USAT reorg

[HejiraHenry]

The person in charge of Olympics coverage, which is a very big deal at Yahoo! because of the clicks it generates for the Yahoo.com front page, is a woman.

Who is that?

 

[geddymurphy]

My goodness -- the Romenesko report on this is way off. Someone tells him "the online managers" are in control and making the print people all re-apply.

What "online managers"? There's a new management team over the whole group -- Beusse, Morgan, the BNQT people, etc. Whoever's casting it as print-vs-online is so far behind the times that I hope he/she saves everyone the trouble and packs up now.

Good grief.

 

[geddymurphy]

Bumping up because we should hear who's filling the top editors' jobs this week.

 

[Fran Curci]

I guess they are not bringing anyone in from Cincinnati.

Do we think they are looking first at people from other Gannett papers?

 

[geddymurphy]

I guess they are not bringing anyone in from Cincinnati.

Do we think they are looking first at people from other Gannett papers?

I doubt it. I'd imagine they're looking at Beusse/Morgan/Ahern favorites from elsewhere. Hopefully also looking at people who already have these jobs or similar jobs at USAT.

(I'm overstating slightly, but yeah, I can't imagine they'd bump a USATer for someone else within Gannett. Finding room for "their guys" would be something different. Could be wrong, but I'd be really surprised.)

 

[Fran Curci]

True; cronyism certainly helped with hiring of editors at Yahoo. Not that they didn't hire talented cronies.

 

[geddymurphy]

True; cronyism certainly helped with hiring of editors at Yahoo. Not that they didn't hire talented cronies.

Sure. The difference was that Yahoo was building up. USAT is renovating. Could be bad for some of the people who've been there a while.

 

[Fran Curci]

You're right. If they don't do a serious shake-up, it'll look like they failed. Prediction: Monte Lorell gets moved over to handle either a) vague job on news desk; b) "new products and innovations" outside of the newsroom; or c) special assistant at corporate offices in McLean.

 

[Joe Williams]

You're right. If they don't do a serious shake-up, it'll look like they failed. Prediction: Monte Lorell gets moved over to handle either a) vague job on news desk; b) "new products and innovations" outside of the newsroom; or c) special assistant at corporate offices in McLean.

Funny how the management layer rarely looks as hard at its own as a place to shed $. Rank-and-filers rarely get put to pasture in dead-end positions wtih full pay and benefits but, yes, we see it quite often with those higher up on the ladders.

BTW, this business doesn't pay nearly enough to treat itself like a true meritocracy. There should be some obligation to the people who've built lives around their jobs and workplaces, as long as they're willing and able to work hard and perform well. New bosses deciding to purchase or rearrange furniture to satisfy their own whims and friendships are wrong to wreak havoc on grunt-workers' lives.

Pay pro-sport salaries and that would be more tolerable. Every year worked could fund 4-5 years unemployed down the road. But at these rates? A huge part of being a manager is to make things work with the staff you inherit.

 

[Editude]

According to the Gannett Blog, several top editors have been let go.

 

[thegrifter]

Wondering who

 

[Fran Curci]

Gannett blog sez: The dismantling of Sports has begun at USA Today. Out: editor Monte Lorell, deputy Jim Welsh, senior editor Matt Cimento and several others. Reporters and coluumnists learn their fate next month.

So who is in charge? Alexander Haig?

 

[MileHigh]

That's more than a dismantling. That's a nuclear bomb.

 

[geddymurphy]

Gannett blog sez: The dismantling of Sports has begun at USA Today. Out: editor Monte Lorell, deputy Jim Welsh, senior editor Matt Cimento and several others. Reporters and coluumnists learn their fate next month.

So who is in charge? Alexander Haig?

Morgan via remote control.

My goodness -- Gannett Blog is really out at sea about all this. No post about it. I couldn't even find it in the comments. But there's a full post about a link to the USAT store. One of these days, Jim is going to have to bite the bullet and study how the Web works beyond his blog.

 

[steveu]

Geddy, did you just do a Chuck reference on us? If so, well played.

 

[geddymurphy]

Geddy, did you just do a Chuck reference on us? If so, well played.

Sadly, I wasn't aware of it. I'm not that clever.

 

[steveu]

Ahh, that's all right. There happened to be a character on Chuck named Morgan, so I thought I'd ask.

Okay, back to topic: I wonder what the hell will happen? Will they have people re-applying for jobs or just hire from the outside to replace them? Lower salaries, of course... but worth a thought.

 

[geddymurphy]

Ahh, that's all right. There happened to be a character on Chuck named Morgan, so I thought I'd ask.

Okay, back to topic: I wonder what the hell will happen? Will they have people re-applying for jobs or just hire from the outside to replace them? Lower salaries, of course... but worth a thought.

From what little I've heard, they announced seven or so management positions were open, and they interviewed for them. Some inside, some outside. But it looks like Monte Lorell was always going to be replaced by Gerry Ahern, who has functioned as Morgan's hatchet man in the past. Good cop / bad cop, that sort of thing.

But I haven't heard anything about what else has happened. Other than the Posnanski hiring, which (quite rightly) has its own thread.

 

[geddymurphy]

Now hearing we (in other words, Gannett Blog's commenters) may have things a bit wrong. The three guys they mentioned may not be out of work, to be precise. But they haven't landed any of the management jobs that were announced this week, which leaves them in a state of limbo.

This is incomplete information, of course. I'm sharing it only because the information from Gannett Blog's commenters appears to be less complete than we thought, too.

(EDIT: I've also heard from elsewhere that MORE than three people are gone. Can't believe the details haven't been brought to light. Does anyone care?)

 

[geddymurphy]

Word from the building is that the grand chart of jobs for which everyone can re-apply has more open positions than current staffers.

The game might be changing.

I'm not sure I'd trust Gannett to stick with this grand push for more than two years. But would you want to take one of these jobs for at least that long?