You might be wondering, why should BAC care about this? As I read the report about Jim O'Shea being given the boot for resisting budget cuts I couldn't help but think about what Arianna Huffington wrote in her book "Pigs At The Trough" about how anytime there is a new corporate owner, one of the first things that happens is people lose their jobs.Cutting staff might, in the short term, improve the bottom line -- but how good is it for the public?
Face it, we do not get "news" from broadcast media, we get entertainment that masquerades as news. Any national news broadcast that includes mention of Britney Spears is NOT NEWS.
Print media has always been the place for in depth reporting on important issues of the day. And while we may not pick up the traditional paper copy of the newspaper from news stands these days, many of us do read these publications online.
O'Shea is the second L.A. Times editor fired for trying to hold the line on proposed budget cuts. The previous editor, Dean Baquet, was also dismissed for refusing to cut the newsroom budget.
The other thing that disturbed me about this report is the decline in the number of people who are reading the newspaper. Newspapers generally provide the most detail about a subject, probably followed closely by bloggers -- who to a certain extent act as an extension of traditional print media. Bloggers are, or at least can be, news reporters. We've seen it most notably in reports from caucus sites in Iowa and Nevada.O'Shea's ouster came after real estate mogul Sam Zell took over the Tribune Co., but the battle lines seemed little changed: a Chicago conglomerate demanding increasingly deep cuts in its Los Angeles property, which has won a string of Pulitzers but feels disrespected by the out-of-town landlord.
Sources who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the situation -- a company spokeswoman would not even confirm the firing -- said O'Shea prided himself on holding the budgetary line and did not want a shrunken newsroom to be his legacy. While they said the proposed cutbacks were relatively small -- about $4 million, out of a budget of $120 million -- and did not involve significant layoffs, the reductions would follow a steady pace of budget-slashing since the Tribune Co. bought the Times in 2000, including about $10 million last year. The Times editorial staff has been cut from 1,200 to fewer than 900 since then, while circulation has declined from a peak of 1.1 million to about 800,000.
It also seems as though Sam Zell is not following his own advice.
A new employee handbook, distributed at Zell's direction, sends a quite different message to workers.
So, did he really want O'Shea to use his "best judgment?"How much should a company's culture reflect that of its chief executive, especially one who prides himself on being blunt and innovative -- and some might say abrasive?
If you're new Tribune Co. Chief Executive Sam Zell, the answer seems to be: a lot. At least that was the feeling workers got last week with distribution of a new employee handbook, a document that's nothing like the lawyer-filled gobbledygook in most corporate manuals.
Consider the opening:
"Rule 1: Use your best judgment."
"Rule 2: See Rule 1."In an e-mail to employees, Zell (who took over in December after helping to take the parent company of the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune private) described the new handbook as shorter and more direct than its turgid predecessor, reflecting trust "in your judgment, and in each other."
Do we really want to see a cutback in reporters during an election year?
The new handbook replaces traditional words like "pursuant to," "required minimums" and "appropriate documentation," with plain language -- and even some jokes:
"• 2.5. Discrimination based on gender, age, race, religion, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, or any other characteristic not related to performance, ability or attitude, protected by federal or state law, or not protected (such as the inability to tell a joke, the occasional poor wardrobe choice or bad hair day), is strictly prohibited."Gee, I'd certainly be in the mood for some "fun" while I worry about whether or not I'm going to get to keep my job. Wouldn't you?
"• 4.5. Making the building too hot, banging on trash can lids or loud bagpipe music are annoyances you can complain about" but such actions don't constitute harassment on the basis of protected characteristics.
"• 7.1. If you use or abuse alcohol or drugs and fail to perform the duties required by your job acceptably, you are likely to be terminated. See Rule 1. Coming to work drunk is bad judgment."
"• 7.2. If you do not use or abuse alcohol or drugs and fail to perform the duties required by your job acceptably, you are likely to be terminated."
The new version "reminds us not to take ourselves too seriously, and to have fun," Zell wrote employees. It also outlines "our company's new core values," he said.
Hey, maybe Jim O'Shea can file a lawsuit to get his job back? After all, wasn't he using his "best judgment?"
3 comments:
This is so sad; when I heard this on NPR earlier I was surprised to be honest.
Having just come out of a corporate environment that used similar doublespeak, I have a lot of thoughts and feelings about this topic.
As someone who was a Senior VP herself, I know that there are many ways to manage large scale budgets that will serve the bottom line.
However, it is my experience (and perhaps this is part of why I am no longer the holder of said title! happily so!) that most "new owners" (and old ones for that matter) want that to come from cutting employees at lower (and more necessary usually) levels and from cutting expenses at those same levels.
The people at the very top however will continue to pay themselves with largesse and enjoy every perk their role seems to entitle.
I firmly believe that my generation (that is to say between 45-55) have completely brought this country to ruin with disgraceful greed.
A footnote... I got the big title, but I also know that I was by far the lowest paid at that rank. And that was fine for me. I did what I did and am glad to be gone. Make no mistake. I was paid well, but I can sleep at night and my own demise probably did save 2-3 headcount at a lower level. That doesn't make me a hero. It does make me feel more peaceful.
Anyway, I have wandered far afield.
Sam Zell did not make his gazillions by being a nice guy. He also made his move towards Tribune when fates and fortunes seemed sunnier and not the dismal mess they are today. Who loses?
Why not Sam... take a hit, let the paper be and Sam could lose a few dollars for a few years? Would the world end? No. But he would never do that. That is not the spirit of "capitalism" and it does not serve the angry bitter gods of the marketplace altar.
The LA Times is...was maybe, a pretty good paper. Expect less. Every day.
Jim O'Shea was given marching orders. As the handbook said, if an employee comes to work sober and unaddled by drugs but fails to perform his assigned work, he will likely be fired.
O'Shea was fired for refusing an order. That's a sign of bad judgment. Meanwhile, he was probably the highest paid guy in the department. Hence, his departure and the ending of his salary burden may lessen the headache of his replacement who will have to hack less than $4 million from the budget.
All media is changing. The Internet is a huge factor in that change. Newspapers have more and more trouble finding buyers of daily papers. More and more papers have given up.
More are moving to getting all their revenue from ad sales. The NY Times has a high news-stand price. But it is free online. Guess where the growth has been?
The Wall Street Journal is about $90 a year online, about 20% of the news-stand price.
Meanwhile, local papers seem to be gaining. In addition, most city dailies depend on Associated Press and other wire services.
Foreign news bureaus are closing or cutting back on employment. Why? Because surveys of readers show they don't care.
In addition, anyone with a digital camera and a laptop is a de facto reporter.
To make a long story short, I've been responsible for stories that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the NY Observer and the NY Daily News. These days reporters put their e-mail addresses on every story they write. It's a breeze getting them interested in a story, especially if you know enough to do a lot of the basic labor for them.
Anyway, the LA Times and others have to consider changing their business models to one that depends more on ad revenue and less on news-stand sales.
Regarding in-depth coverage, though some newspapers are in that game, most are not. Magazines tackle those stories more often.
It's worth noting that most people who read long investigative news stories have computers and are likely to get those stories from online sources.
Anonymous - O'Shea is the third editor to either leave on his own or be fired, which to me suggests a problem with management -- not with the editors.
Almost 20 years ago I handled advertising for the largest newspaper in the community where I lived, and it depended on ad revenue and not news-stand sales. I can't imagine that larger newspapers don't do this today.
I think its disingenuous not to acknowledge the role corporate take overs play in downsizing. It's standard fare for them, and in this case to the detriment of the news industry.
It all is part of a bigger problem, and that is fewer corporations controling more and more of our media. Again, to the detriment of the media.
I'm not sure if it's possible to put the horse back in the barn now that the door has been opened so wide, but I certainly wish someone would try.
BAC
Post a Comment