A few thoughts on the weenies at the Tyler Morning Telegraph

 And, no, I'm NOT talking about the one weenie who actually rewrote the caption on the AP photo of the Trump Trainers storming the Capitol in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Per discussion at the Dallas Observer and elsewhere, I'm talking about the weenies in the newspaper version of C suites who have tolerated this.

First, per the links above and elsewhere, NOBODY believes the bullshit in the unsigned editorial at the second link, from Jan. 20, or the bullshit comments by the paper's publisher and others, from Jan. 12 in the first link.

Here's the full Jan. 20 editorial. Let's quote from the bullshit in detail. It's very necessary to do so.

We made a promise earlier that we would make a full investigation into the matter, and we have. These are our findings.

Let’s start by answering the question that many of you have asked us since the false caption ran: How did this happen?

We have spoken with the staff members working that night to gather as complete an account as possible. We have also compared those accounts to both the newspaper’s production system, which logs all of the changes made to the paper as it is put together, and to the paper’s internal messaging system, which staff members working on the paper use to direct changes and edits to pages as they are proofed.

How did this happen? To the best of our belief, it was a joke taken literally. We found that no staff member acted in a malicious manner to deliberately put misinformation in your paper. Instead, what we found was a misguided and misunderstood joke put on the page when it should not have been.

The correct photo caption was put into our production system with the photo and sat untouched for more than an hour until it was changed by one of our page designers. That page designer had submitted a draft of the page to our messaging system so that others working that night could read over it and check for mistakes and typos. A message on our system from another page designer directed that person to change the caption to the false one that ran. A third page designer also commented on the thread, saying the page looked good. The original page designer made the requested change and sent the page to be printed.

There were several obvious issues raised by this. First and foremost, no one looked at the final revision of the page before it was sent. Had an editor or a designer looked at the page to OK the final revisions, this error would have been caught and corrected. There was no person acting as a final fail-safe that night.

We must also address the specific request from a designer to change the caption. We believe that request was intended to be a joke based on the conversations we had with staff members working that night, but we must also acknowledge that the designer made no special effort to distinguish the joke from an ordinary request. There was no “LOL.” There was no special emoji used to denote sarcasm. There was nothing to let on to the fact that a joke was being made.

One of the first rules most page designers learn is to never put a joke on the page as a placeholder or otherwise, because it will invariably end up in print.

We also know that sometimes it can be hard to distinguish tone from the written word. One of our page designers has learned these lessons the hard way.

We also want to address the fact that the page designer who made the actual change on the page did not push back against the requested revision. We know sometimes, in the busyness of our work schedules, things can slip past our brains and mistakes can happen. It is incumbent upon us to stop and examine the things we are being asked to do. Had that page designer taken a beat to remember what the Associated Press was actually reporting, this would not have happened.

Disciplinary measures have been taken with those involved in this mistake, but ultimately we feel there is a larger issue beyond any one individual. This was a collective failure, and it’s one for which we take full responsibility as a newspaper. We are supposed to have protocols in place to prevent such things from happening. We did not. That has been changed.

Here is what we have put in place to hold us accountable: Between the time a story or story element is given to a page designer by an editor, placed on the page by that designer and then printed, it will have at least two people looking over the actual page before it is sent to press — with one of those people responsible for checking the final revision for all of that day’s pages and signing off on the issue.

Our new protocols call for page designers, once they have finished laying out a page, to provide a copy of the page to the rest of the newsroom for viewing. Any proposed revisions can be made at that time, and the page’s designer will make them. The page designer will then provide a revised copy of the page for approval no matter how small the change.

Each night, we will have one person acting as the designated person who will send pages.

OK then. First, an initial big big picture response, also posted on the Telegraph's Facebook page:

Nobody who knows how a paper works, or should work, on the copy desk, even with any additional cuts you've had in the past 9 months, believes this bullshit editorial. When are you going to tell the full story, then fire somebody (or more than 1) over the "antifa" cutline?

I mean, do you really expect people to believe the Telegraph's news editor didn't take final look at pages in the first place, previously, especially since this was P1? Second, the particular copy editor didn't write, on the printed out version of P1 that got sent to whomever did look at it, "Hey, here's what that cutline really should say," or some other jokey comment?

Bullshit on top of bullshit eventually becomes a shit sandwich.

Now, some details.

First, an aside on firings. Even if the copy editor who did this had only been on the job two days, he or she should know that you don't do such shit without flagging it, per my comment to the Telegraph's comment it had no flagging. On a story of this magnitude, yes, the economy sucks, and the newspaper economy sucks even more. It's still fireable and the person should be fired. (I assume that "learned these lessons the hard way" does NOT include a firing as part of that "hard way," or the newspaper world would have heard about it by now.)

Now, is that believable? Let's start with the word "believe" in the Telegraph editorial.

I don't believe this. Per the "additional cuts," even if an actual news editor wasn't running the copy desk that night, you're telling me you had no designated replacement? (I'm assuming the Telegraph still had a local desk and that this isn't a Craphouse-type outsourced operation.)

And, on the other elements that are now being put into place? What, they weren't already there? Having worked at a seven-day daily of similar size (albeit before another decade of cuts at daily papers), that was SOP where I was at.

Maybe it's time for the Telegraph to cut its page count or number of days of print editions, if it hasn't already. (And, no, I'm not a big fan of e-editions.)

Orwell in the newspaper biz: Some diversity is better than others in San Antone

 Shortly before Christmas, I applied for an editorial writer position with the San Antonio Express-News. I easily met most the experience criteria (other than maybe a relative lack of video experience, but that, for an editorial page?), but it had one other stipulation: 

A hard push for diversity candidates.

I responded that I was a white male, but that I had two types of diversity that should be valued on an editorial page today.

Specifically, to quote from my cover letter:

I have to confess that I’m a white male, so I can’t delivery that kind of diversity.

Please note the boldface, though. Diversity goes beyond race and sex.

For example? I’m a third-party voter. I exited the “duopoly” at the start of this century on presidential voting. And, that’s a diversity directly relevant to your editorial page.

I’m also a secularist. That’s a diversity directly relevant to some First Amendment editorials.

And, there you are.

The editorial page editor, Josh Brodetsky, was out of pocket on an early start to Christmas and had an auto-reply on his email.

OK. Figured no action before the New Year.

Lo and behold, on Jan. 17, browsing Journalism Jobs again, noticed basically the same job re-advertised, only with a new title of associate editorial page editor.

Translation? They didn't get the diversity candidates with the skill level they wanted. So, whether or not they'll offer much more pay, Brodetsky, presumably along other top editorial management, turd-polished the old description with a shiny new title.

I found the previous email I had sent and did a "forward" with a brief statement in the new email, to the effect of "please consider me for this new job."

Brodetsky said: "We're already down to two finalists."

Really?

I was born at night, but not last night, and I've been in the papers biz —including writing columns and editorials — well beyond your five years of experience desired. I can smell Shinola rotting like a mackeral.

No way you got down to half a dozen semifinalists, let alone two finalists, by Jan. 15 (assuming you didn't screen any applicants over the Jan. 16-17 weekend, Josh), with a Jan. 6 job announcement.

You probably had at least one semifinalist, if not more, tell you they'd only be interested with the additional title, and perhaps whatever modicum of additional power comes with this, if you goosed things. So, to make sure you cleared EEOC hurdles, you ran a new job ad.

Should you see this, Josh, you can tell me if I'm wrong. I'll appreciate honesty.

And, since I'm here in Tex-ass, via the TPA, I'll know who you hired.

I've seen the Snooze repeatedly be full of crap on editorial hirings, while we're here.

The bigger picture, as a leftist, is that there's yet other diversities. A Black woman (let's say that's who Josh hired) might have come from a much richer family than I did — let's say, a family to help her get a master's in journalism (a degree about as overrated as an Ed.D.) from Columbia or something. So, income diversity is yet another diversity.

I could think of more, with more cogitation, but having done the bulk of this writing Monday night, after getting word of "you're too late" from Brodetsky just that morning, this will do nicely for now.

Top 10 of 2020

 So, what did readers like on my blog during the past year? Let's take a look. (Top 10 is as of Jan. 4, 2021.)

Note: These were not all written in 2020 (and I don't know if Blogger can be set to do that), just the 10 most read in the last year.

No 1, in fact comes from six years ago. Long before Craphouse bought the Austin Stateless, I blogged about newspapers dying in Austin, at least by adhole.

No. 2 was Warren Buffett's decision a year ago to bail on newspaper ownership. I guess the man who took a chainsaw to the Buffalo News long, long ago realized that he couldn't pull that at smaller papers without an even cruder chainsaw.

No. 3 was about Southern Newspapers appearing to make some false claims about printing presses it allegedly owned.

No. 4 was about the Rio Rancho Observer, ethically challenged a decade ago, semi-biting the dust. (I wrote a few weeks earlier, and it's linked within, about the differently ethically challenged Los Alamos Monitor fully biting the dust.)

No. 5 was my hot take on ABC suspending David Wright for telling the truth about corporate media.

No. 6 was from 2018, telling potential applicants to take a pass on working at Wick Communications. Maybe it went even further downhill after that?

No. 7, interestingly, was from that same month. Sadly, newspaper publishers and owners who need to read this truth probably won't — newspaper magazines are NOT "the answer" to what ails you.

No. 8 was rhetorical. I asked readers if they would pay more for NYT subscriptions after the Old Gray Lady announced last February that it would start increasing their cost.

No. 9? In September, I blogged about the Times again, wondering if its change in CEOs meant "sponsored verticals" were around the corner.

No. 10? I told fellow small-town Texas editors to get a fucking life and stop thinking they had to be the omnipotent god of small town high school football statistics.

Surprisingly, none of these were about CNHI or any of its individual newspapers.

Gainesville Register goes semi-weekly, still makes CNHI and local mistakes

 I've written about the Register more than once. I've written about The New Republic writing about its parent, CNHI. Last summer, accepting the inevitable, the five-day daily converted to triweekly.

And, the start of this year, it went to semiweekly.

The CNHI mistakes continue.

The biggie is continuing to run a print TV guide section that eats of four pages of ads-free print. 

WHY?

It can NOT be comprehensive, given the plethora of cable channels. 

Plus, it doesn't include streaming from folks like Netflix.

It's simply stupid.

Also stupid and also presumably at CNHI orders?

Running two-three days of comics in a semiweekly's pages. (It includes not just comics, but the full normal syndication — advice column, crossword, etc. Three full pages of ad-free space.)

The ONLY reason that should be done is if either individual CNHI papers, downsized, or CNHI corporate, with a corporate package, is stuck in a daily comics syndication package it can't escape.

So, right there, the Tuesday, Jan. 12 paper has at least four if not six pages of ads-free print that is being wasted. Let's be UN-charitable, because this is CNHI, and assume six.

That's in a 14-page paper that has 1/2 page of display ROP ads, 3/4 page of classified and about a page of paid obits. With obits, that's an adhole of about 16 percent. NOT counting them, that's a 10 percent adhole in a 14-page paper, if that.

Slash that to eight pages, and counting obits, you're approaching 30 percent.

===

OK, on the Register side? I'm not counting running out-of-date weather news, but am going to mention something else.

They cut their width by another half inch or more, it seems, when they went semiweekly. But? It looks like they're still printing on the same web width. 

AND?

They're printing the PDFs' registration marks, and on all pages. I shit you not. If you can't get your printing press to adjust its web, why have you narrowed the pages?

VT Digger: is it "real"?

 The Boston Globe looks at both no-longer-alt newspapers, both of which I have read semi-regularly in the past for Bernie and Jane Sanders news. 

But, are they always as "investigative" as can be?

Take this:

“VTDigger is a solution to the black hole of no news,” says Orton. “And it’s not beholden to anyone because it’s nonprofit.”

"Orton" would be Lyman Orton, owner of Cabot Creamery, who gave VT Digger founder Jane Galloway $7K in start-up money long ago, then with his partner, provided $1 million in a "growth fund" and asked other companies to join in.

If Cabot pollutes Vermont groundwater with runoff from a cheese plant, does it get investigated? Especially since Cabot gets "Sponsor Spotlight" puff pieces? And, when something mildly critical is published, it gets full rebuttal space. Betcha Bernie Sanders, b´ete noire of both VT Digger and Seven Days, wishes for similar.

I included Seven Days at the top (while eventually deleting it from the header) just because the Globe story is about both. But, it follows a "traditional" alt-weekly ads-based model, along with donations, but not the Digger/Texas Trib model. And, contra Seven Days' claim:

VTDigger and The Texas Tribune are similar, but not the same.

“My understanding is we’re the only online nonprofit that publishes breaking news, policy reporting, and investigative work,” says Galloway. “I believe all three are important for a statewide organization to gain the readership necessary to sustain operations financially.”

While the Trib may not do much in investigative journalism by itself, it does partner with Pro Publica on it. Policy reporting? Probably not much, though Evan Smith gets into that at his roundtables.