The downturn in the economy has hurt ad sales at newspapers, magazines and TV stations across the country, but the cuts at the local newspaper go beyond an industry-wide loss of advertising revenue. Some papers have been decimated — i.e, they have lost one in 10 of their staff — but the Wilson Times, apparently, has cut about half of its staff. With the 15 cut today, payroll has slipped below 50 employees, it would appear, from a peak of around 90 a few years ago. I'm wondering whether the skeleton staff that is left can produce a newspaper six times a week. There has been no announcement about reducing publication days, but that surely must be the next step, to go from daily (six days a week) to five or fewer days a week. Cutting publication days would help the harried news staff keep up and would reduce newsprint costs, which are the second-largest expense for newspapers. When the first and second round of cuts came through, I reassured some people that, even with those cuts, the newsroom staff was bigger than when I had come to the paper in 1980. That's no longer the case. With this latest round of cuts, the news staff is the smallest it's been since at least the 1950s, perhaps the 1940s.
It's a sad day for some very loyal and capable employees, but it's also a sad day for the community. I've been accused of being "old school," and I certainly am in regard to newspapers. I believe a good newspaper is essential to a community. I was proud to be a part of a good newspaper in a good community just a few years ago. But today I'm sad that hard work and loyalty have been rewarded with layoffs. Bad decisions and unwise expenditures in the past have led to this day of reckoning, but the people who will suffer most are not the ones who made those bad decisions.
Posts
2 comments:
Perhaps in its entirety it was a better paper when you worked there. But no offense, after close comparison using the archives, anyone can see the Wilson Daily Times always wrote stories about the community and community members, that did nothing more than patronize the readership and tell only one side of the story via rose-colored glasses.
Not much has changed. The pertinent questions weren't asked then. And they aren't asked now.
I disagree with anonymous #1. This is an entirely different paper from what it was a year or two ago. And this is not just my opinion. I have heard the same spoken from numerous people. The talents of several of the laid-off workers, including Hal, are sorely missed in this town.
Post a Comment