Posted on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 19:31 — by jerryb
Dear Readers I am a former CCT reporter who first cut her teeth there six years ago. In that time, I tried my best to help produce quality, probing and unique stories. I believed, and still do, that questioning and a variety of voices and perspectives is not merely essential to the communities we served, but vital to our society as a whole. But in the five months since I've left the CCT newsroom, I've been heartbroken by the series of management events taking place there -- decisions that have beleaguered workers and threaten to undermine the Contra Costa Times. On Feb. 19, CCT's publisher, and previous executive editor, John Armstrong announced that EB-BANG, owned by Denver-based Media News, would be offering buy-out packages to all employees in an effort to hastily shave off "unspecified" payroll costs. The move, Armstrong explained, was in response to "the challenging Bay Area economic climate, and the prospect that it will be with us for another 12 to 18 months." There is not enough space here to enumerate the pitfalls of this strategy seen in newsrooms across the country in response to the obvious economic challenges. On a larger scale, CCT is just another news outlet to line up on the slippery slope. But these newsroom cuts affect not merely reporters, print men, and other newspaper workers. You, dear Contra Costa and Alameda readers, will also feel the prik. The proof will be in the breadth and depth of reporting, in print and on the web -- gone will be the days of thoughtful and thorough coverage of the community; obliterated and homogenized will be the coverage 'regional beats' such as science or transportation; absent will be the voices of hard-earned experience and sourcing. And this doesn't begin to paint the future we face. Dear reader, it's true that you may not have a say, or care for that matter, in what happens to the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, or other newsrooms where gouging has trumped creative solutions to the economic challenges. You do, however, have a stake in your local newspapers, as much as the workers who produce it every day. The Contra Costa Times is a living, breathy system, a dialogue that doesn't work without you. To wit: Please exercise your power, your role in the CCT by making clear to management that you will not tolerate evisceration of your news. Demand they treat their employees humanely and decently by providing more information about their economic goals. Require transparency as we hold politicians to the same threshold. And support reporters’ efforts to unionize the newsroom, and protect themselves and their dignity.
Thanks for reading. Cassandra Braun
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 53
Dear Ms Braun,
I am also very sad to see a decline in the CCTimes. My first job was in 1972 as a paperboy for the Times when it was known as the Green Sheet and delivered for free. I also remember when the paper started to charge customers a whopping $2.00 per month. I have read the paper almost every morning for the last 35 years. My father read the sports first when I was a child while I waited for him to finish, now 30+ years later, my son often waits for me to finish the sports so he can read it.
I hope the paper survives. There is a lot you say that makes sense; however, I disagree with one of your final comments about unionizing. In my opinion (and I admit that I never worked in a newsroom), the only thing that a union will do is continue the Times political slant. The paper often spouts leftist propoganda; however, compared to the Chronicle, I guess the paper is fair. Right now, the political comments are made up of two groups, the majority loves Obama a lot, loves Hillary a little and dislikes Republicans, the other group loves Hilary a lot, loves Obama a little and dislikes Republicans.
There are many things about the paper I still enjoy. The people that write the headlines are very creative and I certainly enjoy reading the Times coverage of High School sports.
Again, I hope that paper survives; however, alienating most Republicans does not seem like a way to increase your customer base.
I wish you the best in your new position, and like you, I will be rooting for the Times to become the best paper it can be. Sincerely, Andy
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
You say that the only thing "that a union will do is continue the Times political slant." As a long time union organizer and a person who has probably fought more battles for the dignity of working people than you will ever hope to shake a stick at, let me tell you that your opinion in misinformed, biased, and a product of someone's (very effective) propaganda. I cannot speak for the "union" at the "the Times" (since I do not know of which Times you speak, nor of which union), but I can tell you without even looking that the union does not hire reporters or people in the newsroom. Nor does the union dictate policy to the owners or managers of the Times in terms of who it hires, its hiring policies, or even the editorial policies of the paper. Editorials are written by editors (hence the name of the feature) and reflect ownership and management political positions, not the positions of the people who work for the paper. So, right off the bat, you have that part of your argument wrong. Secondly, what a union does do is negotiate the best working conditions it can for its members, collectively. Instead of each individual attempting to negotiate their contract and benefits from the employer (who of course will never tell them the truth about the salary and benefits it offers to other workers), a union provides a single voice and can apply a counterbalance to the power of the employer that individual employees do not possess. So ... the union represents the workers in issues regarding salary, benefits, hours of work, safety, health, working conditions, and the like. It does not influence the editorial position of the paper.
----> [new paragraph] Let me ask you a couple of questions, if I may. Before the Great Depression, do you know how many Americans belonged to trade unions? Do you know how large the middle class was in 1928? Do you know how many Americans had any health benefits? ... okay, now fast forward ... Let's look at 1968 (40 years later). Do you know what trade union membership was in 1968? Do you know how large the middle class was in 1968? Do you know how many Americans had not only health benefits, but also retirement and unemployment protection, vacation time, educational and retraining benefits (etc.)?
----> [new paragraph] You could look it up, of course (maybe you should), but I'll tell you in general. In the forty years following the Great Depression, the middle class was born in this country. Salaries and income were comfortable for more Americans than it has ever been -- before or after. 80% of the population had health insurance, medical benefits, disability protection, etc. etc. (95% would before Richard Nixon began rolling things back). Was there a "nationalized", so-called socialistic system of one-source, government sponsored health care in 1968? NO! All of those benefits and protections and safeguards that many of us still hold to be a part of the American middle class were wrested from employers by unions. What few benefits employers NOW offer remain in place only where unions remain somewhat strong (or in governmental service -- army, air force, police, firemen, sanitation workers, librarians, school teachers, etc ... you know, the Big Bad Bureaucrats of Big Government that are sucking all of your income in the form of taxes for their nefarious socialistic schemes).
----> [new paragraph] Now, I may be misrepresenting your view of life, the universe, and everything. But there are a lot of otherwise smart, nice people out there who hold those beliefs. Unions are not the cause of the problems in this country, no matter what propagandists of the new right will have you believe.
----> [new paragraph] As to the actual editorial positions of the those horrible left-wing newspapers, maybe there are two ways to view it other than as part of some supposed left-wing media conspiracy to destroy the world. Maybe (just maybe) the very smart people who work on editorial boards and can string together several coherent sentences to form complete paragraphs, you know, those who actually hang out with political leaders on a daily basis ... asking them questions, talking to the people who interact with governmental officials (including the representatives of special interests who seem to most directly influence their decision-making abilities), observing the price paid by individuals affected by the decisions of governmental officials ... write the editorials they write and express the opinions they hold because they are sickened by what they see elected officials do? Granted, they are only expressing their opinions ... and people's opinions are shaped by all sorts of variables over which you and I have little control ... but maybe their opinions are actually informed be experience and observation, rather than by what someone else told them they should believe. Or, since I promised two possible explanations ... maybe they view their job as being like that of watchdogs, speaking contrary to power since power (as a rule) seeks to perpetuate itself and is not above taking liberties with what we commonly call "the truth". The fact that the papers you read do not like Republicans is not a personal issue ... they do not dislike "Republicans". But maybe they actually see, and feel, that Republican policies are boneheaded, wrong, and destructive to the lives of most Americans.
----> [new paragraph] Which they are, of course. But that is just my opinion.
----> [new paragraph] Finally, I think you have misunderstood Ms Braun's central point. She is not speaking of editorial policy of newspapers ... she is speaking of distant, concentrated ownership that has no concern for local matters but instead wishes to "streamline" and "modernize" the news business, making it more "efficient" and "budget wise". If this means standardizing it as much as possible ... so that grissly murders in Massachusetts are more important for front page reporting than what local land-use decisions the Contra Costa Planning Commission made that are going to affect your local taxes, traffic congestion in your area, access to open space and a whole lot of other quality of life decisions that maybe they don't want you to know about or pay attention to ... well, that's "news" in the modern age, and a small price to pay for the luxury of being able to read glorified gossippy tabloid stories in the convenience of your own home.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 53
Shays,
I agree with a lot that you have to say. There were some valid intelligent comments. There is a lot that we agree on. There is no doubt, that unions have been positive in certain areas. My feelings about unions are not derived from conservative talk radio or anything like that. I took over as Parts Manager in a union shop for a Large Truck Dealership about 12 years ago. On my fourth day with the company, I was invited to a manager’s meeting with a few managers from our shop and managers from the other 17 dealerships in the Western United States. The facilitator compared all of the departments and their bottom lines. It was determined that the phone expense and the freight expense for my department were too high. I was told to come up with a plan to reduce the costs. Our Service Manager was told that his labor costs were too high and the productivity was too low. The same was said to the Service Manager from Southern California. They were not getting enough bang for their buck. Their explanation was ‘we’re a union shop’. That was all that needed to be said, everyone in the room understood that meant that the employees were paid more and not as productive. I am not saying this is true for all industries; however, the belief among this group is that production decreases when a dealership goes from non-union to union.
I will put it another way. I have never gone to a store and said ‘wow, the customer service here has really improved, what happened?’ and the employee said ‘we became a union shop.’ Perhaps because you are on the other side, you have examples of this happening, I have never seen it.
Legend has it, before beginning the CCTimes, Dean Lesher lived in the Mid West. He noticed some ‘not so smart people’ making a lot of money in the industry and decided he wanted to start a newspaper. He moved to Northern California and started the Contra Costa Times (also known as the Green Sheet). The Times gave me my first job in 1972 as a newspaper delivery boy, I have read the paper many, many times since. I would hate to see the paper fold. Obviously, the industry has changed in the last few decades. I can not imagine someone looking for ways to improve profitability saying ‘let’s go union’. The other concern I have is the left leaning of the paper.
I honestly believe some people have been turned off by the leftist slant. Now I will ask you, if there were only two newspapers in the area and one was run by Michael Savage and the other was run by Rush Limbaugh, would you subscribe to either paper? If Savage and Limbaugh hired only conservative writers would you subscribe to the newspapers? A lot of people will probably think ‘no way would I subscribe’. I understand the writers have a vested interest in promoting unions and they have a vested interest in making sure that more Democrats are elected. They are doing what they believe is best for their family and that is not a bad thing. At least now I can look forward to reading Mr. Sowell on Friday’s for the one conservative article each week. I can still enjoy the local sports and local stories. I am often impressed with the headlines. I admit, I think the people that write the headlines for the Times are very creative (even if they are union). Don’t worry, even if the conservatives took over the local newspaper industry there would still be the liberal slant on TV news for you (not including Fox News). I would be very happy if Savage and Limbaugh started a local newspaper; however, I will not hold my breath. But I can always dream.
Andy