The story is almost Orwellian. I understand spin and putting the best face on things, but as you noted, it doesn't even mention the entire staff of Cin Weekly was let go. Or that the publication will be replaced by something produced out of Chicago. It tries to make it sound like nothing but a name change, and verges on dishonesty.
Covering one's own organization is always difficult, but some journalistic ethics were called for here, and didn't come through.
One other thought: How many of us, me included, are partly responsible for this? We already take it as a given that we can go online, read news that's been gathered, written, edited, and published by others, and not pay a cent for it. We know someone has to pay the reporters, editors, and publishers. It'd be nice to think the on-line ads scattered around the screen could carry the load, but the evidence from around the country as newspapers fold is otherwise.
I'm sad to see this publication go. I'm sadder to hear the people behind it are left hanging out to dry. I do agree with Randy O. above, I'm guilty of finding all my news online for free.
Even if you wanted to pay you couldn’t as Buchanan and Gannett refused to drive more revenues using proven web models like the WSJ’s. I wasn't alone in pushing it years ago. Now they're more interested. Unfortunately, that’s too little and too late for those who continue to lose their jobs.
Last night was pretty much the best lay-off party anyone could have.
Shots via NYC pals, appetizers from friends in LA, drinks from the bar manager and phone calls from former editors in Reno... if you're going to lose your job, well, that's how to go out - with one big toast after another.
6 comments:
Gina, et. al.
The story is almost Orwellian. I understand spin and putting the best face on things, but as you noted, it doesn't even mention the entire staff of Cin Weekly was let go. Or that the publication will be replaced by something produced out of Chicago. It tries to make it sound like nothing but a name change, and verges on dishonesty.
Covering one's own organization is always difficult, but some journalistic ethics were called for here, and didn't come through.
One other thought: How many of us, me included, are partly responsible for this? We already take it as a given that we can go online, read news that's been gathered, written, edited, and published by others, and not pay a cent for it. We know someone has to pay the reporters, editors, and publishers. It'd be nice to think the on-line ads scattered around the screen could carry the load, but the evidence from around the country as newspapers fold is otherwise.
Randy O.
Thanks Gina. Sorry I missed you last night.
I'm sad to see this publication go. I'm sadder to hear the people behind it are left hanging out to dry. I do agree with Randy O. above, I'm guilty of finding all my news online for free.
Even if you wanted to pay you couldn’t as Buchanan and Gannett refused to drive more revenues using proven web models like the WSJ’s. I wasn't alone in pushing it years ago. Now they're more interested. Unfortunately, that’s too little and too late for those who continue to lose their jobs.
Thanks for coming out, Gina. As I said on Twitter last night, if I HAD to get laid off, there was no better way to do it.
Last night was pretty much the best lay-off party anyone could have.
Shots via NYC pals, appetizers from friends in LA, drinks from the bar manager and phone calls from former editors in Reno... if you're going to lose your job, well, that's how to go out - with one big toast after another.
Well done CiN Weekly staff.
Post a Comment