News-Record.com

Congrats to Van. Does this make him the King of Queens?

Good for Van. Congrats.

However, in the nicest of all ways, I would like to remind everyone in any management level of the News & Record that Van was someone who had no understanding of the web -- and even less knowledge of when to say that he had no understanding.

I remember in the early days of The Depot, he insisted upon an actual moving train that would be animated and move up and down the tracks on the left side of the home page. There was even the idea that "the engineers" of the Depot must wear conductor hats...

While the medium was quite new and some gaffes are to be expected, it was always interesting and troubling how "engaged" he was on usually the wrong issues. I feared at any moment he would just fire me for any reason -- just because he didn't like me (for reasons that were always unclear.)

There were many, many meetings held before meetings with Van to figure out how to "handle" Van in upcoming meetings when something new (that was usually mundane or basic) had to be shown to him....

I remember on one of my last days at the N&R I scheduled a time to meet with him and personally -- and wholeheartedly and honestly -- thank him for the experience I had at the N&R. I can't say that he seemed to care -- at all.

Only after I left and was at a more forward-thinking organization (the Sun-Sentinel) did I realize just how under-appreciated and poorly treated I was -- thanks mostly to Van's politics (which were somewhat like Nixon.)

I appreciate that a publisher has to be political in his job, but the term "out of touch" does not even begin to describe him. Sorry, but true.

Perhaps in his new role he can understand when to say he just doesn't know something and defer to others who do... I think in the position of training potential new journalists for the new world of communications will require a new way of thinking.

Good luck Van!

I find it amazing that journalism schools continue to promote to positions of importance people who have no clue when it comes to "new" media.

I'm so glad to see that so-called communications and journalism schools are still sending out students with tools that were outdated in the 1950's.

Good luck [to] Mr. King ['s students].

I was soon chided by JR for my earlier post regarding Van. JR believes it makes me look petty and ridiculous and that I won't win any friends.

I sent him an email response back, but figured why limit it to just him. Here is what I wrote, giving some background and context to the post above:

The problems that I am pointing out are systemic in newspapers and I really dont care how I look.

Things need to change. The fiefdoms and the ridiculous puffery that goes on for publishers and editors are what is part of the problem.

Various awful ideas are floated constantly from upper management, but the folks who do the work see the fatal flaws in the concepts very clearly. However, no one is empowered to say anything about it.

This was evident in nearly every idea that came from Van regarding web efforts. Community publishing. No one would listen to me that Zip2s product was nothing that a normal person could ever understand. No one would listen that when they rolled out the upgrade that every community site would have to be redone -- by hand. Yet, Van touted this as "the thing" that would change the landscape. I knew it was B.S. and had shared this in much more nice ways with my bosses, but no one could touch the idea for fear of... being labeled a malcontent.

There are at least a half dozen other major projects that fit this exact model -- all either hatched by Van or supported fully by Van.

I doubt nothing has changed.

Newspapers now need to understand that the lowly people who do the work must be listened to. Van King was not someone who did that -- and it showed. Very clearly.

I don't care what others think of me at this point. I have given up on trying to make people like me.

Newspaper people are born and bread to ask questions and take on issues in government and other businesses (asking tough questions about strategy and how plans will be carried out.)

Yet, internally we all just drink Kool-Aid and "go along to get along." We are supposed to turn off our questioning the second we walk in the building.

That -- more than anything -- is what is dooming newspapers.

Did anyone ever stop and really think through the last debacle concerning the events calendar on your site? No. Obviously not.

I appreciate your observation that this won't win me any friends, but sitting around with my hands under my legs for 17 years has not exactly made me popular either.

Newspapers -- especially those like the N&R -- need to realize they should not function like insurance companies or corporate entities as they have been made into.

Ideas get hatched from on high and nothing -- not even common sense -- ever stops them.

Meanwhile, the actual GOOD things that need to be done get shifted aside for THE IDEA of the quarter (or month).

I would say that while this appears bitter, it is hopefully taken so others can realize JUST how ridiculous the chain of command at newspapers is (and how hopeless it is to ever affect real change in the organization -- despite how much "leaders" claim it is changing.)

The fact you've told me my comment is not quite appropriate is great. It tells me I am on to something.

And frankly, newspapers are not something I ever care to work at again because of the systemic reporting structure and rigid idea control. They are doomed and I have a better life without them.

Good luck to you.

It's a shame you feel that way, Rod. I don't know that many people agree with you but it has been many years since you worked here, and things changed a lot since then. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I do appreciate you leaving your real name these days so that we understand where you're coming from.

JR, don't feel sorry for me and I don't want you to think "it's a shame" that I think this way. It's from years and years of behavior that I witnessed first-hand.

I'd ask you to think about the last time anyone below the level of editor came to you and said "hey, this significant project we're working on has some serious flaws we need to examine -- some of those flaws fatal to the outcome." From the way you talk, folks just stroll into your office daily and let you know the real temperature of things.

Look, typically bosses at your level don't even know they are being insulated from the truth. In your case, the old analogy is that even a fish doesn't know it is wet.

Now, to address the continuing false accusations (that somehow have been revived) that I am Jim Wilson, I have AGAIN talked to Jeffrey Weeks. I just spoke with him today and he is happy to call you and confirm everything I thought was already settled.

I appreciate your "sleuthing" to try to figure out this grand "crime" but sadly there is none. Jeffrey Weeks simply wrote things that he and I talked about. I'm not sure what new evidence you have -- except a new post from me that is less-than-flattering (i.e. not swooning) about Van King.

Please let me know how Jeff can get in touch with you so we can end this ridiculous string of accusations. It would seem you have a newspaper to run instead of trying to figure out if Rod Overton is some person who posted some comments on a blog that a few dozen people saw months ago...

Good luck!

Rod, the sleuthing is over. The same things I said to your "Jim Wilson" I will say to you. Don't act as if you know me or us when it is clear from your comments that you no longer do. You haven't been here for years and many things have changed. Of course, clinging to your memories of the way things were is your call.

My point with this post was to recognize Van's moving to a new job. You choose to rehash problems you had with him years ago and conflate them into a condemnation of this paper and the industry. That's your privilege. We simply disagree.

I guess the problem is that I don't see any noticable differences in the OUTCOME of the way things are run.

You speak as if the wall has come down and we're living in a new world where the folks at the bottom actually can speak up and say "hey, this doesn't make sense."

That might have happened, but I can't see any difference in the results. Did no one ever think about how the events calendar would really work?

The site that rolled out about a year ago with all the scrolling within the page and tons of tabs somehow made it to the release phase. It lasted several months before a redesign, but I guess no one anywhere spoke up that it seemed too confusing and made little sense to average users.

I hope what you are saying is true. I really do.

But, what I see happening on this site and in the coverage would tend to tell me the management style is very much the same (unless of course, you have told people it is, but they don't *feel* empowered enough to do so...) I mean, maybe you actually have empowered them, but they don't follow through -- which would not be your fault.

I remember a very fateful conversation I had with Ann Alexander in the early days of the Depot. We were working on planning some project (I can't even remember which one), but Ann said "This is good. It will help us figure out who the big thinkers are and who the worker bees will be."

I was stunned. The die was to be cast on a entire new group of workers in an entire new part of the company who never even knew that as they carried out their jobs as good, competent workers, they were being molded and fit into little partitions of either 1) smart or 2) dumb worker bee.

I certainly hope things have changed, but thinking coming from that high of a level doesn't just turn on a dime. Changing the thinking of management at a newspaper is slow -- like turning a cruise ship.

Hey, who is Jim Wilson? And why is everyone so hot to trot to figure out who he is?

I think I missed something here!

Jim Wilson is a pseudonym for a college and current friend of mine (Jeff Weeks) who commented on this site for quite a while.

His comments were based on conversations he and I had about issues that came up on this blog.

He and I would chat about how wrong or different the truth was when things happened vs. JR's revisionist history.

Weeks would then (without my knowledge) comment on the site under Jim Wilson with comments that generally followed the tone of our freewheeling conversations.

I had no idea this was happening because I never or rarely bothered to read the comments.

Only a few months ago did JR accuse ME of making these comments did I got back and read them and determine they must have come after the talks Weeks and I had.

I told Weeks to chill out and he has.

JR acts as if Weeks is Bill Ayers or something, but his comments -- while not exactly "nice" and not the tone I would use -- were dead on, I would say.

The comments, which you can look up (although I don't know how), seem to be little more than inside baseball about N&R events that go back several years...

That's it. Meanwhile JR has made this into some witch-hunt since I don't think he can actually handle the real truth with someone who has as much internal and institutional knowledge as Weeks had (via me)...

It's much ado about NOTHING and a smokescreen to change the direction of the conversation... but whatever.

Apparently no former employee of the N&R is allowed -- even if their friends do it without their knowledge -- to ever disagree with the way things were and are run at the place....

Thanks to Jim Wilson, I consider myself disavowed and probably will never get another job in journalism thanks to JR's wonderful sluething that turned up..... a third-rate commenting caper. Geezus...

Actually, JR doesn't act like Weeks is Bill Ayers because that would be to totally ignore Weeks (since that is what the MSM has done.)

I guess a better association and analogy would be if JR treated Weeks more akin to George Wallace mixed with Ann Coulter and combined with Bill O'Reilly... (those that the MSM viscerally hate)

Rod, please. Get a grip. As I ask other commenters here, don't put words in my mouth.

I care little about who Jim Wilson is. You say he isn't you and that's fine. I think little of people who attack but are afraid to use their real name so it is nice of you to "out" your friend. I believe you inserted him into this discussion.

As I've said, you speak -- as yourself and through your mouthpiece -- as if you know what's going on here now. Yet your point of reference is what, 10, 15 years ago? The world has changed a lot since then.

I'm going to close this conversation because it's gotten personal between you and me. I bear you absolutely no ill will. We disagree on the shape of things, but that isn't bad.

If you want to discuss it further, you know my phone number.