I don’t know why so many things in the newspaper business still stun me. I should be inured by now to the craziness, but I’m not. The memo on Romenesko from Chicago Tribune associate editor Jocelyn Winnecke has me shaking my head.
The memo tells Tribune staffers their attitude is going to be assessed as part of their evaluation process. Damn, I am such a fool. Why didn’t I ever come up with that? I apparently could have ordered people to be positive and cheery. I imagine President Obama will soon move for legislation requiring Republicans to be really, really nice.
I was especially taken with this excerpt from the memo. “You know the Tribune Co. values already: Keep your word. Collaborate. No surprises. Compete. Play fair. Take intelligent risks. Reward successful performance. Question authority. Serve our local communities.”
That question authority point is a knee slapper. Apparently it means question all authority except the authority in the company. Are newspaper staffers pains in the ass? Absolutely. From general assignment reports to the top editors news people are an independent, cantankerous lot. They resist cookie-cutters, they usually hate conformity and independence becomes a god. Most news people cling fiercely to principles like this list from the Committee of Concerned Journalists. That last principle about personal conscience can lead to some people actually bristling at some of management’s short-sighted moves in today’s upside down media world.
Recently I have been involved in a job search for the university. The due diligence on a few candidates came back that the candidate had some difficulties with top management. I was quick to point out that until we know the specific details of those conflicts we must not draw any conclusions. I said “these days the recalcitrant may well be on the side of the angels.” Valiant attempts to stop disastrous short-term decisions are not necessarily a sign of a bad attitude. They may be an indicator of genuine loyalty to readers.
In a speech I did last summer I quoted Dean Singleton of Media News as saying “Too many whining editors, reporters and newspaper unions continue to bark at the dark, thinking their barks will make the night go away. They fondly remember the past as if it will suddenly re-appear and the staffing in newsrooms will suddenly begin to grow again.”
This effort to portray news people as attitude problems and as recalcitrant dreamers who don’t have a clue should go the way of bell bottom pants. Its just not true. I had missed this little gem in the 2008 State of the media Report: “Increasingly, the newsroom is perceived as the more innovative and experimental part of the news industry. This appears truer in newspapers and Web sites than elsewhere. · A decade ago, the newsroom was often regarded as the root of journalism’s disconnection from the public and its sagging reputation. …… Now the business side has begun to be identified as the problem area, the place where people are having the most difficulty changing.”
I think the State of the Media folks nailed it and it’s high time newspaper executives start recognizing the content generators are the innovators who can craft a responsible smart future rather than quelling anything that even smells of dissent. Alan Mutter made a very similar point a year or so ago, but I’ll be damned if I can find his entry. (Found it!)
The top executives who have systematically routed out editors and staffers who dare to question the executives’ short-sighted slashing of product and content should be fired. How far can we let stock prices go down when the primary message of the keepers of the franchise is slash and burn rather than build and reconstruct?”
These days I encounter much more wistfulness than I do negativity. So many strong journalists wonder where and how things went wrong and they do worry about their own role in the demise of newspapers. I do not endorse absolution for those past sins. I do suggest that many top newspaper company executives need to admit they’ve demonized the wrong folks. It is they who have screwed the pooch and it is time to appreciate the perceived enemy is really the solution.
.
8 Comments
Great point, Tim. Attitude and passion — the kind that can often lead one to get in a boss’s face — are perhaps the most valuable assets at any news organization. And we’re losing them at a discouraging rate. Unfortunately, too many editors either fail to understand this or simply aren’t willing to deal with some occasional discomfort. We both know from experience that some of the most irascible journalists are the ones who also come up big for the readers. (We won’t be naming and names though, right?)
Actually, both sides have no clue.
Management is blaming the wrong people; you hit the nail on the head.
But don’t underestimate the uselessness of the workers who are contrary for the sake of being contrarian. How fondly I remember the days of a policy — any policy — or request being questioned within seconds merely on its face. I’d venture to say the workers wiped out their chances of being heard on anything when they started questioning everything.
The result: Big problems went unresolved. Plus, most newsroom people talk a tough game, but when it comes time for action, they quickly cower under their desks and wait for Somebody Else to fight their battles. It’s a spineless, gutless approach that deserves no respect.
Add into this mix the newsroom jesters and woodenheads who buy into the “new media” B.S. and eat it up as if it were candy. So now we have:
* The disgruntled folks who complain all the time but are too lazy/gutless/spineless to do anything. In fact, they slam the people who try to change anything!
* The drooling woodenheads who think they’re innovative. Some of us know them as “designers.”
* The young journos who think their Ring of Bling is the salvation. They need remedial training.
* The motley crew who are simply too lazy or apathetic to do much other than keep a chair warm. Lots of types here, whether it’s the burned-out wire editor who agonizes over the two pages he has, then simply cobbles together whatever AP spoon-feeds him; or the dim, bitter sportster whose 24 years in the business consist simply of recycling the same dull annual stories 24 times.
There’s a lot of blame to go around. I certainly am not going to assume the chronic gripers who hide under their desks at the first sign of trouble are the solution, though.
Tim: I almost up chucked at the words “customer focus” in this very funny but also sad memo.
Are you kidding me? Old school print print and also digital new media bleeding newsroom journalists –from grizzled editors to green cub reporters — should never, ever talk that bean counter lingo. It’s pretty much downhill for the newsroom once editorial types
adopt that business side vernacular.
I have freaking readers, not customers.
P.S. — I pray the Strib stays afloat for many reasons, but primarily so I have one more entity here to motivate me enough to keep kicking its butt…I mean that in a nice way.
Ruben Rosario
Columnist
St. Paul Pioneer Press
At the Tribune, they’ve basically got rid of nearly all their experienced and irascible editors and reporters, with the last illustrious batch being shown the door on 2 hours’ notice last fall. One of the many problems that the Winnecke memo reveals (apart from the bubble-headed Winnecke herself) is that, despite his vow not to interfere from the business side in the workings of the newsroom, “owner” Sam Zell has done nothing but. As I’ve noted elsewhere, his stooge triumvirate of Gerry Kern, Jane Hirt and Joyce Winnecke are unpleasant daily reminders of that.
Leave it to Pulitzer-winner Ison to continue his campaign to justify his legendary ungracious behavior toward editors. There goes that $10-a-week merit raise!
Tim McGuire is absolutely right that independence, skepticism and an attitude that challenges authority are essential to good reporting. Let’s look at the issue another way, though, starting with the assigning editor.
The good editor will know a news story from a throwaway. He’ll avoid the so-called “editor stories” — the first female air traffic controller at the local airport, the conversion from paper to computerized records in the doctor’s office, the mother of the first baby born in the new year, the guy at the nursing home who just turned 100.
Instead, the good editor is going to do some background work, using his own good instincts honed as a reporter, before assigning the story. Once he’s reasonably assured that it deserves further effort, he should assign it with confidence that it is worthy of publication.
Despite this, some reporters will recoil at any story that originates with anyone other than themselves. They’ll suggest it’s a waste of time, that the risk/reward ratio is too high, that it will take them away from the crucial research they are doing for the story “that is sure to get on Page 1.”
They may preach the gospel of independence and skepticism, but such reporters wear down editors with their negativism. They create jealousies in newsrooms. They’ll turn nearly every conversation about stories into a confrontation (“This story idea is crap, but if you are ordering me to do it, then I have to do it”), which destroys the collegial atmosphere that ought to be cultivated.
All of this is why attitudes are a legitimate consideration in job-performance reviews.
The best-case relationship, obviously, is one of mutual editor/reporter trust. It not only renders the attitude question moot but also produces the best stories.
“Despite this, some reporters will recoil at any story that originates with anyone other than themselves. They’ll suggest it’s a waste of time, that the risk/reward ratio is too high, that it will take them away from the crucial research they are doing for the story “that is sure to get on Page 1.”
They may preach the gospel of independence and skepticism, but such reporters wear down editors with their negativism. They create jealousies in newsrooms. They’ll turn nearly every conversation about stories into a confrontation (”This story idea is crap, but if you are ordering me to do it, then I have to do it”), which destroys the collegial atmosphere that ought to be cultivated.”
Those were good examples.
The resistance merely for the sake of resistance is pointless. Occasionally someone would voice an objection that made sense, and it could be helpful as long as we weren’t violating the wrong mandate from above.
But too often, people were being contrary simply to be contrary. This would lead to repercussions, which would lead to less respect for the group, which would make getting rewards or benefits a little harder. Plus, we’d have to waste time explaining why we screwed up.
Too many journalists are flat-out not able to think this far ahead. Bad hiring is the likely culprit, but not the only one.
Dear Tim,
I think you are 100% correct. I wish I could have made these points as well as you’ve done here, ellen soeteber
Post a Comment