Star treatment?

[blondebomber]

I'm with e4 on this. A good leader knows how to get more out of his workers. One way is by giving them more responsibility and letting them see what they can do. If they don't produce, then at least they had their shot to contribute as much as they wanted.

Also, at what cost is this "star" getting all these assignments? People on here are saying that even if he's a little better he should get preference. If he's only a little better, then why sacrifice office harmony?

Maybe the star is coming up with his own angles on the A-1 stories and all that stuff instead of sitting around waiting for the editor to hand it to him.

I know that's what I would be doing.

The impression from the original post is that he's getting assigned these stories.

"handled pretty much all the top assignments that have come along ..."

"called in on his day off to handle something that's breaking ..."

"the thing is I don't think he actively pursues this ..."

"if the SE thinks he's the best guy to send out ..."

Assumptions (and impressions) are dangerous.

One person's "top assignment" may be another persion's routine gamer.

Lighten up. It's a message board. I'm not quoting the guy for 1A.

 

[Ace]

I'm with e4 on this. A good leader knows how to get more out of his workers. One way is by giving them more responsibility and letting them see what they can do. If they don't produce, then at least they had their shot to contribute as much as they wanted.

Also, at what cost is this "star" getting all these assignments? People on here are saying that even if he's a little better he should get preference. If he's only a little better, then why sacrifice office harmony?

Maybe the star is coming up with his own angles on the A-1 stories and all that stuff instead of sitting around waiting for the editor to hand it to him.

I know that's what I would be doing.

The impression from the original post is that he's getting assigned these stories.

"handled pretty much all the top assignments that have come along ..."

"called in on his day off to handle something that's breaking ..."

"the thing is I don't think he actively pursues this ..."

"if the SE thinks he's the best guy to send out ..."

Assumptions (and impressions) are dangerous.

One person's "top assignment" may be another persion's routine gamer.

Lighten up. It's a message board. I'm not quoting the guy for 1A.

I'm just trying to point out that the guy's "impression" about how the whole thing works may be wrong.

 

[blondebomber]

True enough.

 

[alleyallen]

Also, Blonde, if the "star" is pitching in and helping out on a day off, especially if he's the one who broke the story in the first place, then I'm all for it. Good photogs carry their cameras with them almost everywhere they go and they get that burning vehicle shot even on their days off. Why is it unreasonable to appreciate a reporter who goes that same extra mile?

 

[buckweaver]

But the original poster said he wasn't sure this guy was the best. He was questiong why this guy was getting so much work, and that leads me to believe the guy getting all the good gigs isn't anything special. If he were, would we be reading this thread? People are usually pretty good at comparing their talent to others'.

I mean this with all the respect in the world ... but no ****ing way.

Developing an accurately honest assessment of your own abilities is among the most difficult traits that any one of us can ever acquire.

 

[RFB-Boy]

OK, so being the supposed "star" of a 24,000 daily doesn't much amount to anything in this world, but I've reached that level at my paper and have had some of our less senior writers ask me how they can get the same opportunities I've recently been given. My best answer is to make yourself as indespensible as you can. If you're a great writer, write great. If you're a great designer, design great. If you can shoot, do it. Play to your strengths, work on minimizing your weaknesses and hold yourself to a higher standard than you think anyone else can. If you're doing all those things and still don't feel you're getting a fair shake, maybe it's time to look into somewhere or something different.

 

[forever_town]

I say this because I'm all for every deserving writer at least getting a taste of bigger stuff from time to time, especially when the chance for damage is minimal. If nothing else, it keeps morale up.

I'm about to leave my tenure as the managing editor of a small weekly newspaper (which is itself an entry-level location for a lot of the people who come here), and my take on the whole issue is that my best staff gets the best stories. Period. End of discussion. That doesn't mean I don't give opportunities to the interns from the local j-school to write important or big stories, but they have to earn my trust.

If I give you the local garage sale to cover and you don't come through or you give me 300 words of crap, you don't get another assignment. If you go to some nothing-seeming event and you find out something that turns out to be front page-worthy and you give me quality copy that's clean, I keep you in mind when I've assigned stories to my full-time reporters and I need someone to cover something important.

The same would hold true for sports. The editor of the other paper in our group gave his PHOTOGRAPHER a reporter's credential for the Maryland-Wake Forest football game (read: the most important game in College Park in at least three seasons). I was PISSED OFF because I wanted the credential for myself. The photog had no business covering more than your local JV girls game and the guy gave him the credential for the biggest game of the year. I wanted to strangle him.

 

[buckweaver]

If I give you the local garage sale to cover and you don't come through or you give me 300 words of crap, you don't get another assignment. If you go to some nothing-seeming event and you find out something that turns out to be front page-worthy and you give me quality copy that's clean, I keep you in mind when I've assigned stories to my full-time reporters and I need someone to cover something important.

Amen.

Once had a former colleague on the desk complain that he could do a better job designing the front cover of the sport section instead of the inside pages that I kept giving him. His reasoning was that he could do a better job if he had bigger (i.e. more important) stories to work with.

My response was, if you did better with the pages I do give you, then maybe you'd get a chance to do the bigger (i.e. more important) pages.

He never did, so I never gave him any. Simple as that.

 

[e4]

But the original poster said he wasn't sure this guy was the best. He was questiong why this guy was getting so much work, and that leads me to believe the guy getting all the good gigs isn't anything special. If he were, would we be reading this thread? People are usually pretty good at comparing their talent to others'.

I mean this with all the respect in the world ... but no ****ing way.

Developing an accurately honest assessment of your own abilities is among the most difficult traits that any one of us can ever acquire.

point taken, and you're right....

what i intended was that if there were a true superstar working in your department, someone with immeasurable talent and work ethic, you'd recognize it and also recognize why he/she received certain assignments; there would be no doubt on that end.

looking in the mirror, however, is indeed a different thing.

 

[EE94]

I'm a wee bit baffled by how most of us at newspapers work.

Our life work is collecting informantion and communicating.

But, in the office, all that is forgotten.

Why not find a reasonable way to ask your editor what is going on and why?

Because you are assuming all editors are reasonable and would have a reasonable reaction. That's not always the case.

Plus, even if I were a reasonable SE, I'm not sure how I would react to someone asking me why a certain person is getting the plums.

I'll consider it a badge of honor that I've had to have this conversation with a a number of folks over the years. (A badge because they weren't afraid to come in and ask.)
To be honest, sometimes I wasn't even aware of the perception that someone was getting favorable treatment, and I would explain it was a matter of using the resources based on scheduling, availability, fit, other duties, whatever.
And sometimes I had to explain it was because I thought the person in question was best suited for that particular job for whatever reasons.
People weren't always happy, but often it was a good opportunity for impromptu performance reviews and discussions that were far more fruitful than the mandated kind.

 

[Ace]

If I give you the local garage sale to cover and you don't come through or you give me 300 words of crap, you don't get another assignment. If you go to some nothing-seeming event and you find out something that turns out to be front page-worthy and you give me quality copy that's clean, I keep you in mind when I've assigned stories to my full-time reporters and I need someone to cover something important.

Amen.

Once had a former colleague on the desk complain that he could do a better job designing the front cover of the sport section instead of the inside pages that I kept giving him. His reasoning was that he could do a better job if he had bigger (i.e. more important) stories to work with.

My response was, if you did better with the pages I do give you, then maybe you'd get a chance to do the bigger (i.e. more important) pages.

He never did, so I never gave him any. Simple as that.

I have seen this syndrome often. Had full-time clerks who wanted to be writers. Would say, "Look, you can get the opportunity, but first you have to show that you can do this job well."

They would say, "Yeah, but I really want to write. I know I can do it if you let me."

Me: "Show me you can do the clerk job well and you'll get the chance."

They: "What's that got to do with writing? If you give me the chance I know I can do it."

Me thinking: "Well, that's another clerk I don't have to feel guilty about never giving a writing assignment to."

 

[Ike Broflovski]

Rubadubdub mentioned something on his original post that no one seems to be picking up on (and I'm a little surprised).

It's one thing to have a star system, but what if that system is perceived by the public to have an effect on the way the news is covered or presented? If I were the editors, I'd feel uncomfortable about that, especially because the newspaper is not serving a large community.

It's as if the readers know that if Star Writer is not sent to the game, their game isn't as important. Maybe it isn't, but I sure as hell wouldn't want the readers to know that beforehand. The readers have apparently picked up on the fact that there is a star system, and that, to me, is the problem, not whether Star Writer gets to cover all the big games.

 

[BillySixty]

Wait, let's go back. You are at a 20K paper and have three writers? Wow.

I'm at a 20K paper and we have three on the staff total.