Freep cutting 20 newsroom jobs

**BShea** · May-21-09, 01:59 PM

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/shea

Just one part-time reporter position. Unsure how many of the 10 exemptions allowed under the contract were used. No word on non-newsroom positions yet, or any cuts at The Detroit News. Stay tuned.

Unfun times in journalism these days.

**Bobl** · May-21-09, 02:17 PM

Very sad, the position journalists are in. Soon, we will all get our news from cheap internet crawling sources in India or China. Future local politicians will no longer have to worry about Pulitzer Prize worthy journalism, and previous misbehavers will, indeed, be "set up for a comeback".

**oldredfordette** · May-21-09, 04:37 PM

People are going to be allowed to take a severance [[if you're in the bargaining unit) and go if they wish. The layoffs will happen in 30 days. There has been no word on non-bargaining Free Press employees yet.

The DMP and News are rumored to account for 150 job losses.

Stupid fucking stupid management.

**pffft** · May-21-09, 04:38 PM

You might want to double-check on that "one" part-time position, Bill.

**BShea** · May-21-09, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by pffft

You might want to double-check on that "one" part-time position, Bill.

Sorry, typo on my part. As the blog entry says, 4 part-time reporter jobs.

If anyone hears of folks volunteering to go, or who goes once the deadline hits, please let me know and I'll get the word out.

**oldredfordette** · May-21-09, 06:15 PM

A Free Press reporter of some repute told me it was much better than they thought it would be - the jobs losses they'll take are always bad of course - but all told it will be tolerable for those left.

Any nonsense about ML Elrick being laid off is, of course, nonsense.

Ravine · May-21-09, 07:32 PM

As far as I'm concerned, the Detroit Free Press is just about worthless, and has been so for quite a few months, now. I really don't even care if it entirely disappears, although I am very sorry about the job losses suffered by some folks who probably deserve better.

I think the honorable Neil Shine would be very sad, to see the current state of affairs.

And, don't anybody bother to caution me about the great value of a "free press" and how I might live to bemoan the passing of the Free Press and regret my words.
I already miss it. The lame piece of hamster cage-liner they print now doesn't count, and they can stick their E-dition up their, well, you know.

**oldredfordette** · May-21-09, 08:41 PM

Just don't try to sell me on the "honorable" Neal Shine. He fired my friends, he helped engineer the decline of the Free Press and the paper has never been the same.

I mourn the paper, I mourn the loss of jobs [[who knows? I might be next) and I mourn the watchdogs of our society. The recent Pulitzer-prize winning stories are a fleeting glance, we're left with cheerleader puff pieces about how great the incinerator is, or what a lovely misunderstood guy Matty Maroun is.

Ravine · May-21-09, 09:03 PM

Oldredfordette, your foot is noted, and taken under advisement.
Perhaps my respect for his old-style journalistic mien thrives in ignorance of his activities as a manager.

**oldredfordette** · May-21-09, 10:06 PM

Ravine, did you see David Simon [[The Wire) when he was on Bill Maher last week? He said he took a buyout from the Baltimore Sun in 1995 when he realized the newspaper business was more interested in making huge shareholder returns instead of taking care of business - R&D for instance. They were more interested in busting the unions in Detroit than they were on keeping the product current. There is no reason the papers couldn't have spent the 90's and half of the oughts growing and changing. This current state is completely due to greed and incompetence. But they had to fuck the dog, they just couldn't help themselves.

I hate being right. It's my livelihood too, you know. But these simple motherfuckers are reaping what they sow[[ed). Reaping it all over our heads.

Here's a link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE6v-ZxlYlo

**smogboy** · May-21-09, 11:52 PM

I saw a copy of the Freep at the neighborhood 7-11 a few weeks back and noticed that The Metro Times and Real Detroit were actually thicker. Sad. So sad.

**Ray1936** · May-25-09, 12:10 PM

When the papers are gone, how are families going to clip out the obituaries/death notices of loved ones as keepsakes?

Sad.

**Diehard** · May-25-09, 01:00 PM

Really? You're blaming this on a strike from, what, 13 or 14 years ago? This is all about that, and not about a changing industry and a nation's economy being in the toilet?
This is much bigger than Detroit. Newspapers nationwide haven't had the luxury of being "greedy" for some time now; they're just trying to stay alive. Seattle, Denver and Ann Arbor have lost papers already and many more are on death watch. Both Chicago dailies are in bankruptcy. Chicago!! Are they in that situation because they suck, and their management is greedy, and they don't do quality investigative journalism, and they treat their unions badly, and the papers are thin, or any of those other red herrings being thrown around here?
No, it's a simple reflection of the economy - advertisers have pulled out because they don't have the money to spend. End of story. Readership is higher than ever [[online) but adverising revenue is down. People reading the news for free online, or even paying 50 cents for a print copy, don't pay the bills.
Of course, the Rush Limbaughs and Kwame Kilpatricks of the world are singing alleluia because it means fewer chances they'll be called out. Sad.

**EMG** · May-25-09, 01:40 PM

Right. The strike in the mid-90s isn't to blame.

What IS to blame, more than anything else, is the spread of Internet usage [[which really didn't seriously start taking off until about that time).

As was said, why pay for a newspaper when you can get it free online? The even better part is the ability to search directly for what's important without having to wade through endless ads or gossip trivia.

What's even better is no longer having to sit through televised news. Remember wasting a half an hour listening to sports junk just because before every commercial break they'd put out a teaser about some exciting thing that happened right in your own neighborhood, and then not show it until 11:28 p.m. and you were always so mad at yourself for allowing yourself to be duped into staying up that late? Well, no more. Just wait until the next day, fire up the browser, and zero right in on the video of the event you wanted to hear about, without having to sit through all the crap first.

There will always be people who truly think print is better. Then again, there will always be people who prefer to hang onto their old 8-tracks [[or keep that old '78 player running) rather than invest in an i-Pod. Reading a newspaper today is sort of like opting to do one's laundry with a rock and a scrubbing board.

**pffft** · May-25-09, 05:00 PM

Until the news generated by "print" journalism is no longer available to you free online, then you'll be crying out for that rock and scrubbing board. What will "Yahoo News" and "Google News' have for you then?

**Patrick** · May-25-09, 05:20 PM

True journalism is becoming a lost art. Plain and simple. Today, everyone thinks they are a journalist or analyst because they can set up a blog and take other people's data and manipulate in order to get their own point across. The older journalists, and yes, I have heard from the best, feel that recent journalism grads are not stacking up. They are more focused on Twitter than they are on geography and current events.

Sludgedaddy · May-25-09, 05:29 PM

The Orwellian prediction of mind control due to a reduction of words in the English language seems to be fast approaching. Newspeak is coming . Double Plus Good!!!

Or when you Twitter your Twat.....Dbl + gd.

**oldredfordette** · May-25-09, 05:59 PM

Diehard, did you read anything else that was written in this thread? Or are you just reacting to one sentence?

I'll repeat, so maybe you can understand. In the mid-90's, when you could get 35 cents on every dollar you invested in Gannett, they spent their time prosecuting a stupid strike instead of seeing how the industry was changng. Papers like the NYtimes and the Baltimore Sun and the LA Times were paying huge dividends instead paying for R&D. They are reaping what they sowed in those boom years. Stupid stupid stupid greedy corporate bastards.

Carry on.

**EMG** · May-25-09, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by pffft

Until the news generated by "print" journalism is no longer available to you free online, then you'll be crying out for that rock and scrubbing board. What will "Yahoo News" and "Google News' have for you then?

Whatever they have won't be any worse than the liberal trash that's spewed by my own local paper [[the Arizona Repugnant, er, Republic). At least it made the decision to cancel my subscription years ago an easy one to make.

**cloud_wall** · May-25-09, 08:48 PM

It seems a little unfair for Simon to be repeating the R&D mantra w/o any tangible idea of how newspapers could have stayed profitable in the digital age. There's certainly no guarantee that a silver bullet would have been discovered. However, it does seem that the industry - and network TV news too - has suffered greatly because it's been squeezed for higher profit margins.

I agree with the suggestion that people read the whole thread or watch the clip before making their earth-shattering observations that maybe the Internets had something to do with this.

Ravine · May-25-09, 09:17 PM

The goddam internet availability of news is fine, but there's a lot more to all of this than that, and suggesting that wanting to have a newspaper with news printed on paper is anything like opting to do one's laundry with a rock & scrubbing board is silly.
If you're a young person whose idea of being connected with the world all revolves around sitting, slack-jawed & glaze-eyed, in front of a monitor for at least nine hours per day, I guess you have no wish for a newspaper.
Isn't it funny, how the world seems to be shrinking, and yet people are becoming further apart, and actual human contact is like, you know, man, like so old-fashioned.

**barnesfoto** · May-25-09, 10:01 PM

Ravine, I am referring to what some consider a political party, a party that has held the white house for all but eight of my adult years...By their gurus of finance, I refer to people who have sold us so many of the short-sighted schemes of the last twenty eight years...Broadly, I am speaking of the deregulation of corporate behavior, which [[perhaps you may have noticed) did not accompany any deregulation of individual behavior [[except maybe the repeal of the ban on individual ownership of assault weapons...)

I sense that my sometimes frequent use of the term "sick cult" to describe the American Right is tiring you...
A while back I asked you for a term that better describes these folks, and never heard back.
Perhaps if my mantra drives you "batty" you could follow the suggestion of the poster known as Pam, and use the ignore button.

Am I blaming the entire demise of the newspaper industry on the American Right? No. Things are a bit more complex than that. But if the industry was still owned by many smaller companies, instead of a few big ones, perhaps there would be a few more survivors....And perhaps, as Oldred suggests, if those few big companies had focused more on planning for the new century, and less on hiring guards to keep tabs on the strikers, [[or in the case of the NYT, less on building a shiny new glass tower), they would have been more prepared for what happened when Craigslist came along, because Craig Newmark does not seem to be picking up the responsibility for funding the sort of in-depth, investigative reporting that turned me into an avid newspaper reader.

**EMG** · May-31-09, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ravine

The goddam internet availability of news is fine, but there's a lot more to all of this than that, and suggesting that wanting to have a newspaper with news printed on paper is anything like opting to do one's laundry with a rock & scrubbing board is silly.
If you're a young person whose idea of being connected with the world all revolves around sitting, slack-jawed & glaze-eyed, in front of a monitor for at least nine hours per day, I guess you have no wish for a newspaper.
Isn't it funny, how the world seems to be shrinking, and yet people are becoming further apart, and actual human contact is like, you know, man, like so old-fashioned.

Look, it's a free world, and I fully understand that some people enjoy sitting around with a Sunday paper. I did too, and I don't begrudge anyone their recreation.

To each his own. I had a grandfather whose idea of being connected with the world revolved around sitting, slack-jawed & glazed-eyed, in front of a television [[although even he didn't spend nine hours a day at it, any more than I spend nine hours a day in front of my computer monitor, much as from reading my posts it might seem that way - I'm just a fast typist).

But I still do maintain that it's a lot easier to cut through the bull, avoid wasting time on sensationalism that matters not one iota in one's life, and zero in on the news that really matters through use of the Internet.

**EMG** · June-02-09, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Ravine

The goddam internet availability of news is fine, but there's a lot more to all of this than that, and suggesting that wanting to have a newspaper with news printed on paper is anything like opting to do one's laundry with a rock & scrubbing board is silly.
If you're a young person whose idea of being connected with the world all revolves around sitting, slack-jawed & glaze-eyed, in front of a monitor for at least nine hours per day, I guess you have no wish for a newspaper.
Isn't it funny, how the world seems to be shrinking, and yet people are becoming further apart, and actual human contact is like, you know, man, like so old-fashioned.

Here you go.

Attachment 1508

**EastsideQT** · May-31-09, 04:41 PM

They need to stop trying to have a daily newpaper in Detroit....there's nothing in it that you can't see on the news or read on the net...it's a waste on time to print a newspaper....most people have moved into the 21st century and newspapers have gone to the same place as the 8 track tape and vinyl records....