Huge job cuts at News Corp, hundreds of Australian papers to stop publishing

[TrooperBari]

I don't know how many Australians we have here, but this is still remarkable. Estimates of between 500 and 1,000 jobs lost across the chain, and more than 100 local and regional papers will stop printing altogether and go online only. The old notion that small dailies and weeklies would be the cockroaches that survive the proverbial nuclear disaster doesn't appear to hold up too well.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/news-corp-to-axe-hundreds-of-jobs-20200527-p54x1k.html

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Jesus, that's an insane list.

Any urge to giggle and point at News Corps is very much overridden by the reality that a lot of good people are losing jobs there.

 

[DanOregon]

"Everyone Is Shocked": CBS News Hit Hard by Layoffs

When the news orgs that are "doing well" are laying people off due to COVID, I have to think the newspaper industry is ready for another round. They've already been "cutting ahead of the revenue decline" to ensure profit, can't even imagine what damage will be left behind when its all over.

 

[Fredrick]

This lets us know COVID-19 is the signature killer of the industry. This company just said, screw it, we're selling zero ads; get rid of the print costs NOW and go all online except for 100 papers we decide are so hopeless to sell an ad we're closing the doors. See if you can sell any and all equipment at those papers as well as the property to bleed something out of them."

 

[Fredrick]

"Everyone Is Shocked": CBS News Hit Hard by Layoffs

When the news orgs that are "doing well" are laying people off due to COVID, I have to think the newspaper industry is ready for another round. They've already been "cutting ahead of the revenue decline" to ensure profit, can't even imagine what damage will be left behind when its all over.

Interesting. Meanwhile, will ESPN and FOX and the other networks with sports contracts be able to afford those big money deals with leagues? Do they have unlimited resources STILL at ESPN and Fox, TBS?

 

[DanOregon]

I loved this quote.

(Zirinsky) addressed that work-around on Wednesday's call, saying: "If you would have told me I’d be in the Ed Sullivan control room for 11 ****ing weeks, I would have said, 'Give me some of whatever you’re smoking.'"

 

[SoloFlyer]

The rural nature of some of Australia - even more remote than areas of the US - has to make it extraordinarily difficult to successfully run a news outlet.

As much as I despise News Corp, it may be the only thing capable of keeping the lights on at some of these outlets.

 

[LanceyHoward]

Jesus, that's an insane list.

Any urge to giggle and point at News Corps is very much overridden by the reality that a lot of good people are losing jobs there.

According to Wikipedia Australia has 517 newspapers. So if over 100 are stopping printing that is 20% of Australian mastheads.

While Gannett does not have as big a market share in the U.S.A. as NewsCorp , printing about 20% of the four percent of the weeklies, I wonder what the damage will be will be when that company collapses.

 

[LanceyHoward]

"Everyone Is Shocked": CBS News Hit Hard by Layoffs

When the news orgs that are "doing well" are laying people off due to COVID, I have to think the newspaper industry is ready for another round. They've already been "cutting ahead of the revenue decline" to ensure profit, can't even imagine what damage will be left behind when its all over.

I would like someone familiar with the economics of television news to help me with a question.

It is clear that the cable news channels dominate the audience. CBS News has very little presence on cable, unlike NBC or Fox. CBS News has the preeminent magazine show, 60 Minutes, that I understand operates as a separate entity with a separate staff.

The other shows that CBS produces are the morning show, which has been in the ratings dumpster since the beginning of network television, and the evening show, which has been number three rated for at least 20 years.

CBS also has a huge group of owned and operated stations. And CBS programs local morning news and an afternoon news at virtually every one. Why doesn't CBS just program local news in the times spots devoted to national programming and maintain a few bureaus to provide material to the local affiliates? I believe local news generally has higher ratings than the national broadcasts. Then fire the staff working on the daily newscasts.

 

[I Should Coco]

I would like someone familiar with the economics of television news to help me with a question.

It is clear that the cable news channels dominate the audience. CBS News has very little presence on cable, unlike NBC or Fox. CBS News has the preeminent magazine show, 60 Minutes, that I understand operates as a separate entity with a separate staff.

The other shows that CBS produces are the morning show, which has been in the ratings dumpster since the beginning of network television, and the evening show, which has been number three rated for at least 20 years.

CBS also has a huge group of owned and operated stations. And CBS programs local morning news and an afternoon news at virtually every one. Why doesn't CBS just program local news in the times spots devoted to national programming and maintain a few bureaus to provide material to the local affiliates? I believe local news generally has higher ratings than the national broadcasts. Then fire the staff working on the daily newscasts.

These are good questions, and I am not familiar with how TV networks and affiliates operate.

But if I had to guess, I'd imagine if CBS's network news show brings in even a handful of advertising accounts, they're keeping it on the air. And local affiliates probably have no choice but to take it and put it on the air at 5:30 (or whatever time).

It's like the papers that are owned by Gannett. They would love to leave out the dreadful USA Today sections, and provide more local news (or even better coverage of national news via AP or other sources), but they're part of the Gannett empire. So Arizona Republic readers (to use an example) get the USA Today news section, and pitch it quickly into the recycling bin.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

I would like someone familiar with the economics of television news to help me with a question.

It is clear that the cable news channels dominate the audience. CBS News has very little presence on cable, unlike NBC or Fox. CBS News has the preeminent magazine show, 60 Minutes, that I understand operates as a separate entity with a separate staff.

The other shows that CBS produces are the morning show, which has been in the ratings dumpster since the beginning of network television, and the evening show, which has been number three rated for at least 20 years.

CBS also has a huge group of owned and operated stations. And CBS programs local morning news and an afternoon news at virtually every one. Why doesn't CBS just program local news in the times spots devoted to national programming and maintain a few bureaus to provide material to the local affiliates? I believe local news generally has higher ratings than the national broadcasts. Then fire the staff working on the daily newscasts.

The short answer is, because the morning show makes a hell of a lot of money, pandemic times notwithstanding.

What you call the "ratings dumpster" is actually a pretty close third place, and there are still a lot of viewers. The evening also does well enough. The network isn't giving up that income. It has no reason to.

Keep in mind, the vast majority of CBS affiliates are not owned by CBS. The network would lose a ton of money by shifting that time to the local affiliates.

 

[garrow]

 

[wicked]

I am bad at spotting these things, but that’s surely a rug, right?

 

[PCLoadLetter]

I am bad at spotting these things, but that’s surely a rug, right?

I doubt it. No one spends money on a rug that looks that ****ty. Pretty sure it's just a bad haircut.

 

[DanOregon]

Mark Knoller? Holy crud. Legendary reporter. Every capital building has a reporter like him, keeps track of everything (he tallied Presidential golf outings and vacation days going back three or four Presidents). The reporter other reporters new to the beat or not could ask for a bit of trivia, or stat. I could see the rest of the WH Pool funding him just to stay on.
Never a grandstander - solid, solid pro.

Who’s Counting? At the White House, It’s Mark Knoller | Washingtonian (DC)

 

[Slacker]

Mark Knoller? Holy crud. Legendary reporter.

Unsung hero. He was great in Dire Straits, too.

 

[Fredrick]

Mark Knoller? Holy crud. Legendary reporter. Every capital building has a reporter like him, keeps track of everything (he tallied Presidential golf outings and vacation days going back three or four Presidents). The reporter other reporters new to the beat or not could ask for a bit of trivia, or stat. I could see the rest of the WH Pool funding him just to stay on.
Never a grandstander - solid, solid pro.

Who’s Counting? At the White House, It’s Mark Knoller | Washingtonian (DC)

Journalists have been terrorized for so many years now. The best and the brightest kicked out the door without a peep from important suits at how wrong this is. So you suits out there answer me this: Why do you think it's a smart business model to fire the people in your industry who are not only your best writers/TV broadcasters but among the classiest individuals. This is like firing Mike Trout saying, get rid of him we can stick some minor leaguer out there and we'll still have the same attendance and TV deals. Thousands of the BEST in journalism have been thrown out the door the last 10 to 15 years. It is truly disgusting and you suits should feel proud at your role in ruining a great industry. It's just wrong to fire the most accomplished people for one reason: they actually have advanced to the top and now are making too much green. Shame.
The only people who have made a truly good buck in journalism have been the publishers who were born into wealth and/or the suits who have sucked up to important people and climbed to the top because of their willingness to be ruthless to the little guy.

 

[jr/shotglass]

Journalists have been terrorized for so many years now. The best and the brightest kicked out the door without a peep from important suits at how wrong this is. So you suits out there answer me this: Why do you think it's a smart business model to fire the people in your industry who are not only your best writers/TV broadcasters but among the classiest individuals. This is like firing Mike Trout saying, get rid of him we can stick some minor leaguer out there and we'll still have the same attendance and TV deals. Thousands of the BEST in journalism have been thrown out the door the last 10 to 15 years. It is truly disgusting and you suits should feel proud at your role in ruining a great industry. It's just wrong to fire the most accomplished people for one reason: they actually have advanced to the top and now are making too much green. Shame.
The only people who have made a truly good buck in journalism have been the publishers who were born into wealth and/or the suits who have sucked up to important people and climbed to the top because of their willingness to be ruthless to the little guy.

I've got to ask ... do you rail about anything else? Or is this a single-subject fixation?

 

[MileHigh]

Horrible. Knoller is legendary. This is horrible (as it is for everyone getting laid off). But CBS and other media outlets are laying off older journalists with high salaries. Not shocking.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

If CBS really wanted to save money, it'd lay off totally replaceable morning news hosts, the second weatherperson at their O and Os, etc., all of whom guaranteed make more than Knoller does.