It is disturbing, to say the least, to see American newspapers chewing their own legs off as they try to cope with a long-predicted but now very real collapse in their business.
Not long ago, it was the Tribune Co.’s Hartford Courant jettisoning a consumer-news columnist George Gombossy amid a welter of charges that the paper did it to curry favor with advertisers who didn’t care for Gombossy’s gung-ho investigative style.
Now the Times’s David Carr tells the story of 288 journalists and advertising employees made to apply for jobs they already had at the Gannett Co.’s Westchester County franchise, the Journal News.
This being Gannett, the reapplication process was carried out with all the tact and humanity one might expect from Bank of America’s loan-workout desk. Employees—those with sufficient need of job and the stomach for a little corporate humiliation—were made to fill out an application on the corporate Website, “Sharepoint,” then submit to interviews with what Carr reports were corporate “human resources executives pulled in by Gannett.” The employees were either handed an offer letter or their walking papers, then were left to descend to the newsroom to flash a “thumbs up” sign to awaiting colleagues, or, depending on how it went, some other hand gesture.
The idea, apparently, is that the paper wants reporters who can blog, Twitter, Facebook, video, and what have you, and this was a way to get rid of those who can’t.
Carr goes along with it:
On one level, the plan seems to make sense. Advertising revenue has dropped more than 30 percent in the last year at the Journal News. On the plus side, blogs at the newspaper’s highly evolved, highly local Website account for 20 percent of the traffic there, four times higher than the industry average, according to Ken Doctor, a media analyst at Outsell. Redefining beat reporting jobs with blogging, video and social media baked in is arguably a plan for the long haul.
On another level, it could be yet another plan to chase to the latest fad while resorting to the oldest tactic in the Panicking News Managers Handbook: speeding up the journalistic hamster wheel to make reporters crank out more copy, faster, at the expense of depth reporting and careful writing.
I’m not sure if this has penetrated the consciousness of news executives around the country, but let me spell it out for you: In journalism, as in many things, there are trade-offs. At a certain point, as the quantity of copy increases, the quality goes down. You can practically graph it. The medium doesn’t really matter. The more time you spend blogging, Facetwittering, or, for that matter, rewriting press releases, the less time you spend reporting—talking to people, chasing leads, reading documents, and putting it in some kind of sensible order. It is kind of like physics. In fact, it’s exactly like physics. It is freaking physics.
Local newspapers have one main competitive advantage over every other medium: the ability to gather compelling local news that no one else has and present it before readers in a coherent way. Once they get it, there is nothing wrong with trying to amplify the impact via social media or blogs. (Updating: I should mention that of course it’s fine and valuable to use new media for news gathering and interacting with and learning from readers.)
But the key is to find compelling stories to tell. Random information is not going to cut it.
When Chuck Schumer shows up in White Plains to say that the “federal government must do a better job of keeping sex offenders out public housing,” are we sure it’s worth a reporter’s time to write it up, especially when we know this has nothing to do with Westchester County?
Schumer: Enforce ban on sex offenders in public housing
A recent report showed that thousands of sex offenders are living in subsidized housing nationally in violation of the rules, Schumer said.Although none of them live in the White Plains housing units, Schumer estimated there are as many as 477 sex offenders living in Westchester, 109 in Rockland and 38 in Putnam, making it plausible they could move into such housing.

This is an EXCELLENT observation -- I will share it with my editor -- actually, I won;t b/c then I would get fired....
"I’m not sure if this has penetrated the consciousness of news executives around the country, but let me spell it out for you: In journalism, as in many things, there are trade-offs. At a certain point, as the quantity of copy increases, the quality goes down. You can practically graph it. The medium doesn’t really matter. The more time you spend blogging, Facetwittering, or, for that matter, rewriting press releases, the less time you spend reporting—talking to people, chasing leads, reading documents, and putting it in some kind of sensible order. It is kind of like physics. In fact, it’s exactly like physics. It is freaking physics."
#1 Posted by Concerned Reporter, CJR on Mon 31 Aug 2009 at 05:38 PM
I'm a grouchy old magazine editor. I have no heroes.
Dean Starkman is my hero.
John Mecklin
Editor in Chief
Miller-McCune magazine
#2 Posted by John Mecklin, CJR on Mon 31 Aug 2009 at 08:30 PM
Just because you have never heard Ken Doctor doesn't mean the rest of us haven't. Many folks who I know in online media know exactly who Ken Doctor is.
It is rather lame for you to denigrate Doctor because you disagree with David Carr.
#3 Posted by David Mastio, CJR on Wed 2 Sep 2009 at 02:27 PM
This is one of the most insightful encapsulations of what the newspaper business is experiencing I've read. As much as I'd prefer to ride this submarine into the ocean floor, it seems it's time to move on.
Journalists like to talk about the oath of poverty we take when we enter this profession. But that oath is broken when you are forced to produce so much content you're no longer doing those altruistic things you signed up for.
I've said I'm sad about the downfall of the business too many times. I'm not sad anymore. I'm resigned.
#4 Posted by LizEllen, CJR on Wed 2 Sep 2009 at 02:42 PM
Great Job Deano!!
#5 Posted by scott mackay, CJR on Wed 2 Sep 2009 at 03:43 PM
David Mastio, Yes, it is lame. I should have found a different way to say that I didn't think Doctor's findings were particularly useful or relevant.
LizEllen, Thanks, and keep the faith. Maybe the current turmoil will allow journalists and journalism to get out from under the dead hand of the "business" as currently constituted. Here's hoping.
John Mecklin. You're awfully kind. Would you mind putting a word in for me with Mastio?
As for you, Concerned Reporter: Get back to work!
#6 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Wed 2 Sep 2009 at 03:55 PM
Oh, and thanks, Scotty!
#7 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Wed 2 Sep 2009 at 03:59 PM
FYI, blogging and "Facetwittering," as your snide and ignorant dismissal puts it, don't have to take away time from reporting. They can be excellent tools to improve reporting, for finding story ideas and identifying sources. You ought to try learning about it.
#8 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Wed 2 Sep 2009 at 05:00 PM
But, It makes no sense (Carr) to lay off reporters who cannot "blog, Twitter, Facebook, and video" because those skills can be taught fairly quickly. It makes more sense to retain experienced journalists and train them in these simple skills.
Is there instead a strategy at work to get rid of the higher-paid, older journalists?
#9 Posted by Suzanne B., CJR on Wed 2 Sep 2009 at 07:22 PM
Dean, I'm right there with you when it comes to lamenting the stupidity and shortsightedness that passes for management in the front offices of most newspapers these days. Reading the L.A. Times every morning (yes, I still pick it up from my driveway although I've noticed that what I'm seeing is what ran on the website the night before) has become an exercise in masochism.
However, belittling the social media tools that offer new ways of communicating the news only makes you part of the problem. Do you honestly believe that communication via the web, using text, video, photos, etc. in a more compelling interactive fashion WON'T eventually supplant newspapers as our source for quality reporting?
I don't believe it's a choice between high journalistic standards and technology. Just because no one's figured out the business model yet doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. And soon. What Gannett's doing is just one more idiotic move in a long line of idiotic moves by media owners. It's stupid and ridiculous, but it certainly doesn't invalidate the change that's coming. I'm just crossing my fingers that there are smarter people than these yahoos figuring out how to make it all work.
#10 Posted by Dan Hutson, CJR on Wed 2 Sep 2009 at 08:21 PM
This appears to be Starkman's Twitter account:
http://twitter.com/deanstarkman
It has just one message, dated April 23:
Now what do I do?
#11 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Wed 2 Sep 2009 at 11:38 PM
Bradley, Dan:
This is a non-debate. Why would anyone oppose using social media for reporting? As I said:
"(Updating: I should mention that of course it’s fine and valuable to use new media for news gathering and interacting with and learning from readers.)"
It was an afterthought because it's so obvious.
Dan, we obviously agree. Putting out a good news report is what's important. Using social media for its own sake, that's worse than useless.
And whatever our disagreements, gentlemen, surely we can agree that to mock a man's Twittering disability in public is needlessly cruel. Are there no limits?
#12 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 08:36 AM
Dean, fair enough,
Twitter can be like a police scanner. You find reliable experts who are quick with information, and follow them. You can also contribute your own information, building your reputation and gaining contacts.
But where to begin? A good place is with fellow journos, like:
Steve Outing: http://twitter.com/steveouting
Jeff Jarvis: http://twitter.com/jeffjarvis
Howard Owens: http://twitter.com/howardowens
Here's a guide to Twitter by a PR guy who has mastered it: http://bit.ly/ofl8M
Here's my story about Twitter: http://bit.ly/FJ9aR
I've established two accounts, one for personal use at my name, twitter.com/bradleyfikes and one for business use, twitter.com/sandiegoscience
If you really get into Twitter, use a reader like Tweetdeck that lets you organize your feeds into customized categories.
Good luck!
#13 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 09:05 AM
Amen, Dean. For the life of me, I've always wondered why newspapers continue pile more semi-meaningful content onto the audience when it should be sticking to its true talent – making sense of mounds of information – and then posting the best stuff of the day online/in the paper.
In this way, the paper would sort of position itself above the Web minutia to ferret out – and create – the most compelling content. It's like a hybrid from of a search engine, only the search engine is staffed with brilliant writers.
For everyone's sake, I hope they figure this out soon.
#14 Posted by AdamK, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 01:06 PM
Bradley, I was joking about my Twitter disabilities being out of bounds; they're fair game, of course. But actually your lesson is very helpful. Thanks.
AdamK, Thanks for your comment. In the past, news bureaucrats could coast by burying risky stories and cranking out safe news that everyone already knew. Now there's nowhere to hide. In my view, doing great journalism is the only way forward. Sounds obvious, but as we see, many news leaders would rather do anything but.
#15 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Wed 9 Sep 2009 at 07:11 AM