Wednesday, September 28, 2005
NEWSPAPERS: Another 352 news positions cut at six U.S. papers
COLUMNIST'S TITLE: The Last Cut is the Deepest
After a week of budget moves cut over 350 newsroom jobs at six major
papers, the question must be asked: How can newspapers with fewer, and
less experienced, staffers expect to build audience and influence?
By Joe Strupp
Editor & Publisher Magazine
NEW YORK (September 25, 2005) -- As Popeye used to say, .That's all I can
stands, I can't stands no more!. Even as an ex-sailor man, he may have
never worked at a newspaper, but for many of us who have -- and those
souls who still do and now face a sudden epidemic of buyout/layoff plans
-- the sentiment is no doubt spreading.
In the past week or so, six of the country's major daily newspapers have
revealed plans to kill more than 350 jobs through a mix of buyouts and
layoffs. Since just last Tuesday, The New York Times, The Boston Globe,
Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News and, most recently, San
Jose Mercury News, have announced plans that will eliminate roughly 232
newsroom jobs, in addition to dozens more in non-editorial positions.
Add to that the 120 or so jobs expected to be lost at the San Francisco
Chronicle, which less than two weeks ago announced it was close to
reaching that mark for a buyout offer, and 352 newsroom positions at just
six newspapers will be history. And those are just the ones we've heard
about in recent weeks.
No telling what budget-slashing knife is being sharpened elsewhere in this
Honey-We-Shrunk-the-Newsroom business, much of it in the name of greed or
at least bottom-line paranoia.
In most of these cases, cuts are the answer not to low profits, but to
less-than-acceptable profits. For each of these newspapers .- all owned by
major media chains -- making money has not been a problem. The question
has been making "enough money," a subjective phrase if there ever was one.
In most cases, enough money is what meets Wall Street expectations and
projections, not an acceptable income from a business hit by tough times.
Except for the Chronicle, which has proven through outside audits that it
has actually lost tens of millions of dollars annually in recent years,
the massive job reductions are in many ways a quick way to boost current
But it is clear that neither the Globe nor Times are losing money. And
when Joseph Natoli, publisher of the Knight Ridder-owned Inquirer and
Daily News, spoke with me last week, he declared his papers' profit
margins were in the .low teens.. This is not bad for most businesses.
So why the mass forced-exodus of personnel? At a time when newspapers are
competing more than ever with any number of growing media competitors,
what on earth makes anyone think they can boost their reach and appeal by
cutting staff? Especially when achieved largely by buying out valuable,
experienced staffers? Despite the brave words of editors, this can only
slowly erode quality.
If fewer people are buying a product -- whether it's a newspaper or a can
of soup -- how does decreasing the quality of that product make it sell
better? Newspapers cannot cover news better with fewer people. The six
newspapers involved in the latest cuts have won a combined 136 Pulitzer
Prizes since the awards were first given 88 years ago. If cuts keep
occurring, don't expect such lofty award numbers during the next 88 years.
While the Times, with some 1,200 editorial staffers, can pretty much
continue to do its premiere job with 45 fewer people, the hit on the other
job-slashing dailies will surely have a negative impact.
I understand that we are in tough times in this business and cost-cutting
is needed. But systematically dismantling your newsrooms so drastically is
If papers want to entice new readers and bring back old ones, they should
change the way they report events. In short, that means giving those who
focus more on the Web and broadcast outlets a reason to pick up the paper.
And it won't be done by trying to compete with bloggers on the cheap.
Joe Strupp (firstname.lastname@example.org) is a senior editor at E&P.
This article above is copyrighted material, the use of which may not have specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of political, economic, democracy, First Amendment, technology, journalism, community and justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' as provided by Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 107, the material above is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog for purposes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.