Wednesday, March 25, 2009

More bad newspaper news

-- The Houston Chronicle canned 12% of its staff yesterday (and today), including Clay Robison in the Austin bureau and Richard Stewart, whose East Texas columns I've read for thirty years, going back to when he wrote them in the Beaumont Enterprise-Journal. Hair Balls and Banjo Jones have more.

It looks like Steve Swartz is really determined to earn a bonus in his first year.

-- There is no longer a newspaper in Ann Arbor and three other small Michigan cities.

-- Gannett is furloughing employees and cutting pay rather than go through another round of layoffs -- for the time being:

The pall looming over U.S. newspapers grew even darker Monday as Gannett Co. informed most of its employees that they will have to take another week of unpaid leave this spring, while a Michigan daily unveiled plans to close its print edition after 174 years.

And The Plain Dealer, Ohio's largest newspaper, also ordered pay cuts and 10-day furloughs for nonunion employees Monday to cut costs as advertising revenue drops.

The moves were just the latest sign of the distress afflicting newspapers across the country as they try to cope with a dramatic shift in advertising that is forcing publishers to figure out how to survive with substantially less revenue.

Signaling it doesn't see an upturn anytime soon, Gannett wants virtually all of its U.S. employees to stay at home and forgo at least one week's pay before July. About 6,600 workers outside the United States won't be affected by the furloughs.

Executives and many workers making more than $90,000 annually will sacrifice two weeks pay in hopes that Gannett _ the owner of USA Today and more than 80 daily newspapers _ will be able to avoid more layoffs after jettisoning 4,000 jobs last year.

This will mark Gannett's second round of furloughs this year. The company, which employs about 41,500 people, saved about $20 million by imposing one-week furloughs during the first three months of this year.

No end in sight.

Update: The NYT and the WaPo as well ...

Two of the most respected U.S. newspaper publishers, The Washington Post Co and The New York Times Co, are embarking on new cost cuts in the face of dramatic declines in advertising revenue.

The Times said it laid off 100 workers and is cutting non-union salaries. It is also asking unionized employees to accept similar concessions to avoid layoffs in the newsroom.

The Post is offering a new round of buyouts to newsroom, production and circulation employees, and said it could not rule out laying off staff.

"This was a very difficult decision to make," said a memo signed by Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Chief Executive Janet Robinson. "The environment we are in is the toughest we have seen in our years in business."

The moves come as a host of other U.S. newspaper publishers have reduced staff, declared bankruptcy or shuttered once-vaunted newspapers, as readers seek news online and elsewhere and as the recession crimps advertising spending.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

GOP predicts "doomsday" if Obama budget passed


They really did use the word "doomsday".

Well, actually they said 'this country will go bankrupt' and 'fast road to ruin'; our liberal media translated that as "doomsday".

Where were Judd Gregg and Richard Shelby when Bush was spending $4 trillion on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? In the Senate heartily voting 'aye', of course.

Anyway, this is a repeat of 1993, and does anyone remember what kind of economy we got after the Republicans finished whining and the United States finally got a budget?

Then I don't suppose anyone can recall that Clinton's '93 budget, which raised taxes, reduced the federal deficit significantly either.

Seriously though, let's allay their deficit concerns and raise taxes on the wealthiest 5% NOW, instead of 2011.

"Heavens to Murgatroyd! That would be Socialism!"

Continuing to provide a forum -- some would say, 'outlet' -- for the bleatings of the naysayers isn't quite as stupid as ascribing drops in the Dow to the president speaking -- indeed, lying about it --or writing an article about the Employee Free Choice Act without ever seeking a comment from a representative of labor.

If we're going to play 'point/counterpoint or 'tit-for-tat' then it needs to be a two-way-street all the time.