News Industry Workers Fight Back Against Corporate Assault on Journalism, Jobs

[2:30]

Washington, D.C. -- Newsroom reporters, commercial employees, television technicians, writers and other workers in the news industry are standing up to media owners and corporations that are seeking to slash newspaper jobs to generate higher profits.

A “Day of Action” is set for Monday, Dec. 11, when members of TNG-CWA and other unions will alert the public that the quality and diversity of news coverage that readers now depend on is at risk, as corporations focus on building profits, not comprehensive news coverage.

TNG-CWA has launched a new web site, www.savejournalism.org, (http://www.savejournalism.org,) with information about the jobs that have been lost and the effects these cutbacks have on quality news. The site also will include updates about actions planned for Dec. 11 and other developments in the news industry.

“News industry workers are taking the lead in the fight to preserve quality journalism,” said TNG-CWA President Linda Foley. “Across the country, workers will be standing together for journalism and against growing efforts by corporate owners to slash the jobs and resources that serve our communities.”

More than 44,000 news industry employees lost their jobs between 2001 and June 2006, at least 34,000 of them at newspapers alone. Thousands more cuts have been announced or threatened in just the past few weeks, at newspapers in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Calif., St. Paul, Minn., and other cities, serving large and small communities.

As a result, “today, throughout the country, there are fewer journalists, fewer diverse media voices, less news and a public that is under-informed,” Foley said. “That’s why we’re asking the public to join us -- for democracy's sake -- to say no to cutting the jobs of journalists and all workers whose work supports good journalism.”

The Federal Communications Commission will hold its second public hearing on media ownership issues in Nashville, Tenn., on Dec. 11, and TNG-CWA members from several locals will be out in force, speaking out against allowing corporations to own more media outlets, a change the FCC is considering. At the first FCC hearing in Los Angeles, more than 1,000 people turned out to express overwhelming opposition to the changes that would harm journalism, readers and communities.

Among events already on the schedule:

• TNG-CWA members in Pittsburgh will hold a Dec. 11 news conference and other actions to focus on their efforts to keep quality journalism at the Post-Gazette.

• In San Jose, newspaper workers will get an early start by wearing black on Monday, Dec. 4, the date workers are slated to receive word of potential layoffs. Other TNG-CWA locals also are planning events that day to support workers at the San Jose Mercury News.

• Newspaper workers at the Philadelphia Inquirer are continuing to bargain in the face of a contract extension that expires midnight tonight, Nov. 30. TNG-CWA members are facing major demands for givebacks from the newspaper’s new owner.

TNG-CWA members also are planning community events and workshops, inside actions to show solidarity and support, and will distribute stickers, wrist bands and bumper stickers as the campaign continues.

For updates and more news, go to www.savejournalism.org. (http://www.savejournalism.org.)

[Lazlo Toth]

Take two.

[Kace]

And call me in the morning.

[Clever Login Name]

So the dinosaurs are running around wondering why it's gotten so cold out and there's not enough for them to eat anymore. Guess a meteor, bearing a striking resemblance to the Internet, just smashed into their world and turned everything dark and grim.

Metaphors aside, the dead-tree media are seeing their circulation numbers nose-dive as people come to realize they can get their information -- and often plenty of other relevant material your big dailies choose to ignore -- from the Internet. That these self-involved newspaper employees don't see or realize this is comical. Yes, sure, it's Big Corporate pushing for "even greater" profits. No, sorry, it's a business that's struggling to survive because technology has left it behind. I'm not saying I welcome that, because I think there's room for newspapers too in today's world. But failing to acknowledge the obvious doesn't help your cause.

[Produce man]

Print is dead.

[Vulcan]

There is no Corporate Assault on journalism.

We live in a shifting market, and the current demand won't support the old structures.

You want to know who is killing newspapers?

Craigslist.

The cash-cow profit center of the newspapers has long been the classified ads. Craigslist gives them away for free, and the new tech has undercut the market.

[Another side]

I'm not convinced that newspapers OR TV news are victims of masses of people scurrying to get their news off the internet. I simply don't know (or know of) many people who routinely sit down at a computer and say, OK ... I guess I'll find out what the news of the day, is." Most people I know get their (local) news from newspapers and drive-time radio, and their (national) news from cable and broadcast TV. After all, clicking and pointing a cursor is no easier than turning the page or clicking the remote.

That's not to say they don't then go online to learn more about a specific story, or debate the various sides of the story. That's what we do here.

My own view is, newspaper circulation and the number of TV news viewers has dropped because (a)the news products have become predictable and irrelevant; (b)the general public continues to lose trust in media organizations on a daily basis; (c) corporations address these problems by trying to please stockholders at the expense of readers/viewers; and(d) the daily routines and lifestyles have changed dramatically since the media haydays of Cronkite, Hearst and even Katherine Graham and Ben Bradlee.

People have too many valid interests now -- one example: there is a small high school in my market (maybe 1000 students) that has 30 different sports teams. Think about that ... thirty! You want to know where those young to middle age couples are that used to sit in front of TV news, while thumbing through the paper? They're at practice ... or the game ... or the meet or match.

And those who aren't are working second jobs, or fulfilling "to-do" lists or attending this committee meeting or that one. Their lives are harried, and it's difficult to slow them down with news they believe to be irrelevant, predictable and untrustworthy.

How often, right here on Medialine, do we read something from a fellow newsie, who you would think has SOME desire to be informed, saying he or she stopped watching the news after leaving the business? And I don't recall any of them adding, "I just got my news online."

As to the prepostorous notion that "newspapers are dead": Sorry, but they're still the Elephant in any community - the people who vote, serve, teach and direct your businesses subscribe. Fewer working stiffs do, I agree, but they're not rushing home to sit in front of the computer to "get their news from the internet" either.

Ons small disagreement, Vulcan, on an otherwise excellent post: the "cash cow' of daily newspapers is not (and never has been)classified ads --it's "legal ads" (or "Legal Notices")that sell at 10 times the rate, MUST run for a set number of days by law, and require no work from the newspaper classified staff. It's free money and a lot of it. For weekly newspapers, it's the grocery ad -- that's why most weeklies come out on Tuesdays or Wednesdays, because people grocery shop toward the end of the week.

[ December 01, 2006, 03:11 AM: Message edited by: Another side ]

[Vulcan]

For more on Craigslist (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20061123_001248.html), and the online storm. (Cringely is an awesome beat reporter.)

And Another Side -- I agree about the legal ads. Just wait until the online folks lobby to change the definition of "publication" to remove the newspaper monopoly.

Cue Ozzy: "I fell off the rails of the gravy train!"

[Bureau Chief]

Originally posted by Lazlo Toth:
Take two.Take two what? :confused:

[Bureau Chief]

I used to get three papers every day. Not anymore. I get all I need right here on the net. This and the fact that my dog has finally gotten house trained means I dont need to look at all the crap to find the good articles. I dropped my hometown paper after looking through it one Sunday and I found exactly two local articles in there, every single other bit of news in there was straight off the AP feed. Why bother? If print is not dead, it certainly is on a respirator and in very critcal condition. I suggest a "DNR" order. (do not resusitate") Its time we stop knocking down trees, flattening them, printing old news on them and then throwing them away.

[ December 01, 2006, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: Bureau Chief ]

[Sir Dropham Pants]

Hasn't the spread of the internets increased diversity in voice? Anyone with a phone line, fingers and a brain stem can write a blog and have their voice heard. There's more access to information and stories (i.e. journalism) because of computers than there's ever been. I think technology is as much to blame for downsizing of news jobs as anything else. Let's not forget the most often forgotten rule of this business... IT'S A BUSINESS. If a corporation (evil or otherwise) owning a tv station, radio station or newspaper can get the same job done with 2 people as opposed to 4 what do you think they're going to choose?
Oops, it's time for my break. Please excuse me.

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Sir Dropham Pants:
Hasn't the spread of the internets increased diversity in voice? Anyone with a phone line, fingers and a brain stem can write a blog and have their voice heard. There's more access to information and stories (i.e. journalism) because of computers than there's ever been. I think technology is as much to blame for downsizing of news jobs as anything else. Let's not forget the most often forgotten rule of this business... IT'S A BUSINESS. If a corporation (evil or otherwise) owning a tv station, radio station or newspaper can get the same job done with 2 people as opposed to 4 what do you think they're going to choose?
Oops, it's time for my break. Please excuse me.No, they can create the APPEARANCE of the same product with 2 people as opposed to 4. Yep, the paper still weighs the same, the broadcast still takes up the same amount of time, but the viewer can see the difference, and the numbers reflect that.

More staff can equal more depth, actual news coverage instead of just filling time, and time to spend on crafting individual stories instead of cranking one out for the next catastrophe waiting to happen.

[Nigel Wick]

I recently covered a candidate in a statewide election. There must have been a half dozen newspaper photogs from across the state, snapping away as he voted. Some had to travel four hours to get there. Why so many? Let one or two guys shoot and send it out it on AP. Monumental waste of money. No wonder newspapers are in the crapper.

[Sir Dropham Pants]

Originally posted by Mockingbird with cranberry sauce:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sir Dropham Pants:
Hasn't the spread of the internets increased diversity in voice? Anyone with a phone line, fingers and a brain stem can write a blog and have their voice heard. There's more access to information and stories (i.e. journalism) because of computers than there's ever been. I think technology is as much to blame for downsizing of news jobs as anything else. Let's not forget the most often forgotten rule of this business... IT'S A BUSINESS. If a corporation (evil or otherwise) owning a tv station, radio station or newspaper can get the same job done with 2 people as opposed to 4 what do you think they're going to choose?
Oops, it's time for my break. Please excuse me.No, they can create the APPEARANCE of the same product with 2 people as opposed to 4. Yep, the paper still weighs the same, the broadcast still takes up the same amount of time, but the viewer can see the difference, and the numbers reflect that.

More staff can equal more depth, actual news coverage instead of just filling time, and time to spend on crafting individual stories instead of cranking one out for the next catastrophe waiting to happen.</font>[/QUOTE]I agree completely. But remember, I'm coming at it from a bottom line standpoint. Most companies out there will accept the loss of depth in exchange for the growth (or holding steady) of the bottom line.

[The Mockingbird]

They're not holding steady, though.

They're just eating the feed grain of future revenue.

[NoNeckMonster]

Print news will rebound. Why do I think so? Because there's so much sitting in front of a computer screen you can do before your eyes strain as far as they can take it and give out.

The newspaper you hold in your hand is not beholden to that day's electrical currents (power outages should prove to everyone how useless it is to depend on a computer without electricity to power it).

And for those who appreciate tactile pleasures, holding a newspaper and turning its pages are a singular experience.

Besides, practically every story of significance that appears on a local newscast was already preceded by a story in a newspaper -- and broadcast journalism has no time or budget to flesh-out anything anymore.

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by NoNeckMonster:
Print news will rebound. Why do I think so? Because there's so much sitting in front of a computer screen you can do before your eyes strain as far as they can take it and give out.

The newspaper you hold in your hand is not beholden to that day's electrical currents (power outages should prove to everyone how useless it is to depend on a computer without electricity to power it).

And for those who appreciate tactile pleasures, holding a newspaper and turning its pages are a singular experience.

Besides, practically every story of significance that appears on a local newscast was already preceded by a story in a newspaper -- and broadcast journalism has no time or budget to flesh-out anything anymore.The future isn't newspaper, nor blogs, nor TV; it's something new, and it hasn't been made yet.
We know it will combine video, audio, and text.

It's possible it will spring from newspaper organizations, or maybe TV.

I will tell you what it is not, though. It is not something designed by the pinheads at IBS. They have perhaps the worst vision of what an internet news site should look like, period.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Bureau Chief:
I used to get three papers every day. Not anymore. I get all I need right here on the net. This and the fact that my dog has finally gotten house trained means I dont need to look at all the crap to find the good articles. I dropped my hometown paper after looking through it one Sunday and I found exactly two local articles in there, every single other bit of news in there was straight off the AP feed. Why bother? Most Sunday newspapers, and particularly local newspapers, are filled with wire and features on Sunday -- because they operate on smaller staffs on Saturday, in a traditionally smaller news environment. (Just as TV stations do.) "All that crap" you're talking about is stuff usually not found on the web -- local sports, obits, education and business stories, city council and county commission meetings and local crime and politics. And, believe it or not, local TV schedules. Try finding any of that on the web in a timely manner, and you'll understand why local TV and newspapers are necessary. You're right, in that you can probably get all the national and international news you want off the web ... but if you want to see the story from your daughter's swim meet last night, or wonder if it's true your local city councilman got picked up on morals charges, you need LOCAL media.
If print is not dead, it certainly is on a respirator and in very critcal condition. I suggest a "DNR" order. (do not resusitate") Its time we stop knocking down trees, flattening them, printing old news on them and then throwing them away.Newspapers are no worse off than local TV, and neither are going the way of the dinasour anytime soon, regardless of circulation or viewer figures. Properly managed, they are both a necessity and an asset to a community's health and quality of life and the web, usually, is neither.

[Produce man]

It's Bush's fault.

Okay, run along...

[zeppelin42]

Originally posted by 2:30:
A “Day of Action” is set for Monday, Dec. 11, when members of TNG-CWA and other unions will alert the public that the quality and diversity of news coverage that readers now depend on is at risk, as corporations focus on building profits, not comprehensive news coverage.Yeah, nice try. Your union overseers should have picked the 3rd of January, 1996 for your pathetic "day of action". At least then you might have had some hope. Now we're condemned to watch your industry crumble around us as our jobs slowly get replaced by machines who don't complain. Yay!
-zep

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bureau Chief:
I used to get three papers every day. Not anymore. I get all I need right here on the net. This and the fact that my dog has finally gotten house trained means I dont need to look at all the crap to find the good articles. I dropped my hometown paper after looking through it one Sunday and I found exactly two local articles in there, every single other bit of news in there was straight off the AP feed. Why bother? Most Sunday newspapers, and particularly local newspapers, are filled with wire and features on Sunday -- because they operate on smaller staffs on Saturday, in a traditionally smaller news environment. (Just as TV stations do.) "All that crap" you're talking about is stuff usually not found on the web -- local sports, obits, education and business stories, city council and county commission meetings and local crime and politics. And, believe it or not, local TV schedules. Try finding any of that on the web in a timely manner, and you'll understand why local TV and newspapers are necessary. You're right, in that you can probably get all the national and international news you want off the web ... but if you want to see the story from your daughter's swim meet last night, or wonder if it's true your local city councilman got picked up on morals charges, you need LOCAL media.
If print is not dead, it certainly is on a respirator and in very critcal condition. I suggest a "DNR" order. (do not resusitate") Its time we stop knocking down trees, flattening them, printing old news on them and then throwing them away.Newspapers are no worse off than local TV, and neither are going the way of the dinasour anytime soon, regardless of circulation or viewer figures. Properly managed, they are both a necessity and an asset to a community's health and quality of life and the web, usually, is neither.</font>[/QUOTE]You're wrong.

[Another side]

I guess you told me.

[Clubbeat]

Many good post here...all make valid points. However, it's about competition.

People get their news from a variety of sources and each medium tends to compliment the other. But I believe that if local broadcasters are not careful, they could lose out to the newspapers, many of which are owned by mega companies with more resources and deeper pockets to hire more staff.

And as someone here stated earlier...many if not most local broadcast stations use the local paper as the assignment editor. They cover what most people have already read before they get to work and re-present it later in the day. Sometimes with an update but more often than not, its the same content with video.

The one shrinking advantage TV and radio have is covering breaking news. When 9-11 happened, people were glued to their tv's and radios for the latest. Then the next day they turned to the paper for the details.

I don't see newspapers going away. Instead I think they will use the internet and other yet to be developed technologies to get their product out.

[What the ?]

Having been in the biz (radio and TV) for more than a decade and now in the wonderful holidays-off world of PR, I must say I think newspapers are dying. Will they ever be dead? Doubt it. At least not until most of the generation of dedicated newspaper readers dies (read people 50+).

For those of us in our 20s and 30s, we weren't necessarily brought up reading newspapers everyday. We watched cable TV in its infancy, played 'Pong', 'Super Mario Brothers', Madden 2001 and other games and now surf the net for info.

A previous poster mentioned something earlier about how no one who ever said they got out of the biz and stopped watching news also said they got most of their information from the net. Well, I guess I'm the first. That's the only place I get my info. I do it on my schedule at my convenience. How pompous is it of the media to expect you to sit down at a specified time to get the days news? And why should I have to pay a local paper 50 cents for info that's freely available on the net? It makes no sense (or would that be cents?). I've also noticed I'm not as stressed anymore like I was when I was in the business. I attribute that to not watching the news.

And on 9/11, people watched TV. They watched it like never before. The info in the paper was irrelevant at that time. And the next day people weren't running for their paper looking for info. They were still watching TV.

Newspapers won't ever die completely. But they won't ever again be the end-all, be-all for information. They're just a shrinking part of the growing information pie. Either adapt to technology or surrender to it. It's your choice.

Just my .02

[Nigel Wick]

By the time it's in print, it's old. That doesn't cut it these days.

Newspapers should do news, but do some analysis, detail, and perspective. Unfortunately, the trend is to do shorter pieces.

The newspapers in my market all have clear political agendas. That's something else that's not working.