New McClatchy papers

gumbojumbo · Jul 10, 2006

Is it too early to notice any differences or has McClatchy started doing things at some of the new purchases?

Left_Coast · Jul 10, 2006

Try this

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/539443.html

and this

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060710/NEWS01/60710005

Yes, a 35-year-old publisher.

gumbojumbo · Jul 10, 2006

Was going more for in-house, first-hand stuff, as in 'can you tell you have a new owner and have there been any changes in SOP?'

JayFarrar · Jul 10, 2006

Sounds to me that McClatchy believes that better reporting and more coverage makes for a better paper.
The Parrish promotion is the most intriguing. I don't see anything wrong with a 35- year old being in charge. Lordy, if I did, I'd have to fire myself. But she has zero background in the tradtional path to publisher. No ad sales, no circulation, no marketing. No nothing. Just the newsroom and really not even that. She ran the features sections and Sunday papers in stops at Phoenix, San Fran and the Strib.
And by all appeances, it looks like she knows how to put out a good paper.
Maybe that is the key, everyone who works at a paper, knows what to do to make it better. At least that's the conventional wisdom. We are all about to see. It's just a billion dollar bet.

Methodtomymadness · Jul 11, 2006

With 35-year-old publishers, just beware when said publishers begin hiring 26-year-old editors. If it happens, look out!

gumbojumbo · Jul 11, 2006

If they're better than editors twice as old, I don't think too many people will complain.

So apparently nothing - except at the aforementioned papers - of note has changed yet?

House · Jul 16, 2006

I knew a girl who applied for a non-sports desk job there a while back and pulled out because of "instability." In her words, the new publisher would get ****-canned less than a month after the takeover. And, damnit, she was right.