- if they want anything from us -- want reporting a lot more than they want writing. At least, that's how the market researchers and futurists seem to be approaching it. We're supposed to relay news and information almost instantaneously, by as many electronic platforms as possible.

But taking the time to make something entertaining enough -- never mind moving or humorous enough -- to actually spend 5, 10 or 15 minutes reading (and thinking about), eh, not so much.

 

I call bullshit. You don't have friends.

 

Would it have helped if the guy's comment had been printed in blue? I thought it was pretty obvious sarcasm from a reader on the paper's side.

And not for nothing, but spellcheck wants to change "in-depth" to "underpaid."

 

Someone who uses laborious to describe reading is not the kind of reader we have lost.

 

dixie - i think you might have lost something in joe's response. from how i read it, he understand's the writer's tone.