Thursday, July 16, 2009

Believe me, I had nothing to do with it

It happened again this week. An old friend, whom I had not seen in some time, greeted me with the question, "How are you liking your retirement?" As I have numerous times over the past nine months, I had to explain, "I'm not retired; I was laid off. I'm job-hunting." When I was laid off, the newspaper where I had worked for 29 years and where I had managed the news content for 19 years, made no announcement of my departure, or of the departure of several colleagues who were laid off at the same time. One former colleague and I joked about taking out an ad in the newspaper explaining the circumstances of our departure.
Lately, I've been thinking about taking out another type of ad, one that says, "I'm not responsible for what your newspaper looks like or for its content." As much as I disliked being laid off, that action did at least absolve me of any connection with the redesign that came a few months later. Not many people have been thrilled about the new look or news emphasis. The letter to the editor that ran Wednesday is the first public condemnation I've seen. Although the paper ran a thank you to readers who had praised the redesign, everyone I've talked to has expressed disgust or exasperation with the redesign. And, unfortunately, I still run into people who think I'm still working there. For them, let me make it clear: I had nothing to do with it!
Now, let me get back to "enjoying my retirement."

3 comments:

  1. The paper really has gone downhill. It is a shame that what was once a great source of local news is now a hideous display of ads and a few AP stories. Thanks to the Lucama reader who shared her thoughts with the paper. Maybe someone up there will listen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Our take....

    Editorially, not much has changed.

    Not all is bad or unlike any small town newspaper. Yet, we see the same one-sided stories that often appear more like a rallying cry for various officials, or trying to talk up the town, people and organizations that are under the magnifying glass. Nothing as bad as the schmooze fest one ex-writer used to supply. Those were just bizarre and filled with (let me be nice here) embellishment. But we do still see those.

    We have noticed the addition of one writer's contributions which are trying to be mug-shot sensationalistic. Which is a slippery slope, since not only can they appear exploitive, they need to be careful with the facts. Or lack thereof.

    Oh, and they have this odd habit of running important stories without supplying any details in a timely manner, or at all.

    The usual redundant art fluff about the same people over and over-- or whirligigs. We love whirligigs btw.

    Unpaid (why?) "Columnists" that use the paper to announce their love of rhetoric and divisiveness or ignorance or just as a means to justify their salaries, or egos or both. Some are well meaning.

    When it comes to the actual look of the paper, they lost us with the copycat, creepy gothic logo.

    Ads? I thought that's what Wilson liked to do? Shop and eat and buy stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh my, this is a post I could have written. Thanks for expressing my frustrations.

    ReplyDelete