A Question of Emphasis
November 21st, 2009 | Published in Journalism | 15 Comments
The job cuts at the Washington Post on Friday have produced a round of comments, broadly summed up by Steve Yelvington earlier today. They certainly begged the question that occurred to me as a former employee of both the Post and WPNI, its soon-to-be merged online operation: “What explains this kind of decision?”
First, let me say that my observations about the general history of WPNI and its relationship with the paper are colored by my own experiences, but I agree with folks like Jay Rosen who say that at one point, washingtonpost.com was clearly a national leader – not just in technical capability, but in the kind of mindset necessary for a news organization prepared to take advantage of the Internet’s possibilities. I supported the creation of WPNI as a separate operation, to allow it more creative freedom, but both the people of WPNI and their colleagues at the Post should have done more to foster a better environment for working together. It’s something that I failed at when I was there.
But back to the kind of environment that leads to the departures, voluntarily or otherwise, of so many talented and dedicated employees. I don’t know the people who currently run the Washington Post, but I do think I understand a bit about how the organization works and thinks, having spent about three years there (more than two at the paper and about nine months at WPNI). When I wrote about moving from the paper to the website back in 2007, I left out some details about how that process happened. And I think, in hindsight, that they shed some light on how the organization operates.
It’s true that there were a number of people at the Post who were supportive and encouraging of my ambitions to work at WPNI. Among them were my supervisor at the time, Lucy Shackelford, and the paper’s editor, Len Downie. But once I had seriously pursued the idea of working on the website, it took months for the move to happen, and not just for reasons of simple corporate bureaucracy. In a very real way, my transition was held up – I (jokingly at first, and then angrily) referred to it as a filibuster or a senatorial hold – by a few people at the paper. These people, most of whom no longer occupy the positions they held then, are not stupid. They are among the smartest folks I’ve ever worked with, and I have a high regard for their journalistic abilities. But the thinking that caused the editor of the paper to become involved in whether a mid-level staffer moved to the website was, in essence, this: this is a bad idea, because it will hurt the paper. My ego might like to think that this was really true, but I think the reality is that these people could not compare the value of my work for the website to the paper because they did not understand what it is I wanted to do. So they went with what they knew, and that seemed to be a net deficit for them. And thus it was that I mooted the option of simply resigning from the paper in order to join its website.
I don’t envy the people who run the Washington Post (or any news organization) today. They have a ton of thankless choices to make, and critics on every side. From a certain standpoint, I can appreciate the idea that the paper edition, which generates the overwhelming share of the revenue, should be protected and bolstered as much as possible. But I cannot agree with the idea that this means that you take employees who have proven expertise doing valuable and informative things that don’t always translate into print and cannibalize (or toss away) their talents for the sake of the paper.
My fear as a Washington Post subscriber and reader of washingtonpost.com is that, when the folks running the organization turn things around (and I believe that it is not an impossibility or even a long-shot), what emerges will be not only a news organization that is a shadow of its former self – most orgs will have to face that reality – but that it will have put so much emphasis on the paper that it cannot take advantage of the possibilities online. That the folks running things are literally rolling back the progress and smart work that has been done, and will not be able to get it back as fast as they might think. And the people who remain – those who will be charged with the task of rebuilding a news operation that embraces all of the ways that its readers and users can gain value – will have neither the support nor the depth to make it happen.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:56 pm (#)
Unfortunately, from an outsider’s perspective, the Post’s return to print-centricity feels almost vengeful. In many ways the web site had eclipsed the paper and that likely galled a lot of folks at 15th and L. So they went and hired an editor who, from all appearances doesn’t “get it” and may not care. We should have known the day the web site was rebranded that the future was likely not pretty.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:27 pm (#)
[...] This post was Twitted by internshipangst [...]
November 21st, 2009 at 11:26 pm (#)
I can say only “amen” to your essay. I worked there too as a reporter, editor and columnist. By there, I mean washingtonpost.com. It was a forward-thinking place. It had its own problems, but what business doesn’t. What made it special was its ability and desire to think about new ways to do news without forgetting that “doing” the news — no matter how you show it to people — is always the same process. Report, create, do the best job that you can.
Now I cover media for Reuters, and broke the news of these layoffs on Friday (That’s my marketing device; I can’t help it, it’s in my nature).
I should say that my “amen” to what you write is as a former employee, not as someone who writes about The Washington Post Co. for Reuters.
November 22nd, 2009 at 12:52 am (#)
[...] crowd, and the fear expressed by some — including former WaPo online staffer Derek Willis and former online executive editor Jim Brady — is that the printies are gaining the upper [...]
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm (#)
Under what conditions would the merger of the two units be appropriate? Or do you think they should always be separate?
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:45 pm (#)
I don’t think they should always be separate, particularly since there should be some editorial creation occurring that is not print-only. I think the conditions for merging the two together would be ideal when both sides are comfortable enough with the shared goals of delivering the kind of information that its readers want and need in any number of ways. And when both sides communicate with each other as if the quality of their work depended on it – which it does.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:01 pm (#)
[...] A Question of Emphasis :: The Scoop – My fear as a Washington Post subscriber and reader of washingtonpost.com is that, when the folks running the organization turn things around (and I believe that it is not an impossibility or even a long-shot), what emerges will be not only a news organization that is a shadow of its former self – most orgs will have to face that reality – but that it will have put so much emphasis on the paper that it cannot take advantage of the possibilities online. That the folks running things are literally rolling back the progress and smart work that has been done, and will not be able to get it back as fast as they might think. And the people who remain – those who will be charged with the task of rebuilding a news operation that embraces all of the ways that its readers and users can gain value – will have neither the support nor the depth to make it happen. [...]
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:36 am (#)
[...] departments are merging, and it’s the Web folks that are getting the axe. Former employee Derek Willis and Mathew Ingram of The Globe and Mail in Toronto are worried about what this says about the [...]
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:08 am (#)
Printies and webbies — we’re all journalists!…
As a student, I thought if I could just get the digital skills down, my journo-tech obsession would have a place in this world. Turns out, it might be far from that simple.
……
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:15 am (#)
[...] database journalist and developer formerly at the Washington Post and now with the New York Times, adds details to the internal battle that broke out when he wanted to make the switch from the paper …. I met Derek in the spring of 2007 sometime as he was trying to make the transition. I wasn’t [...]
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:25 am (#)
it’s interesting to hear these kinds of things, derek.
when i was looking at jobs in 2006, i was (and remain) good friends with Tom Kennedy, who was their director of multimedia at the time (i think that was his title). anyway, they were one of the preeminent online news sources, and i was very tempted.
the reason i ended up going with the times, and this is no secret, was their commitment to integration. when i interviewed with the times it was clear that they were looking to erase the distinction between the print and online shop. and these decisions were coming from the top, with jon landman among others leading the charge.
so while i can’t speak much to the washpost, i can say what made me look another direction. i feel i made the right decision. and i’m very sorry to see such talented people (including tom kennedy) no longer working to push the washpost to new levels.
November 27th, 2009 at 7:54 pm (#)
Gabriel… do you think parity has been achieved at the NYT? You’re inside, so you would know best, but from where I stand and from what I hear, the place isn’t close to parity. The “print guys” still believe they are a higher class of journalists and, well, they tolerate the web side because, as much as it pains them, the web site is handy for breaking news before the “real” story can come out in the next day’s paper.
Don’t think so? Name me one top level reporter on the NYT that would jump to the web side and give up their desk in the den of print reporters. The fact that there are still terms like “print side” and “web side” are all anyone needs to see that there’s still a big gap to be filled.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:39 pm (#)
Brock,
I don’t think Gabe was saying anything about parity being achieved. He said “it was clear that they were looking to erase the distinction between the print and online shop.” That’s a process, and I’m sure you’ll hear all sorts of opinions on the state of things. The idea, imho, is that there is less of “print side” and “web side” and more of “us”. Sewell Chan – I’m sure I’m not the only one to consider him a top-level reporter – has radically altered his job to run CityRoom without giving up his desk. I don’t believe Gabe was describing utopia, or even trying to. What you read into it is your business, but I’d ask you not to twist his words. As you say, he would know best – or better than you, at least.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:33 am (#)
[...] it isnt’ presented properly. Stories of the lack of understanding between the two, such as this of former WaPo print-turned-online staffer (and my current Medill professor) Derek Willis are [...]
January 29th, 2010 at 4:05 am (#)
[...] crowd, and the fear expressed by some — including former WaPo online staffer Derek Willis and former online executive editor Jim Brady — is that the printies are gaining the upper [...]