The Political Whore

These are not happy days for journalism in Tampa Bay, and I take no joy in the fact that both of the mainstream daily newspapers are cutting back staff and/or space to save a few bucks as the business model that made print journalism possible for years crumbles out from underneath us.

First, the St. Petersburg Times. Over the weekend, the largest daily in Florida informed the readers of the outcome of its secret Flagship committee, which studied how to change the paper to meet a 21st Century audience and declining advertising revenues. Neither Eric Deggans nor Neil Brown used the word Flagship, but nonetheless, here’s what that committee came up with for May 19:

• Stop publishing Floridian except on Sundays. Floridians writers — among the best at the paper, including John Barry, Lane DeGregory and Ben Montgomery — will now compete with metro and national reporters for space in the A and B sections.
• Stop publishing a daily Business news section, putting biz news into the B section.
• Eliminate stock listings.
• The metro, B-section gets renamed “Tampa Bay.”
• Eliminate other features, including the Sunday Working section.
• Put comics and other reader favorites into the classified section and rename it all “BayLink”

Brown summarized the changes this way:

In a Starbucks world, it is the venerable Dunkin’ Donuts that sells more hot cups of coffee than anybody in America.

Even as the Starbucks “experience” transformed the coffee-drinking marketplace, the 58-year-old Dunkin’ chain found a way to soar, having grown its revenues roughly 50 percent in a recent three-year period. How? Rather than hunker down it adapted to changing tastes: more high-quality coffee, fewer fattening doughnuts.

This seems an apt lesson for newspapers, including the St. Petersburg Times, as we consider how best to deliver distinctive journalism and useful advertising in a time of profound technological change and extraordinary economic turbulence.

He’s right; this is a tremendous opportunity to narrow and focus the news for people, to provide direction as to what is important instead of the old-school model of “all the news that’s fit to print.” No more leading the Metro Section with a story about how the Hillsborough County Commish is pissed off at some drone in Sector G. (Don’t blame the reporter; blame the editors at the budget meeting.)

Where does that leave the Times‘ critics? Fighting for space on 2B along with entertainment news, which will apparently be tightened to make room. And no doubt that some of Floridian’s fun throwaway stories, such as Montgomery’s ode to the red plastic cup, might have a problem competing in the larger pool of news.

What the Times is not telling you is that it has also been shrinking its staff, from 400 people in editorial two years ago to a number somewhere around 340. The newspaper draws disgusting glares from its counterparts at the Tampa Tribune when it insists it is not laying off reporters and editors, and technically, that may be true. But the newspaper is undergoing what might best be described as a strategic pruning, lopping off some reporters and not filling their positions, reporters who in a bygone era flush with cash would have more job security. It is a layoff that isn’t a layoff.

And that has some staffers there freaking out a bit. Various department chiefs held meetings last week to try to explain the changes, but a handful of staffers who spoke to me on the condition of anonymity were clearly concerned if not quite grumbling about matters.

Over at the Tampa Tribune, things are much worse, so much so that one staffer describes the atmosphere as “toxic.” If you recall, the Tribune offered buyout packages to half of its staff of 1,300 a month ago; two sources tell me that only about 20 or so people opted to volunteer for execution. Management hasn’t told staffers exactly how many of the 650 buyout-targeted positions will really be cut, but the consensus among Trib workers who would discuss the matter on background with me is that the number is in the area of 150. (Note: Many, many local observers and even national writers are making the mistake of thinking that all 650 positions will go, since they were offered buyouts. Hogwash. The Trib’s parent company might be freakin’ about the flow of red ink in Tampa, but it ain’t crazy enough to slash the occupied seats at the News Center by half.)

But it is a sign of how bad things are at the Tampa daily that its most prominent two columnist/personalities, Dan Ruth and Steve Otto, were both offered the buyout.

So when does the axe fall? The staff has not been told, but based on the terms of the buyout (those accepting the deal have a few weeks to change their minds) it seems that late June or early July would be the first that we could hear who goes and who stays.

Which all leads me to an interesting question that I’m starting to hear from staffers on both sides of the bay and articulated best (if a bit acerbic about the Times leadership under Editor Paul Tash) by a reader of this blog who sent me the following e-mail:

With only a fraction of the fiscal resources of Media General, et al, what
do you speculate will happen to the independent-and-certainly-answering
-to-no-one St. Petersburg Times? Having already taken the first step (the
divestment of a few months ago), and seeing as how death-by-attrition in
the newsroom has crippled the august organ’s once-famous reputation, do
you see the secretive Times and it’s oddly out-of-touch leaders hunkering
down and weathering this storm, or finally coming clean and taking
the necessary (and public) actions?

In other words, despite the very public fiscal twisting in the wind at the Tampa Tribune, owing to its public ownership that requires its finances be splashed across SEC filings, is the Times actually the product that is in bigger trouble, despite its better journalism? The Trib, after all, could be carried either by profits at Newschannel 8 or other chain papers for a while, but the Times has no such broadcast cross-ownerships or other profitable dailies to fall back on. And several staffers who spoke to me recounted how top editors at the paper are openly telling staff that the Times is not currently profitable, a scenario that would have been unimaginable only three or four years ago.

In the meantime, buy a newspaper today and help things out a bit, would ya? 99 percent of what is termed “news” online would not be possible with the initial reporting done by the daily mainstream press.

(photo of newspaper boxes by Lindsey T)

Posted in The Business of MSM | Leave a comment