O: More Buyouts Coming

Submitted by LynnS on Wed, 07/30/2008 - 2:04pm.

Another round of buyouts are in the works at the Oregonian for next month, according to O staffers who got the news yesterday in the monthly Q&A with exec ed Sandy Rowe and publisher Fred Stickel. WWeek beat me literally by minutes, but my source has it as 50 positions in the newsroom and 100 company-wide, with details to follow. "If they don't get 50 takers for the newsroom buyout, layoffs of part-timers are possible," says my correspondent, who adds that among this, the NNS closing, and the death of columnist Brian Meehan, "It wasn't a good day to be at the paper."

( topics: )
Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Wed, 07/30/2008 - 2:36pm.

This is hardly a scoop. It has been known for months that a buyout is coming as the paper faces the tough economy that all newspapers are battling. The only new news yesterday was Fred Stickel offering specific numbers. Numbers, by the way, that have been reported incorrectly before on this blog and by Willy Week, which has a well-known inability to report anything accurately about the O. (Wouldn't want them to have to put truth in the way of their agenda.) In addition, what Stickel said -- also consistent with previous statements -- is that part-timers do not have the job guarantee full-timers do. In fact, he said he could solve his problems by laying off all the part-timers, but he won't do that. Please remember that as layoffs are commonplace around newspapers, there have been none at The O and none are contemplated. It is a sad day at the paper, but people here know we work in a special place and at a special paper.

Submitted by LynnS on Wed, 07/30/2008 - 2:53pm.

Neither did WWeek. This is a follow-up on that Stickel letter.

The reason I mentioned that WWeek got it up before I did is that they'd given me a heads-up they were gonna run it. Before their piece went up I got some correspondence on it (that should have been here this morning and didn't arrive for some reason) and so I went with my version. But WWeek got it up first so credit where it's due.

My numbers are different than the ones WWeek's got and I'll say right here they're not final. No one knows that number but the mgt of the O.

Please don't consider me an adversary to the O. I take no pleasure in layoffs or buyouts anywhere.

-----
Lynn Siprelle * Fairy Blogmother

Submitted by JavaJoe on Wed, 07/30/2008 - 2:42pm.

Willy Week may have gotten it a few minutes earlier, but you got it better.

Submitted by Hunter Thompson on Thu, 07/31/2008 - 11:30am.

At one point, when WW was a new concept and the staffers were energetic youngsters, they actually produced an exciting, if rarely factual, rag. Even if they stretched reality to fit their youthful agenda, the WW was fairly stimulating infotainment.

But, like all ideologically-motivated screeds, WW management and staff grew old and weary. If they couldn't get the facts in a phone call or two, they began to simply make it up. This happens with age. One gets an inflated opinion of one's abilities and one gets lazy. When this attitude first begins to creep into a newsroom, no one pays much attention. Afterall, sales are holding strong and the Letters to the Editor seem to show support.

But, as Kingsley Amis said, "Laziness has become the chief characteristic of journalism, displacing incompetence."

This famous quote was uttered long ago, well before WW fell under the spell of sloth. However, it remains appropo to this day and explains a lot about why the newspaper business is in the doldrums.

"Luck is always the last refuge of laziness and incompetence."
James Cash Penney

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Thu, 07/31/2008 - 4:59pm.

But it isn't their writers I see packing or their product that is obsolete. They have an innovative web site, solid leadership and - despite claims to the contrary - a hardworking staff that produces a good news product. They also engage young readers, which is a thing many other news outlets are failing to do. Maybe something valuable can be learned from their successes.

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 10:56pm.

That you can be so successful but giving away your product and paying your reporters peanuts. I wonder how WW would be doing if they charged for their product?

The difference is, The Oregonian attempts to be comprehensive every day while WW narrowly focuses on a certain sort of story one a week.

Submitted by niceoldguy on Fri, 08/01/2008 - 2:38pm.

i agree that WW does a better job than it is getting credit for on this thread. when it first started, it was my opinion that if WW was still around afteer a few years, it would be because it was serving a market that the O could not reach. the net has really changed the white lines in this game, but I would say this is basically true still. -- no longer a quick brown fox

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Sun, 08/03/2008 - 10:53am.

To offset its deficiencies, don't forget WW's Goldschmidt Pulitzer, a rare achievement -- make that an almost impossible achievement -- for a small alternative paper with practically no budget.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
  • Voting controls can be added to this post.
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
More information about formatting options