"It's clear that Sam Zell wants a world without journalists. So, for a day, let's give him his wish. On July 9, I encourage all Tribune employees to call in sick to protest his destruction of our newspapers. If any reporter, photographer or other journalist cannot do that, then use the July 10 edition for a byline, cutline or masthead strike.
I refuse to let serious journalism die without a fight."
The Retch thinks protest an excellent, jolly idea. What do you think of the sick out/byline strike plan? Poll below is anonymous. You can click on "view results" to see how many other Tribune staffers agree.
Poll 2:
Don't like either of those options? Then how about a suggestion?
16 comments:
here's the problem with a sick-out: the folks who can't do it will necessarily be screwed by the volume of work. I have plenty of colleagues whom I respect, but who can't possible pull off a sick-out. I don't mind giving zell the middle finger, but I can't bring myself to frag my buddies.
the byline strike is a much more humane idea, although obviously zell doesn't notice bylines anyway.
this is why I'm starting a tequila farm in juarez.
the cynic in me thinks this a) won't change a damn thing and b) will cost a bunch of people their jobs.
To the reluctant cynic: if we don't do anything, both a) and b) will come true anyway. So why not do something? It's a protest. It gets attention, sends a message. It doesn't change things overnight, but maybe is a start. It shows we can work together, at the very least.
To the previous doubter: that's why there are two choices. If you can sick out, do so. If not, byline/creditline/masthead strike.
Waa! Waa! Waa!
The bitching and moaning of you newspaper folks continues to amaze. Do you think business as usual was the way to go in your industry? Obviously, it isn't. Sam Zell may not have it right, but the course charted by his newspapers couldn't continue. Many of you thumbed your noses at the Internet during its formative years, holding on to your precious newspaper while more and more readers and advertisers flocked to online. The chickens are now coming home to roost, and you have no one to blame but yourselves. I spent 15 years as an editor at a major newspaper and moved to online about 10 years ago. My online colleagues predicted this would happen. This column by Mark Potts sums up the newspaper predicament quite well methinks.
http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/2008/06/death-of-almost-1000-cuts.html
I love this idea. we have to take a stand, because--without a bit of exaggeration--I can say that zell is threatening the core of what journalism is about.
my only fear is taht, in reality, he doesn't give a fuck about how many people show up at work. and I doubt he even pays attention to bylines. (lee abrams probably doesn't even know what a byline is.)
Dude, in case you haven't noticed, a bunch of us are about to be fired. Such a public act of opposition is a surefire ticket to the unemployment line.
A bunch of us are going to get surefire tickets-whether we sit quietly and desperately at our desks reading Romenesko, or whether we make a stand. I'd rather go down doing something.
And of course Zell and Michaels pay attention: how else would they know about byline counts and reporters in Kabul? Abrams? I'm not sure he would recognize his own face in a mirror.
"Waa! Waa! Waa!"? seriously?
there's a reason you didn't make it in newspapers, pal. and judging by your response to this blog, reading comprehension might be exhibit a.
I'm not sure anything in the "protest" department will get Zell et al's attention short of the readership complaining, truly. When I've posted in non-industry forums re what's going on in journalism, topics that set my pants on fire elicits, "Hey, I live in that circulation area, I get my news off the Internet and I don't GAF."
I fight back by explaining what's really at stake -- the lack of coverage, the idea that the N.Y. Times might very well be L.A.'s local paper sooner rather than later. And that the "free" news on the Internet wouldn't be there if not (for the most part) for print newsgathering.
People don't know what they've got till it's gone, if I may steal a great line ... the best protest might be an attempt to raise reader awareness of what they're about to lose ahead of it going away.
How to do this? I have no flippin' idea. But civilians for the most part don't see the difference between an AP byline, a columnist byline and a local byline. That is our conceit and our ego blinding us, to think that people would care in sufficient numbers if our NAMES went away.
Our readers are busy people who are also losing their jobs, paying lots for gas, and figuring out how to spend their limited time. We need the readers on the LAT's side ... possibly by campaigning that if you have no local newsgathering, there will be no fodder for the Internet that we all love so much.
Readers take the content for granted, which is natural, because they don't wallow in this stuff 24/7. We need to make the connection that PRINT feeds ONLINE.
Hey Retch,
These type of actions are very difficult to pull off simply because of the one thing that prevents most people at The Times from standing up for themselves and that is fear.
Anyone suspected of participating in these acts of courage, do run the risk of dicipline. I felt obligated to at least reveal that information.
My co-workers and I in the pressroom overcame that fear by replacing it with anger and education that eventually bred courage. We learned what our right are and the laws that protected them.
We, like all L.A. Times employees had enough of Chicago imposing its will on Los Angeles and us as employees. Tribune has taken everything and given nothing during their rein as our leaders, Zell has already proven to be no different.
We have all suffered from eight, going on nine years of cuts and all the while we've heard how the company is tanking, yet every executive, regardless of performance, walks out the door with enough money to keep hundreds employed for years. That should be offensive to all of us here in L.A. at the Times and you should all be pissed, and pissed at ourselves for allowing it for so long. Our newspaper is more than worth fighting for!
We stopped blaming the company for all that has become of our once glorious paper and accepted reponsibility by organizing with the GCC/IBT. We realized as
"AT WILL" employees, we were powerless.
We are motivated and more than willing to fight to protect our interests as trade employees and the newspaper we print. We will reach out to organized labor and ask for their support, which many have already pledged.
There are tens of thousands of union employees in Los Angeles and they have stood by our side when we have asked them to and we in the pressroom will proudly, in solidarity, stand by all of you!
Ronnie Pineda
30 year L.A. Times employee
www.saveourtrade.com
www.saveourtrade.blogspot.com
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Waa! Waa! Waa!
The bitching and moaning of you newspaper folks continues to amaze."
Guess you never really looked beyond the whining of the corporate types who mislead investors by pledging outrageous profit margins of 20% or better.
Since the mid-80s, the largest publicly held newspaper companies have earned 12% to 18% at best with the exception of Gannett, whose 20% was the result of owning a flock of small papers in uncompetitive markets and milking them nearly dry. NYT, WashPost, Scripps, KR, Times Mirror NEVER broke above 18%, with NYT and TM in the 12-15% range. Tribune wasn't considered a newspaper company when the study was done because it hadn't bought TM yet and made most of its money in TV, which incidentally has also suffered from a fragmented marketplace and Internet competition.
Most of core working staff at the Times, where I spent a dozen years, knew damn well the Internet was going have an effect. The ones who wanted to continue the status quo were joined by upper management who didn't want to acknowledge the online effort as anything but a repeat of the print side.
But that's not really the point of this blog. The point is Zell and his Clear Channel parasites don't know shit about the news business regardless of the "delivery channel." They don't value content very much, so attracting readers to any medium isn't going happen under their watch.
Well, if Sunday's NYT is any example, it is our local paper. The Daria Torres comeback story should have been one owned by the LAT, and yet, nada.
The NYT kicks the LAT's butt on entertainment reporting and how does Spring Street respond? Patrick Goldstein is forced to blog, rather than pump out one column a week (remember how he tricked Montorio into a fat raise by claiming Time was after him?).
I want the paper to succeed, but I can't see how that will happen. The Times doesn't have the deadwood that it used to but maybe it need to replace some of the stagnant editors, instead of writers.
ronnie: although I agree with the general sentiment (and I wish the chicago tribune were itself a union shop), I really wish we could stop referring to tribune corporate as "chicago."
I have yet to see zell, randy michaels, lee abrams or any of their associated horsemen in the tribune tower since jan. 1.
Good common sense talk from LAT pressmen and union member Ronnie Pineda.
Certainly you should convert your anger, frustration and outrage into action but it would be wise to find out first what you can do that won't put you at risk of mgnt retaliation. For sure, taking any of the actions being polled here would certainly not be using "your best judgement", because you're at-will employees and have few rights beyond what the company says you have. Please. Be careful.
Soon I hope you'll do the right thing for yourselves and your profession and truly take a stand together.
In my experience, most fellow reporters are wusses. Editors? Let's not even go there.
If you're going to go down, go down fighting.
It appears that unionizing is leading in this poll. I invite anyone interested in organizing with the GCC/IBT to contact me at admin@saveourtrade.com and we can begin an organizing campaign in editorial now! Together with the pressroom bargaining unit, we can strengthen our positions in negotiations with management. As I've said before, as "AT WILL" employees you are 100% powerless!
The Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters gives us the power to have our voices heard.
How much louder would our voices be together? Editorial writes, we print, sounds like they would listen a lot more than they do now!
I strongly recommend that if you are looking for an action to make your stand, that you do it now!
Union representation is the only sensible option, anything less is futile. Please contact me now and I will help get the ball rolling.
I will respect everyones confidentiality that has the courage to step up and take a stand. Courage IS Contagious!
In Solidarity,
Ronnie Pineda
pressman/union activist
admin@saveourtrade.com
www.saveourtrade.blogspot.com
Post a Comment