News-Record.com

"It has gotten to the point that layoffs have to number in the hundreds before they get more than a half-dozen paragraphs inside the paper."

Just because it happens more than a few times, doesn't make it any easier for those who got laid off.

The pain your company's workers who are still there and of those who got let go in no more relevant or newsworthy than furniture and textile lay offs.

Perhaps now your paper won't treat these lay-offs as ho-hum, matter-of-fact, stories. If it took an event like this to knock you off your high-horses and get a little less antiseptic with your lay off stories, then perhaps it's a good thing after all.

It chaps me to no end to hear all the news folks act like this lay off means so much more because it's the newspaper. It's a business. It's peoples lives. Just like furniture and textiles or any other industry.

Matt, I was trying to make just that point in the column.

We have ended up treating the furniture and textile layoff stories less prominently because they've become so common. (Our play of the N&R layoff story was on the business page, so it wasn't anymore prominently played than our other layoff stories.)

But it is about the people, I agree.

Hello Mr. Robinson. Nice to meet you. I hear you're into "public service" journalism.

http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2007/06/dis-engage-number-one.html

John:

I appreciate the fact that the industry is in a tough spot. I can also agree that the GNR has done a lot to lead the way into the next generation of what the newspaper will look like.

But I have struggled to understand what business sense it made to hire Jonelle Davis two months ago and the other reporter this past week, when surely the revenue picture was the same then as it is now.

I may have missed it, but I don't recall this specific issue being addressed. What was leadership at the GNR thinking with these hires? Surely savings could have begun at the start of the year with a hiring freeze.

I recall when MG had a revenue debacle in 2003. The company vp sent out a scathing memo reviewing the income picture, going so far as pointing out that one publisher left a revenue generating position frozen while hiring editorial staff.

It just adds to the ugliness of the layoffs, when there appears to have been a lack of strategy. Taking Davis from the Danville paper and firing her weeks later just doesn't seem human, let alone a smart business practice considering the expense associated with generating a new FTE.

Is there an honest answer to be given to this?

JR,

My condolences on what had to be a tough week for all involved. As a member of the local electronic media, I have watched with fascination at the amount of vitriol and second-guessing thrown your way. I'm not that big a follower of the paper to conjure up my own theories, but I am blown away by the visceral reaction of your audience at large. Newspapers may indeed be on the ropes, but the level of outrage, hurt and innuendo expressed by an extremely attentive readership still packs one hell of a punch.

I dare say if we downsized our broadcast staff, the viewer reaction wouldn't be anywhere near as explosive. Unless, of course, we pre-empted American Idol. Then they'd burn the building down. Metaphorically speaking, of course...

Such an interesting way to ask for a response, Jeffrey, suggesting that whatever I answer might be a lie.

I won't talk about specific people. It's not fair to them and invades their privacy. Generally, though, we have been through freezes, off and on. They have had varying degrees of success. We have cut the other big expense in newspapers -- paper. They decision was made that we needed to do more and do it quickly. Freezes take a long time to show results.

Lenslinger, c'mon, you mean you wouldn't get negative reaction if, say, you had laid off Tera Williams? Seriously, newspapers tend to attract a lot of vitriol for anything we do. Part of it is that we tend to challenge people's view of the world. Part of it is that we don't have Neil and Julie delivering the news.

And, you're absolutely right. We like the passion readers bring, even if it is based in outrage and hurt.

John:

Bad word choice on my part. By honest I meant straightforward, as opposed to the corporate speak of the press release announcing the layoffs. I didn't mean to question your veracity, honest.

Oh, I was just giving you a hard time. (I've got to stop that kind of thing here.) We had no intention of doing anything cruel to any of the folks.

Oh, I was just giving you a hard time. (I've got to stop that kind of thing here.) We had no intention of doing anything cruel to any of the folks.

Sure, we'd get negative reaction if we canned Tera Williams (who I'm pretty sure left us for Chicago a few months ago), but I still don't think a similar downsizing in our newsroom would unleash the kind of unilateral denunciation witnessed in the local blogosphere. Understand, I'm not knocking all that armchair quarterbacking - to be completely hoenst, I really don't care. But I AM impressed by the level of emotion readers apply to your paper's output. That, as you know, is a great problem to have.

For what very little it's worth, I've been a paying subscriber of your paper for the decade that I have lived in the Piedmont. I love Schlosser, Steadman and the stellar work of the many N&R photojournalists I see in the field. But I had no idea how seriously some people take your publication - not until I became addicted to the Greensboro 101 community. Maybe that's because I'm a TV guy and years of derision on behalf of ALL print folk has left me a little cold. Otherwise, I too may be chaining myself to the N&R's front doors, demanding you show me your payroll and travel receipts.

As it is, I'll continue skimming your paper in the driveway each morning, knowing that rabid news fans don't just come in the form of skeevy anchor stalkers. Watch your back...

You wrote:
This hard business decision brings us in line with many newspapers across the country.

And that makes it OK? Just because everyone else is doing it? Just once I wish a newpaper publisher who writes about layoffs would include some real numbers: like what is your profit margin. Most of these newspapers doing layoffs are not losing money. they're just not making as much as they did several years ago, so Wall Street is pissed off at them, and the big shots are upset because all their stock options are now worthless. What a joke!

You wrote:
This hard business decision brings us in line with many newspapers across the country.

And that makes it OK? Just because everyone else is doing it? Just once I wish a newpaper publisher who writes about layoffs would include some real numbers: like what is your profit margin. Most of these newspapers doing layoffs are not losing money. they're just not making as much as they did several years ago, so Wall Street is pissed off at them, and the big shots are upset because all their stock options are now worthless. What a joke!

Nope, that doesn't make it OK, Bill. It simply tells readers of the News & Record newspaper that this isn't something done in isolation....that it is occurring other places.

Landmark is a privately owned company so what Wall Street thinks is irrelevant. I doubt Wall Street pay attention at all, given that the company is private. Stock options? Hello!

Lenslinger, yeah, I and everyone else in the Triad knows that Tera isn't with the station any longer. Just using a cultural touchstone there.

The thing is, tv stations are loved; newspapers are hated. Personally, I think a lot of it is tied to permanency and editorial opinion.

But if you know why someone hates us for not reporting a story, but doesn't hate you when you also don't report the story, you're smarter than me.

Come to think of it, there's no mystery why papers are hated and stations are loved. You take stands on the editorial page, we show video of dogs in funny hats. You slather your reports in indelible ink, we're half-watched through a curtain of kids and housepets. You make readers turn pages to find out more, we lull 'em to sleep with something frothy, then pitch it to a Seinfeld re-run.

Sadly, I think I'm in the sector of news I truly belong in. If only I could cure this writing compulsion...

Jeffry, I understand the Danville paper has stopped its free fall. Do not know for a fact.
My wife started getting it in the box each day. She likes it. Said she could find out what was going on in NC. I know they ripped Nifong,someone cut it out and posted at golf course.Mr Robinson I only buy your paper on M- W-F. I understand that papers have problems, however I will bet you that if you start printing the news as it is, and not how you want it to be, it would help. You have the editoral page to say what you want. The rest of the paper in my opinion should be the news.Try it I bet you will like it!

I just read the article in YES! weekly about the layoffs at the N&R. I would encourage the existing N&R employees to look at forming a union on the job. CWA Local 3607 represents over 1,300 workers in Greensboro alone. Obviously, unions can't always stop companies from laying off BUT through their unions workers have a place at the table to bargain over wages, hours, working conditions, AND issues surrounding layoffs.

1,300 workers in Greensboro and over 700,000 nationwide can't be wrong- CWA makes a difference on the job.

When the community newspaper of record lays off 15 percent of its newsroom, the whole community suffers because less news means less accountability, and less accountability means democracy is diminished. That's what makes a newspaper layoff more significant than other business layoffs, which is why we need more regulation of the industry -- not less. A newspaper in a democracy is not "just another business."

That being said, newspaper owners are unconscionably greedy. The profit margin in newspapers is 25 -30 percent or more. Try to find any other business that demands a higher margin -- or demands more in terms of productivity from its employees.

And that being said, the N&R reporters, like other victims of layoffs in North Carolina, share some of the blame for being left high and dry. Aside from health care workers, reporters have one of the most demanding, responsible and thankless jobs going -- and they essentially give their labor away for free. They have themselves to blame for failing to unionize. While a union cannot prevent layoffs, it can force more accountability from management in minimizing them.

Laura,
I don't speak for all those who were laid off, but to say we have ourselves to blame for this because we failed to unionize? You've got to be kidding me?? Trust us, we're all familiar with the long history of papers & unions -- the good, the bad & the ugly. What a cheap shot...

I just got through reading Cone's post about Marcus Green. Despicable.

I's sure Laura's thoughts were not meant in any way to be a cheap a shot, "One". She's making a legitimate observation . . . and actually has a good point.

We professionals in healthcare and journalism have long looked with scorn upon unions (it's a dirty word in Randolph County). I know I did. It wasn't "professional". Then what happened, happend. I quickly found out that all of my professional societies (with the big membership dues) did not "do" individual advocacy. And I was "high and dry" . . . left to fight by myself.

As both fields become increasingly corporatized, it is increasingly clear to me that we professional maybe should stop looking down our noses at unions.

From the tactics that the N&R employed, it is certainly abundantly clear now that I never should have put any faith in this newspaper to help me.

I just got through reading Cone's post about Marcus Green. Despicable.

***********

I agree completely, Dr. Johnson.

Just to elaborate for those who haven't checked out Ed Cone's blog, N&R employee Marcus Green was one of the 41 people laid off last week by John Robinson, Robin Saul and company.

Mr. Green was let go even though he has cancer and is about to undergo expensive treatments. The paper totally yanked the rug out from under this employee. Ed Cone has information about a fund to help Mr. Green with his medical bills.