A few weeks ago, I wrote about the disgusting human relations tactics being used by Gannett's Journal News as a way to institute staff cuts. Gannett had asked all of its newsroom employees (and ad sales people too) to re-apply for their jobs, saying about 70 spots would be cut, including 50 from the newsroom.
David Carr wrote about the result in his New York Times column a few days ago. He reports that The JOurnal News has, in fact, cut 50 news reporting and editng jobs. As Carr writes, tongue-in-cheek, Gannett's euphemisms include the fact that reporters no longer work in a newsroom, but in an "information center." They are no longer assigned to cover beats; they report on "topics." And one we've heard before... the layoffs or firings are part of a "comprehensive restructuring plan."
Carr's report included the following sentence, about midway in the story, that caught my eye: "The entire business reporting and editing staff was laid off in the reorganization."
I get The Journal News at home, so I took at look at the business section for the week so far. What's left is one or two pages, including space for ads, with 100% pickup from the wire services. Gone is the coverage of local businesses, except perhaps giant locally-based companies like PepsiCo, IBM and MasterCard, whose news would be reported by the wires.
But stories about smaller local businesses or the local economy are gone.
Isn't the purpose of local newspapers to cover local news?
Since it merged a chain of 12 local papers into a single masthead in 1998 (Gannett has owned the local chain since the mid-1960s), Gannett has slowly been cutting the amount of truly local news coverage in the paper. One hears complaints from residents of practically every community in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties about important local stories that go totally unreported. The paper's circulation reflects that displeasure.
David Carr writes that The Journal News is serving as the model for the other 84 dailies that Gannett owns throughout the country. I can only hope he's wrong.