Scraping bottom

[JennB]

Does the wire appear dead to anyone else tonight? We're scraping the bottom of the barrel to fill the paper. What do you do if you have a "City/Region" section with a 30" hole to fill, no local copy, no reporters on, and nothing happening in town? Do you relegate the page to national wire copy?

[Jim Thomsen]

Sorry this comes too late to help you tonight, Jenn ....

The first thing that comes to mind is this: Do you have Google News alerts set? If not, type in the names of cities and counties in your coverage area and see what comes back — every once in a while you get lucky and find an interesting story about somebody or something in your area that's written by a non-competitor. (For instance, last week, a tractor-trailer driven by a man from my area was involved in a collision in Colorado that killed a prominent Denver couple.)

When I find something like that, I look to see if it moved out of any AP bureau. If so, I can make a call to my local AP bureau and ask them to pick it up and move it on a wire category I can access. If not, I call the paper that wrote the original article and ask for permission to use it. That's almost never been denied.

Rewrite portions of the story to get the locally relevant stuff in the lede and elsewhere high in the story. And voila, instant local copy for your section!

Another suggestion is to go back a few days in the state wire for interesting features that you may not have been able to use the day it originally moved.

In Washington, we have an "Evergreen Exchange" of four or five features, usually with art, that have been contributed by member papers. Once in a while, if you read deep enough into those stories, you'll find something your readers can connect to ... so rewrite accordingly. Just because a wire story may be three or four days old doesn't necessarily mean it's too old to be used — they're not all hard-pegged to same-day happenings.

All this being said, your paper has a responsibility to stockpile local copy for holiday-doldrum periods — because it's simply irresponsible to put out a local paper with no local news. This is often why so many papers put out those dreaded "Top Stories Of The Year" compendiums. It's lazy and no more responsible than no plan at all, but at least something's there — and shows that somebody in charge spared a millisecond's thought for the dilemma of you and people like you all over the country on nights like this. That your bosses chose neither course doesn't speak well of them.

[Jim Thomsen]

Here's the Google News search for Eau Claire. Nothing really leaps out at me ... except the story on the year's stats for deer killed by leaping out in front of cars. You should be able to get some mileage out of that, heh heh ....

[Wayne Countryman]

I hope you found a way out. Here's something to consider to head off a repeat of this [an anecdote follows, then a suggestion]:

I struggled every Sunday to fill the Monday local section of a paper of about 200,000 circulation. Use of state news was prohibited; use of wire copy written about our circulation area was prohibited without obtaining permission far in advance. I warned my supervisor that unless the city desk provided more copy, then someday I'd have to run a house ad on the open page 3 that was considered a second metro section front.

That day arrived. I filled the section front, running photos larger than they deserved. Jumps filled page 2. A 10-inch story plus an unobtrusive house ad filled page 4. On page 3 I stripped 12-inch stories above and below a six-column by 15-inch package of photos of a kid flying a kite accompanied by a cutline-essay I wrote. That left a six-column by 4-inch hole with nothing to fill it.

The next day my supervisor said the bosses weren't happy with what I'd done. What should I have done? "I don't know," my supervisor said. "But the city editors got yelled at about it, so maybe it won't come up again."

[end of anecdote]

Let supervisors know of the problem you faced that day. Work out a policy to avoid a recurrence. For instance, timeless features -- whether written by the staff or a wire service, preferably accompanied by photos -- could be stored for such situations. That's cheaper than having a reporter work a shift.

[JennB]

Thanks for the tips. We'll be in the same boat tonight because we exhausted all the local copy yesterday. We even used up our stockpile of court listings and police reports.

The good news is that I mainly work for The Country Today, a rural-life weekly published every Wednesday by the Eau Claire Press Company. My little cubicle is just in a different room, but the stories and pictures are stored on the same front-end system as the daily Leader-Telegram. If we're really hurting for copy, the backup plan is to use some rural features with pictures from The Country Today.

Most of you probably don't know where Eau Claire is, but we're right at the crossroads of farms, fishing, hunting and anything else outdoors related. The population is about 62,000, but a lot of our readership is in a 100-mile or more radius. The rural filler stuff is fairly well-read.

I can't really complain about staffing on The Country Today side. I'm on that payroll, and we get raises every six months (unheard of in the newspaper industry, yes?). After some concerted promotional efforts, our circulation has finally turned around and is now growing by about 400 readers every three months. We've had to change our focus from large-scale farm features and news to everything else "rural." Organic farms, dog-sledding, llamas, pumpkin-growing contests. If it's anything rural or outdoors related, we cover it. Makes for some interesting copy editing sometimes. I've had to learn more about cow breeds and cheese than I ever wanted to know. But if you have a question about the tastiest livestock or wild game, and a recipe for that pheasant you shot, let me know. </end of long-winded side note>

The daily paper, where I work weekends and some holidays, is a different story. Major cutbacks, no rehiring when people go elsewhere and generally terrible morale are the norm. About Wayne's suggestion to let a supervisor know of the problems filling the paper: The slot I worked with last night (and will tonight) is the local news editor. He's second in line in seniority and is the guy that assigns the stories to all the reporters. I'm wondering if he didn't know he worked these two shifts, and the overall lack of planning has come back to bite him in the ass. Somehow I don't think things will change. They'll just tell us to make the pictures big and run a lot of house ads. We already used all the end-of-year photo and top stories crap for Saturday and Sunday.

Our scheduling structure and messed-up copy desk shifts are other rants for other days. You guys will be hearing a lot from me. It's nice to get different perspectives and know that we're all in this together.

[Jim Thomsen]

Wow, Jenn, that daily sounds like it's in pretty sad shape. I hope they don't think readers are fooled by the "run photos big" style of strategies. Even as a kid, when papers did this I knew they just either couldn't, didn't or wouldn't find more news.

And Wayne ... what was the thinking behind the strategy that hamstrung your inside section front? No wire copy with local relevance? Did they think readers were going to recoil in horror if they spotted something like that? To me, it's simple — you need to either be given what you need to fill your section, or, in the absence of that, given the freedom to find the best way to fill it within reason.

One other tip: I have been known on slow days to take a lunch break to go out and shoot my own enterprise photos. If you have a digital camera, consider being your own filler.

[Wayne Countryman]

And Wayne ... what was the thinking behind the strategy that hamstrung your inside section front? No wire copy with local relevance? Did they think readers were going to recoil in horror if they spotted something like that? To me, it's simple — you need to either be given what you need to fill your section, or, in the absence of that, given the freedom to find the best way to fill it within reason.

No logical explanation; just a matter of ego, I guess. I agree with you.

One other tip: I have been known on slow days to take a lunch break to go out and shoot my own enterprise photos. If you have a digital camera, consider being your own filler.

Slow days? Lunch break?
Running your own photos? How does your photo editor feel about that?

[Jim Thomsen]

On days when the photogs are loaded down with assignments, they're usually cool with it.

Mostly it's stuff like: Overturned car in ditch, kids building snowman, fishermen catching dog sharks at the local pier, etc. Once I got a neat picture of a kid dressed in a big foam-rubber pizza-slice costume (he was hawking for a pizza-by-the-slice joint on the sidewalk) splayed out against the pizza place's brick facade, leisurely smoking a cigarette on his break.

I almost always do it only on holidays and Sundays, when staffing's at its thinnest and the news-to-newshole ratio is at its worst.

And then, sparingly at that. I'm a halfway decent shooter, but nowhere near the quality of a professional newspaper photographer. I'm not tempted to forget that; I just happen to take my digital camera with me everywhere I go ... because you never know.

You get all sorts of conflicts of interest that aren't really conflicts at smaller papers. For instance, our best page 1A designer often does fancy illustrations to go with centerpieces written by his wife, who's our freelance health and science reporter. The traditional ethicist in me raised my eyebrows at that until I realized ... really, where's the harm?

[Wayne Countryman]

On days when the photogs are loaded down with assignments, they're usually cool with it.

Good enough for me. Wasn't criticizing. Hadn't even thought of a conflict of interest. Rather, I've usually worked with photo staffs that would resist the use of photos by other employees, even if union rules weren't involved.

The only photos I've had published were shot during a working vacation in another country. Seldom had time to get out of the office to shoot any during my shift. Worked many nights without a lunch break--fool that I was.

[rich]

Back in my reporting days, when the Smothers Brothers were on top the entertainment ladder, I was sent to cover them and told to take some pictures.

I got what I thought was a great feature, because those two entertainers kept joking for my amusement for more than an hour after their appearance on stage. They even posed on an elephant for me, and I used up all the film my editor had allocated to me when he lent me the ultra-costly Nikon camera usually reserved for photographers.

I had taken lots of pictures for the paper before that time, and all had been in focus, with the subject of each centered and complete. I even had sold pictures with stories to a couple of magazines that had nationwide distribution.

But when I brought the raw Smothers Brothers film to the photo lab late that night, the photographer on duty told me what he thought of reporters who aced fine photographers out of preferred jobs. He actually was shaking, he was so upset. And my protestations that I had not sought that job, but had only done what I’d been told to do, did not ease the tension between us.

It was very late, but he shrugged and he said he would do the lab work while I finished the story. That meant I would be able to turn everything over to editors before I went home. I left the lab, but then returned to tell him that the Smothers Brothers wanted a proof sheet. That is when I saw him open the film, and run his thumbnail along one side of its entire length. I didn't know what he was doing, but when he printed the proof sheet, only half of every picture remained. He claimed that I had not taken the pictures correctly and blamed me for what I believe to this day that he did in a moment of anger.

I did not fight with him, nor complain to the editor, although the incident left me with a feeling of resentment I could almost not suppress. I did not share my suspicion of the angry photographer with anyone, but I could not get over it. When I told the Smothers Brothers that none of the pictures were any good, they reacted with pure kindness. They insisted the pictures showing elephants carrying headless comedians were hilarious, and so were the ones in which they were only partly visible on stage and in a variety of comic poses.

Despite my protests, they bought every distorted photo I had taken.

I was so ashamed I did not know how to make it up to them.

But to this day, I am convinced those pictures were sabotaged when the angry photographer ran his finger down the raw film. And since then, I have been reluctant to take pictures for any newspaper, although I have taken some for magazines.

Even at the time it happened I knew I was not a photographer and never had been — so giving up work as a combo-man did not trouble me.

But, sometime, I’ll tell you my opinion about whether a man of words is well advised to horn into the bailiwick protected by an expert in photography. It probably will not surprise any of you.

[Jim Thomsen]

Well, we're just about to lay off one of our four staff photographers, so I'm sure non-shooters will be asked to come up with more pictures for both the print and Web editions than ever before.

These days, anachronistic, antagonistic turf protection is a luxury few can afford. We're just trying to help each other out and survive; with the newsroom going from 46 to 31 people in the course of just over a year, we all need to embrace our inner generalist a little more. For instance, I'm going to be part of a new general-interest "fun" blog we hope to launch early in 2008, and that's fine with me.

[rich]

I'm glad human nature has changed over the years.

Well, we're just about to lay off one of our four staff photographers, so I'm sure non-shooters will be asked to come up with more pictures for both the print and Web editions than ever before.

Yet, I wonder. Even though good people tend to act in a team spirit and without malice toward colleagues, sometimes they are not regarded as so innocent as they really may be. A few colleagues affected negatively by their actions, at least in the past, might have been inclined to view them as malicious.

Back in ancient times, which I recall as clearly as I do yesterday, the photographers facing layoff might have perceived non-shooters waiting in the wings as threats to their jobs. They might have assigned blame to those kindly people who were just trying to help.

I do not mean this as a criticism of you, Jim, or of anyone in any organization, but only as a judgment that may have been rendered long ago.

The photographer who sabotaged my pictures that time certainly regarded me as a threat, although I did not realize that he could imagine I was taking something from him until he forced me to see it.

It was because I realized what I represented to him that I did not complain to the editor about his actions. It was because I realized what I represented to him that I did not explain to the Smothers brothers that the pictures had been sabotaged. And that, in turn, is why I felt so ashamed.

Subsequently, when I illustrated any of the stories I wrote, I made it clear that my photos only were there to mark a place that could be filled by the professionals.

I guess, if I understand you correctly, I should be reassured to realize that people in the thick of things today are so much wiser than we were.

And although it hurts to come up short, I guess I am. If it is true it makes the world a safer place by far.

[rich]

It was because I realized what I represented to him that I did not complain to the editor about his actions. It was because I realized what I represented to him that I did not explain to the Smothers brothers that the pictures had been sabotaged. And that, in turn, is why I felt so ashamed.

The fact is, I must have been a nightmarish threat to the photographer. He saw a future of reporters doing his job as their own, and I think he was frightened.

Almost all reporters started out doing combo work in those days. You know, you would keep your rubber boots and your paper-issued Nikon by your notepad beside your bed. And every time there was a Code 20 anywhere in your general area, police, fire and other emergency services called you and you were on the way to the scene. You were up every night, and sometimes tired throughout your day shift. But that was the job.

Reporters who did that sort of work all the time became inured to writer-photographer distinctions.

But then another kind of job comes up, and the issue of bailiwick becomes important. If you are a reporter, you realize you have no right to step into the path of the photographer. You know you always are going to be assigned jobs, and you realize that it is your obligation to protect the person who saves you from double duty and who gets the pictures your editor needs.

To clarify, I felt ashamed because I had not read the situation properly from the start.

To me the assignment felt like just another Code 20 combo job, although instead of taking pictures of a car wrapped around a telephone pole and writing a little story about drunk teenagers racing on city streets, I would be dealing with comedians.

Going into the job I failed to realize, at least at the right time, that in agreeing to treat it as a combo assignment I actually was taking work away from the photographer. It is not that I ever liked the man much or thought he had grand virtues — but he had a right to earn a living. Yet, clearly, he thought that I was a threat capable of depriving him of that.

Although I resented what he did, I also felt sorry for him and regretted causing him to feel such desperation as he had to have felt to act so stupidly. I was ashamed because 1) I had failed to recognize my own culpability in interfering with the photographer's efforts, and a nasty act resulted which prevented me from coming up with the requested pictures, so 2) I failed the assignment editor. 3) I let my paper down, and 4) I disappointed the entertainers who had gone out of their way to make my job easy.

In retrospect, a generation and more later, I still feel the same sort of regret that you have when you look back on a moment when you think you might have done injury to a friend. You know? It is shame I feel. It is not funny.

But I introduced this vignette, and that is why I returned here to tell it all.

[Jim Thomsen]

Rich, I think you've taken on too much of the blame for this episode. I think your assigning editor, unwittingly or otherwise, set you up to fail. Any smart manager would have intuitively understood the political dynamics at work in the newsroom. I think you did what you were told to do, that refusing wasn't a very good option, and that the threatened photog should have taken his upset out on the assigning editor, not on you. You were just the poor sucker caught in the middle of a mess you had no hand in making.

[rich]

Thanks for the kind thoughts, Jim. Your analysis may be correct, although if it is then I failed the gullibility test.

If I, as a reporter, had failed in the same way at a planning commission or city council meeting, the consequences could have been equally embarrassing.

Now that I am old enough to look back with an eye to making sense of what once was, I do not want to pretend to virtues that I probably never had.

Clearly, when we send reporters out to cover a city council meeting, for example, we expect them to know what is going on. We figure it is part of the reporter's job to observe what is happening and to recognize any signs of discontent, dispute or tension. Insight of this sort contributes context to the story. Partly because of it, what takes place elevates the report to something more than a laundry list. It makes the stories those reporters write worth reading. That insight also should enable them to infer whether threats may cause disruptions to take place in the future, too.

I missed all such signs that I should have perceived, and I did so in my own office. Also, while I would like to claim I learned from what happened, I am not sure that I did.

Either type of failure ought to be recognized for what it was, a failure.

But, you are a good man, Charlie Brown. I do thank you for taking your time to help me make sense of behavior I remember with dissatisfaction.

[maggie leung]

Rich, I agree with Jim. I think you take too much on yourself. I understand the photographer's concerns. But what he should have done is just told you straight out: Hey, don't know whether you know, but when you take photographs, it's seen as a threat to photographers' jobs. ... That would've taken him a few seconds to say and gotten his message across. ... Turn the situation around, you as the photographer, would you have acted as he did? I doubt it, considering how you've expressed yourself here. The fact that you were younger and less experienced meant that he should've taken that into account, if nothing else.

[rich]

Thank you Maggie. What you say is kind and it also seems to be carefully considered.

But subjective barriers tend to intervene when I think about it. My age is advancing toward its natural limits (although, everyone can say that, I guess) and I don’t want end up knowing that I took much more than I gave.

If I have a chance of improving any facet of my life it will involve what I do tomorrow. And if some form of the past should be repeated, I hope my reaction to challenge is tempered by what I have learned.

I may never be able to change the insecurity tomorrow's (substitute for the) photographer feels — and his behavior is his responsibility, anyway — but I can modify my own thoughts and actions. Perhaps such modification will help me understand what is going on better, enabling me to be more useful in society. (That wish is a cliché among journalists, isn't it?)

Even though events, such as the one with the photographer, make me sad, I am committed to the process.

I do thank you and Jim for helping me take stock of a troubling memory.


My reaction to another currently discussed subject:

With respect to the downsizing some of you are experiencing, I have odd reservations and suspicions. Of course, I invoke the caveat that what any of us thinks probably ought to be questioned.

But to get to it: I understand the bottom-line argument for downsizing; it claims to recognize and almost to formalize limits for potential profit. It pretends that virtually any flat-growth projection for newspapers is realism. It says unequivocally that the newspaper differs from other successful forms of business in that profitable innovation cannot be done within parameters that define it.

It is odd that some business moguls make such assessments, but it is their power to do so that earns them the (confusingly) big bucks. When they fail at innovation, they try to succeed financially by a kind of strip mining. Evidently, layoffs that cut costs sometimes produce an immediately bankable windfall. Downsizing appears to be pure gold.

Such leaders are like generals of ancient armies unable to forage and too far from depots to be supplied. If such generals cannot figure out a way to feed their troops or their beasts of burden while continuing to send golden treasures to their homes, to their brokers, and to whomever they substitute for Cleopatra, then they butcher their draft animals for food.

If dollars, although rubbed artfully together, fail to procreate at the expected rate, then these captains of media legions may even go beyond the slaughter of oxen and horses. Some may cannibalize their businesses.

Some apply that most savage of military penalties, decimation.

In the armies of ancient Rome, there were times when a failure of discipline or the like resulted in that horribly unjust punishment. That is when one out of every 10 legionnaires was executed. The rest of the soldiers were forgiven the transgression for which these victims, selected by lot, were removed from the ranks.

Historians seldom describe the fate of the nine survivors. But it is not believed that they necessarily were better soldiers than were those removed by execution.

That was downsizing the Roman way.

Of course, this is not to say that economizing by layoff always is unnecessary.

Besides, maybe it is less egregious to expose colleagues to penury than to the executioner. But who has the moral power to make either primary or ancillary judgments about this? How do controllers know which of their judgments are ethically sound?

None of this is in my bailiwick, however, and none of it impinges on my fortunes. But I wonder: If employment decimation is not a planned winnowing process to get rid of what employers regard as chaff, what is it?