Good piece on Buffalo News Sports Dept

[Mr. WEO]

48 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Semantics.   Buyout or layoff, certain individuals were going to no longer be on the payroll.     

 

The chances of Sully and Buckster taking a reporter role was slim to none, and slim had left the building.   Both sides knew it, and management exploited it.    It could happen politely (buyout) or not (layoff).   But only because of the "economic reasons to remedy the stability of the newspaper" clause...

 

 

It's not semantics.  You specifically cited the clause, twice, to argue that they could not offer buyouts unless they were losing money.  That's wrong--the clause says nothing about buyouts, which are, if accepted, voluntary leavings of the company.  The clause ONLY says you can't fire people to improve the bottom line of the company unless the company is losing money.  It doesn't say anything about what you  keep saying it does.

 

At any time in the past, the BN could have approached Sullivan with the same deal--lose your column and become a "feature writer"...or accept a buyout.  There is nothing that CBA could have done to prevent that or any other buyout offer. 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Mr. WEO

[boater]

Related. Warren Buffet, who owns the BN is hiring a company to manage 30 of the newspapers he owns.

 

Warren Buffett Chooses New Path for Newspapers After Lamenting Decline

 

Interestingly, Warren is not subcontracting the management of the BN. That indicates to me that the BN situation is better in comparison to other newspapers. That indicates Warren's confidence in BN management, and Warren Buffett is no idiot.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

26 minutes ago, boater said:

That indicates to me that the BN situation is better in comparison to other newspapers.

That, or the [BN]competent is going to be the 'loss leader' and tax write off Berkshire Hathaway needs within its corporate structure.  ?

[Lurker]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

At any time in the past, the BN could have approached Sullivan with the same deal--lose your column and become a "feature writer"...or accept a buyout.  

 

Refresh my memory.   When has the BN ever offered buyouts on a one-off basis, not part of a larger downsizing effort related to economic/financial issues?    Past Newsroom buyouts have come in waves, much like the current one, not dribs and drabs.   Targeting Sully individually, rather than as part of a larger package, would almost surely have been grieved, dragging out the process and costs. 

 

 

Anyway, here's the Guild's take on the whole matter:     http://www.buffaloguild.org/2018/06/08/buyouts-result-in-painful-newsroom-losses/

 

"The Editorial Department of The Buffalo News is expected to lose at least 16 Guild members as a result of targeted and voluntary buyouts that the company made available last month." 

 

"Voluntary buyouts were offered in conjunction with one-on-one meetings between management and reporters and columnists to discuss the future of The News and assess each writer’s contributions."

 

"Because of the union’s contract language, The News does not have the ability to unilaterally terminate specific employees. But there were mitigating factors that left some Guild members feeling they needed go.   Many were facing reassignments into unknown or dramatically different job duties."

[Saxum]

7 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

Semantics.   Buyout or layoff, certain individuals were going to no longer be on the payroll.     

 

The chances of Sully and Buckster taking a reporter role was slim to none, and slim had left the building.   Both sides knew it, and management exploited it.    It could happen politely (buyout) or not (layoff).   But only because of the "economic reasons to remedy the stability of the newspaper" clause...

 

Not correct.  Due to union rules they could have taken other reporters jobs although they would have been paid at most max rate of their replacements pay grades.  Not sure how it applies when someone does multiple things like the TV coverage which we have not heard officially that they have been eliminated.  Cockroaches are hard to kill you know?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

21 hours ago, Limeaid said:

Not sure how you can offer a buyout and when employee says "yes" pull it away.  Certainly not good for morale.  Now if you told employees that buyouts were available but number were limited and by guild rules more senior people have priority that is different but the article posted was frankly from the point of view of the disgruntled grunts some of which will never work again.

 

Its pretty common when buyouts are offered, to make clear some employees are regarded as critical and will not be eligible for the package

[Saxum]

11 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Its pretty common when buyouts are offered, to make clear some employees are regarded as critical and will not be eligible for the package

 

Yes but it was stated it was eligible to all employees.

Have received buyout in past while another employee was just let go.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, Limeaid said:

 

Yes but it was stated it was eligible to all employees.

Have received buyout in past while another employee was just let go.

 

If you are personally aware of the fine print on the news buyout, I defer to your better knowledge - I’m not.  But if you’re basing it on news reports those don’t always capture the fine print

[Mr. WEO]

7 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

Refresh my memory.   When has the BN ever offered buyouts on a one-off basis, not part of a larger downsizing effort related to economic/financial issues?    Past Newsroom buyouts have come in waves, much like the current one, not dribs and drabs.   Targeting Sully individually, rather than as part of a larger package, would almost surely have been grieved, dragging out the process and costs. 

 

 

Anyway, here's the Guild's take on the whole matter:     http://www.buffaloguild.org/2018/06/08/buyouts-result-in-painful-newsroom-losses/

 

"The Editorial Department of The Buffalo News is expected to lose at least 16 Guild members as a result of targeted and voluntary buyouts that the company made available last month." 

 

"Voluntary buyouts were offered in conjunction with one-on-one meetings between management and reporters and columnists to discuss the future of The News and assess each writer’s contributions."

 

"Because of the union’s contract language, The News does not have the ability to unilaterally terminate specific employees. But there were mitigating factors that left some Guild members feeling they needed go.   Many were facing reassignments into unknown or dramatically different job duties."

 

Your last paragraph re-affirms what i have said 3 times now.  The guild was powerless, at any time, to stop the BN, in good times or bad, from downsizing through having staffers voluntarily leave.

 

The point of all this is that Sully, Bucky and the deputy editor, as 3 of no doubt the most expensive sports staff could not be fired (first) under guild rules.    Likewise, Sullivan's columns weren't a "problem" until this quarter.  Did Sully's takes suddenly change after all those 10 straight years of profit making Q's?  Of course not.  Then, the BN loses money once and they look to gut the top of the sports room to cut costs.

 

If Sully's columns were such a problem, say, the previous money making Q, they could have gotten rid of him in the exact same way as they did after they lost money---because there is nothing in the guild contract that prohibits them from offering a buyout in profitable times.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Mr. WEO

[Shaw66]

10 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Your last paragraph re-affirms what i have said 3 times now.  The guild was powerless, at any time, to stop the BN, in good times or bad, from downsizing through having staffers voluntarily leave.

 

The point of all this is that Sully, Bucky and the deputy editor, as 3 of no doubt the most expensive sports staff could not be fired (first) under guild rules.    Likewise, Sullivan's columns weren't a "problem" until this quarter.  Did Sully's takes suddenly change after all those 10 straight years of profit making Q's?  Of course not.  Then, the BN loses money once and they look to gut the top of the sports room to cut costs.

 

If Sully's columns were such a problem, say, the previous money making Q, they could have gotten rid of him in the exact same way as they did after they lost money---because there is nothing in the guild contract that prohibits them from offering a buyout in profitable times.

I generally have disagreed with a lot of what you've posted, but your ultimate conclusion here is correct.   The News could have gotten rid of Sullivan any time they wanted.  The Guild wasn't going to stop them.  

 

I don't think you're correct, however, that Sullivan's columns weren't a problem before them.   My guess is they WERE a problem that the editors discussed from time to time, but they weren't a problem that was big enough to cause them to move him out.   That's why I said many pages ago that he's gone because of combination of factors:  his columns, the unhappiness of the Bills about the coverage they were getting, and the economics of the newspaper.   The News clearly was willing to put up with some of the crap that Sullivan wrote, the News was willing to push back against the Bills to some extent, and the Bills knew that Sullivan wasn't the primary reason for their declining economics.   However, when the News decided it was time to ease the economic pressure they were feeling, Sullivan became a prime target because of his compensation,  the attitude he displayed in his columns and the unhappiness of the Bills.   

[Fadingpain]

On June 26, 2018 at 10:51 AM, MJS said:

 

They have to evolve, and that means lots of change.

 

I'm not going to lament the fall of an archaic industry.

Journalism is not an "archaic industry".

The form of technology used to disseminate journalistic content is now archaic, but it is important to a democracy to have many strong, independent voices in the media.

 

I think the industry will evolve so that there are 5 or 10 super regional papers in the country, and no others.  The others will morph into online services of one type or another. 

 

LA Times, Chicago Tribune, NY Times, WSJ, Boston Globe, Washington Post...the heavyweights will survive the transition.  The lesser stuff if probably going to die.

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

26 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I generally have disagreed with a lot of what you've posted, but your ultimate conclusion here is correct.   The News could have gotten rid of Sullivan any time they wanted.  The Guild wasn't going to stop them.  

 

I don't think you're correct, however, that Sullivan's columns weren't a problem before them.   My guess is they WERE a problem that the editors discussed from time to time, but they weren't a problem that was big enough to cause them to move him out.   That's why I said many pages ago that he's gone because of combination of factors:  his columns, the unhappiness of the Bills about the coverage they were getting, and the economics of the newspaper.   The News clearly was willing to put up with some of the crap that Sullivan wrote, the News was willing to push back against the Bills to some extent, and the Bills knew that Sullivan wasn't the primary reason for their declining economics.   However, when the News decided it was time to ease the economic pressure they were feeling, Sullivan became a prime target because of his compensation,  the attitude he displayed in his columns and the unhappiness of the Bills.   

 

The 2 bolded are the reasons he is gone. 

 

The News was always willing to "put up with" one of their best read columnists for all those other years....because he was one of their best read columnists. 

 

Say this about Ralph--he didn't squeeze the press to can one of their marquee opinionators because of negative columns.  The Pegulas do business a different way.  Their ownership of the Sabres in particular speaks for itself, but they would rather not have to read about it (or you read about it) in the local paper.

[oldmanfan]

Sullivan was offered a new job, as was Gleason.  They declined, took their buy outs, and left.  And then Sullivan has to go on and on about the whole thing.

Again, he was not fired, he voluntarily left.  And he wonders why some folks think he's a jackass.

[Lurker]

27 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

The News was always willing to "put up with" one of their best read columnists for all those other years....because he was one of their best read columnists. 

 

Koko the gorilla would have had the best-read column at the BN if she'd had the senior columnist gig in the sports department.   

 

It's disingenuous to say Sully was popular ("best read") because of his writing.   He was popular because of his subject matter.   With only the Buckster as competition, he was essentially a monopoly, given the rabid interest in the Bills and Sabres in this town.   

 

People could figuratively "hold their nose" and say how much they hated his column, but read it anyway given the appetite for everything Bills and Sabres.   Someone else might be even more "read" (i.e., interesting, entertaining) if given the opportunity--and that's what I'm looking forward.   I suspect the BN management are as well...    

[Mr. WEO]

26 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Koko the gorilla would have had the best-read column at the BN if she'd had the senior columnist gig in the sports department.   

 

It's disingenuous to say Sully was popular ("best read") because of his writing.   He was popular because of his subject matter.   With only the Buckster as competition, he was essentially a monopoly, given the rabid interest in the Bills and Sabres in this town.   

 

People could figuratively "hold their nose" and say how much they hated his column, but read it anyway given the appetite for everything Bills and Sabres.   Someone else might be even more "read" (i.e., interesting, entertaining) if given the opportunity--and that's what I'm looking forward.   I suspect the BN management are as well...    

 

 

Yes.  I've stated this in most of my posts already.

 

Someone else (it will be a junior staffer) may be more interesting (I wouldn't hold my breath), but doubtfully more entertaining.

 

We won't be seeing 10 page threads every week on TBD debating the merits of "Columnist X's" latest hot take on the Bills.

[Lurker]

10 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

We won't be seeing 10 page threads every week on TBD debating the merits of "Columnist X's" latest hot take on the Bills.

 

Sure we will.   That TSW's raison d'être.

 

Who knows, it's even possible one-third of this place might actually miss Sully and say it was better "back in the old days..."

[oldmanfan]

20 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Yes.  I've stated this in most of my posts already.

 

Someone else (it will be a junior staffer) may be more interesting (I wouldn't hold my breath), but doubtfully more entertaining.

 

We won't be seeing 10 page threads every week on TBD debating the merits of "Columnist X's" latest hot take on the Bills.

I'd place a small wager on that. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Sure we will.   That TSW's raison d'être.

 

Who knows, it's even possible one-third of this place might actually miss Sully and say it was better "back in the old days..."

 

 

This is certainly possible.  Otherwise we are left with the uncomfortable aroma of an owner of all of the major pro sports teams in a small town influencing the coverage of him and his teams by the only newspaper in town.  I'm sure he has his sights set on Carucci to go next as payback for reporting his "ultimatum" 2 years ago.

[MJS]

3 hours ago, Fadingpain said:

Journalism is not an "archaic industry".

The form of technology used to disseminate journalistic content is now archaic, but it is important to a democracy to have many strong, independent voices in the media.

 

I think the industry will evolve so that there are 5 or 10 super regional papers in the country, and no others.  The others will morph into online services of one type or another. 

 

LA Times, Chicago Tribune, NY Times, WSJ, Boston Globe, Washington Post...the heavyweights will survive the transition.  The lesser stuff if probably going to die.

 

 

 

Yes, it is an archaic industry, which is why it is failing and changing. It will change until it isn't archaic anymore, and then it won't fail anymore.

 

Every single industry goes through this.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

Last Wednesday, I walked into the local (in)convenience store, threw down my $1.30 Canadian and picked up the Buffalo News for the first time in quite a while.  Although thinner than it used to be, it's still doing a passable job with the news us buggy whip holding dinosaurs remember that was the practice for years.  No godawful 'Smiles At' photo galleries.  No inane lists.  No retrospective pieces about how the Anchor Bar was the birthplace of the chicken wing.  A print sports section that covered a variety of sports adequately - well, much more than the online version.  A print local news section that isn't rife with mistakes and grammatically challenged headlines and stories.  How is it the online version is such dreck, yet the print version still mostly does what a newspaper is supposed to do?