A year ago this week, about 200 now-former employees of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, including almost half the newsroom, learned they would lose their jobs and that their newspaper—175 years old, but still lively, potent, and deeply interwoven into the life of a great American city—would be seriously diminished.
Although The New York Times had weeks earlier broken in broad-brush strokes news of the coming restructuring, the axe finally fell on June, 12, 2012. Throughout the day, employees left distressingly brief meetings in which they learned their individual professional fates and faced throngs of anxious colleagues. Most signaled the outcome of those meeting with either a “thumbs-up” gesture or a slash across the throat. As veteran religion reporter Bruce Nolan later recounted to CJR’s Ryan Chittum, “I came out, and I walked through a corridor and into the newsroom, where everyone is standing around. It’s a death march. Every face turns to me, and I draw my finger across my throat. It was stunning.” Scores then logged on to a private Facebook page created for current and former employees and supporters, and typed the symbol reporters historically used to signal to editors that the story had come to an end: -30-.
I was a Times-Picayune reporter from 1988-1994 and am now writing a book about the ultimately failed grassroots battle to save the daily newspaper and the dynamics in the newspaper industry that served as a backdrop to the radical plan implemented by the paper’s owner, Advance Publications, which is closely held by New York’s Newhouse family. As part of the research for the book, I hired Carey Stapleton, a doctoral candidate at the University of New Orleans, who also works for the UNO Survey Research Center, to help me conduct a survey of current and former employees of NOLA Media Group (the corporate entity that succeeded the now-dissolved parent of the Times-Picayune).
We’re making the survey public today:
The online poll was administered May 18-28. I issued invitations to take it through a private Facebook page and a confidential email I sent to roughly 100 former and current employees whom I either know personally or who had received assistance through dashTHIRTYdash, the fund I helped establish to assist those who lost their jobs.
The survey is not scientific but does comprise a representative sample of the Times-Picayune workforce before the restructuring. Ultimately, 126 people took the survey, 101 former and 25 current employees, out of roughly 600 employed by the company at the time of the changes. Because of the way the data was collected, the survey should be seen as a snapshot of the thoughts and feelings of self-selected current and former employees. Still, the findings give sense of the profound sense of betrayal felt by members of the Times-Picayune community toward the company’s hierarchy.
NOLA Media Group President Ricky Mathews and Vice President of Content Jim Amoss have not responded to requests for interviews for my book, and did not respond to an email request Wednesday for an interview or comment for this report.
Among the survey’s findings:
—Almost no one thought the changes had been handled well. Among current employees, 85 percent disagreed with the statement that the company had done a good job handling the changes and among former employees, disagreement was virtually unanimous. As one respondent wrote: “The way the layoffs were handled was a huge lesson in what NOT to do.” Another said: “As the end drew near, as I showed up for work for more than three months knowing I had no future there, I had to accept that I had been deleted and there was no ‘undo’ key.”
I've been following this story since the beginning, but I'm not sure why this was even worth a survey, let alone the title "exclusive". Or better yet, why this survey didn't take the opportunity to ask more pertinent questions of those former and current employees.
Anyone who's ever been through a layoff (whether they made it through the cuts or not) knows that it's a painful affair. Those that leave are often bitter about the way things were handled because they're the ones left scrambling to figure out their next move. Some of those that stay behind also often carry lingering bitterness about it because it's heart wrenching to see your colleagues being shown the door. This isn't new.
It's especially hard if there's no warning the jobs will end on a certain date, which is at least what these employees had. From a personal, financial standpoint, I'd rather have the 3 months to continue working plus severance pkg, versus showing up for work and being shown the door -- the latter of which is more often the case than not. Just ask a laid-off employee from ESPN, Zynga, or IBM which they'd rather have, and I'm sure they'd answer the same. One of those companies' employees reportedly arrived one morning to an unexpected letter on their desk addressed to "Dear Departing Employee", and were escorted from the premises hours later. I'm not sure we'd need a survey to know how those employees will feel a year from now.
It's also not news that some of those T-P employees that stayed will choose to leave at some point. A layoff is nasty business, and it changes the way people view their beloved employers. It reminds people they work for a business and at the end of the day, profits are what matters over employee sentiment.
I ached at the loss of the daily T-P and felt horrible over the accompanying layoffs, so I really don't mean to come off as callous and insensitive. But now this type of "exclusive" just feels like a page view grab, or means to hawk a book, which I really hope wasn't the point.
#1 Posted by Genuinely Confused, CJR on Sat 15 Jun 2013 at 12:10 PM
I'm looking forward to reading this book. You can't dismiss what happened to the staff at the TimesP as just the downsizing of another company. People who work at newspapers see their work as a calling, not just a job. There is value in understanding how this important player in New Orleans life has been diminished and how the victims of its loss are coping.
This scenario has/ or is likely to play out in other cities and towns as well.
#2 Posted by Neena, CJR on Mon 17 Jun 2013 at 07:56 PM
There is a lesson here. The Newhouse family convinced its employees not to unionize by promising fair treatment in the workplace, including a pledge not to lay off non-union employees during hard times. Of course, hard times hit, and the pledge went by the wayside, and the employees were left on their own, without even a union to represent them. Lesson: Don't be a sucker for empty promises from a company to prevent unionization. Chances are they are preparing to stick it to you.
#3 Posted by Dave, CJR on Mon 17 Jun 2013 at 08:41 PM
Genuinely Confused-
I see and respect your points, but change your prospective; this is Social Science- so these numbers help quantify how greed destroyed one of this countries oldest and most beloved media outlets, and others replaced it.
Granted, 5 out of 4 of us are bad at fractions + she is doing a book so....
Insert Mark Twain quote on stats here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
As a trained professional Artist, and hear all the time how people value "Art", but know much they value those who make it for a living from it. "Heck I could paint that".
The same goes with Journalism-
We say we value it, but do we value those who write it?
How do we reward and pay for ethics?
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
and make all consider the source first while ignoring karaoke writers fishing for "hits" and comments.
All said, we need Rebecca Theim #s, I can't wait to read her book- but that's only after I read my morning Advocate - http://theadvocate.com/news/neworleans
Best from Freret,
Andy Brott
#4 Posted by Andy Brott, CJR on Tue 18 Jun 2013 at 09:45 AM
Genuinely Confused got it right. Newspapering is a business. Would those who complain that newspapers are greedy agree to work without getting paid?
#5 Posted by Ralph Poore, CJR on Tue 18 Jun 2013 at 10:43 AM
Ralph, I think everyone in journalism is well aware that newspapers are businesses. And while few can afford to work for free, I'm willing to bet most of those on the editorial side could have made MUCH more money had they chosen different careers.
Only the super naive go into journalism expecting to get rich. It's a calling. I and many of my co-workers were willing to put up with crap pay, sub-par benefits, 60+ -hour work weeks (with no overtime) because we wanted to make a difference in our communities.
Newhouse/Advanced/whatever put a lot of talented, dedicated employees out on the street in the name of profit. What was once a respected name in journalism is now the butt of jokes.
#6 Posted by Vague Nomenclature, CJR on Thu 20 Jun 2013 at 05:49 PM
I've felt the pain of the budget ax my fair share of times in journalism. And yes, many folks resent that, but how is that notable or newsworthy?
Everyone ever laid off resents it. There is no obligation for the paper to keep publishing under a 20th century model that doesn't fit today's reality.
Ultimately, if you don't like how they do it, do it better. Get backing, hire people, make money and report news. The Lens is trying that. Of course, it's also funded by lefty moneybags George Soros.
http://thelensnola.org/2012/05/24/open-society-renews-grant/
#7 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Sat 22 Jun 2013 at 08:42 AM
I came into journalism late and realized it is where I should have been all my life. But now I am old and have watched as newspaper after newspaper downsized, merged or went out of business. No newspaper has been unaffected by television and several generations of people who read very little. But that's life where survival of the fittest is the name of the game. It's tragic when lives are disrupted as a result of jobs lost, but it happens in every industry. As the Latin phrase goes: Omnia mutantur nos et mutamur in illis. All things change, and we change with them. We grieve and then we move on.
#8 Posted by Jere Joiner, CJR on Sat 22 Jun 2013 at 11:16 AM