'The Oklahoman' to cut positions

Longtime employees of The Oklahoman are being offered early retirement packages as the newspaper begins cost-cutting measures that could affect 150 positions.

David Thompson, the newspaper's publisher, said a downsizing of The Oklahoman's work force of about 1,100 people will be completed by the end of October, in two stages: retirements and a reduction in force.

Thompson and other senior executives met Wednesday afternoon to discuss early retirement with 102 veteran employees, who are at least 55 years old and have worked for the newspaper for 15 years or longer. The 102 employees have until Sept. 24 to decide whether to take the early retirement offers.

Then, starting in early October, The Oklahoman will begin layoffs across The Oklahoma Publishing Co.'s media division, OPUBCO Communications Group. In total, about 150 positions are expected to be eliminated within the next two months, Thompson said. Both voluntary and involuntary reductions will include employee severance packages.

He described the pending cutbacks as "painful,” and the company, which has been controlled by the Gaylord family since 1903, "is sensitive to the impact they will have on our employees and their families.” But the reductions are necessary to "right-size our costs commensurate with revenue,” Thompson said.

Despite a growing economy in Oklahoma City, The Oklahoman is being affected by the same forces that have roiled the newspaper industry, particularly at metropolitan dailies, in recent months.

They include:

•Traditional media — not just newspapers, but television, radio and magazines — are facing the second worst advertising recession since World War II. The only period more severe, Thompson said, was after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. All media are seeing softness in national advertising; for newspaper-based companies, recruitment, or employment, advertising also has been particularly sluggish.

•More readers, particularly younger ones, now go to the Internet for news and information, bringing a fundamental shift in reading habits that industry experts say will only accelerate.

•Costs in newsprint, a newspaper's second biggest expense after employment, will have increased 40 percent by the end of 2008 compared to the fourth quarter of last year.

•A rise in fuel costs, that affect transportation and distribution of the newspaper, hits papers with a geographic footprint as large as The Oklahoman's particularly hard.

"It really is a perfect storm,” Thompson said.

Still, The Oklahoman is moving forward with digital initiatives that "are quite exciting,” he said. They include more improvements to NewsOK.com, the company's award-winning news site, and wimgo.com, an events calendar launched last winter that has exceeded initial expectations.

And, despite the employee cutbacks, Thompson said The Oklahoman's "journalistic quality and integrity will be uncompromised” as the organization retools to meet changing demands for news, information and advertising.

Sign of the times in the newspaper industry. At least the Oklahoman has done a better job than most publications in embracing new media.

The biggest money-maker for papers has always been classified ads and that's a market that has been completely taken over by on-line rivals, such as Craigslist, eBay and myriad others.


The irony of newspaper staffs being cut is that it's really the only place that true reporting is generated. So, at a time when there are more and more outlets for news, there are far fewer people actually reporting it, which leaves everyone else just to talk and provide opinion.

It's quite disturbing in many ways.

I disagree, the Daily Oklahoman is one of the worst state newspapers I know of. I am forced to read the Tulsa World, and the Dallas Morning News to get unbiased news reports, and not a personal opinion of the Daily Oklahoman.

I disagree, the Daily Oklahoman is one of the worst state newspapers I know of. I am forced to read the Tulsa World, and the Dallas Morning News to get unbiased news reports, and not a personal opinion of the Daily Oklahoman.

Editorials (opinions) are in every newspaper.

I agree that the Oklahoman only covers Chamber of Commerce type events, but that's their journalistic prerogative. That's not a slant, that's just an editorial choice as to what to cover.

There's actually no such thing as lack of bias in journalism. Every paper is biased in what it chooses to cover. There's a limited amount of space and a lot of news every day, what goes into the news is always a biased decision since the paper can't cover everything.

As for muckracking and such, the Oklahoman and other papers of its size simply don't have the budget to pay for reporters to do stories which require extended periods of time for research and fact gathering. You will seldom see things in any daily paper anymore which require more than a day to write.

The Oklahoman has come a long way since the 80's and the Columbia Journalism Review hit-piece.

I disagree, the Daily Oklahoman is one of the worst state newspapers I know of. I am forced to read the Tulsa World, and the Dallas Morning News to get unbiased news reports, and not a personal opinion of the Daily Oklahoman.

I agree, the DO is a very biased, substandard newspaper. As a former OKC resident and now residing in Dallas, the DMN is a much better written news daily and does not lean to the right or in a twisted slanted way. Even people in Dallas know the "poor reputation" the DO has. I believe even the Columbia Review wrote a scathing article about the Daily Oklahoman being one of the worst newspapers in the country. What an embarrasment for OKC because you all are suppose to be growing up and become a "big league" city. I feel for those at the newspaper if they lose their jobs.

My comments were aimed at the newspaper/news industry in general, not the Oklahoman in particular.

And no matter how you slice it, newspapers are one of the few places where reporters are actually employed and their numbers are rapidly dwindling.

If you think news is slanted and opinionated now, it's only going to get worse with these changes.

I agree, the DO is a very biased, substandard newspaper. As a former OKC resident and now residing in Dallas, the DMN is a much better written news daily and does not lean to the right or in a twisted slanted way. Even people in Dallas know the "poor reputation" the DO has. I believe even the Columbia Review wrote a scathing article about the Daily Oklahoman being one of the worst newspapers in the country. What an embarrasment for OKC because you all are suppose to be growing up and become a "big league" city. I feel for those at the newspaper if they lose their jobs.

Ah yes, the Columbia Journalism Review... now there, my friend, is an unbiased news source!

BTW, I've gone on record many times saying that I think in many ways the DOK does a good job, especially electronically. They were one of the first papers on the web, have their entire archives available, have embraced new media elements long before papers of similar size, etc.

I don't necessarily agree with many of their op-ed pieces but I generally stay away from those in any paper.

They've always done a good job covering local business and sports news and that's what's most important to me. And as much as I'd like to see them do more (some?) investigative reporting I realize that isn't going to happen and isn't a particularly realistic expectation.

Haven't they actually won awards within the last several years?

People bring up that Columbia Review study, but wasn't that from years ago?

And even if it is conservative, who cares? It's just like any other media outlet who can print what they want. NY Times leans left, Washington Times leans right...

CNN leans left, Fox News leans right...

It's a private company and a free press... don't buy it and it will go away.

Before I moved here, I used to run into the same comments about my local paper in my previous locale. People seem to have this idea that the Dallas paper is somehow superior. Maybe it is. I don't know. I don't read it because I don't live in Dallas. How do you know what's going on in your own community if you're reading the Dallas paper?

The irony of newspaper staffs being cut is that it's really the only place that true reporting is generated. So, at a time when there are more and more outlets for news, there are far fewer people actually reporting it, which leaves everyone else just to talk and provide opinion.

It's quite disturbing in many ways.

This is the part that we need to be very concerned about. Even though many people are getting their news from the internet these days, those online stories come from newspapers for the most part. Once the papers fold, who will step up to fill the void? Yahoo? Google? Will online news sites only be available to subscribers?

The same thing is happening at the Dallas Morning News, except they are getting rid of 500 employees.

The L.A. Times has slashed thousands of jobs as well, and they covered lots of national stories and have always done a fair amount of investigative journalism.


And regarding the Internet, the news still has to be originated somewhere and the only place that happens is with reporters. Yahoo and Google don't have reporters and have said that's a business they don't want to get into.

At least with the traditional media there has always been some measure of accountability. You reported something, you had to stand behind it. The recent Dan Rather situation demonstrates that.

So, this is all being replaced by speculation, rumor and opinion. There is plenty of room for all of that and it generates important discussion but who can we rely on to go out there and gather facts so there is even a basis for discussion?

Now come on. IF people are up to date on the Oklahoman they know that paper has improved since old man Gaylord died and new management came in. For instance, the highly homophobic editorial writer is long gone. He was fired for using Oklahoman stationery to promote funding of a political candidate he supported.

I can agree with that, the few times lately that I have picked up the DO, it does seem better.

Yes, it has improved but still lacking serious content. Why don't we have a daily food section with food reviews, etc. Business section needs to be daily and more content and full stock and market reports. We need a dedicated US/World news section as well.

Ugh, are we still talking about the Columbia Journalism review? A review that was written almost a DECADE ago? Are we still going to be talking about this 50 years from now? Get your crap together people.

I'm sorry, but journalism right now sucks across the board. With the exception of Steve Lackmeyer, who is an avid Oklahoma Citian, every news paper JUST DOESN'T IMPRESS ME!!!! The Dallas Morning News, NYT, Tulsa World, LA Times, I don't care.

Columnists and commentators in any media outlet are dastardly biased. Liberals are biased against conservatives, and conservatives are biased against liberals. You people have no idea how divided our nation is right now. Wake up.

Thank you, okcpulse. Please, however, check out the following link:

Poynter Online - How to Stop the Bleeding from Journalism Job Cuts (http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=149867)

I agree, the DO is a very biased, substandard newspaper. As a former OKC resident and now residing in Dallas, the DMN is a much better written news daily and does not lean to the right or in a twisted slanted way. Even people in Dallas know the "poor reputation" the DO has. I believe even the Columbia Review wrote a scathing article about the Daily Oklahoman being one of the worst newspapers in the country. What an embarrasment for OKC because you all are suppose to be growing up and become a "big league" city. I feel for those at the newspaper if they lose their jobs.

Right. Dallasites and the Columbia Review. No bias against Oklahoma there at all...


I've heard speculation that this is an attempt to get rid of the older reporters who don't embrace new media. That is why they are offering early retirement packages.

Out with the old, in with the new........LOL

Sadly,

Pete's commentary is dead on. I was at a conference a year or so ago and there was a blowdried former OKC TV "journalist" sitting next to me. She was gleefully trumpeting the demise of newspapers.

I couldn't resist: I told her that if newspapers vanish we will have no true journalism left, as local TV news does no actual reporting.

Oddly, newspapers can make it work online, but the revenues are just not as lucrative right now. Maybe they will strengthen over time.

Watching the current election cycle, I've been astonished at how little actual reporting goes on among the major TV networks. Almost everything is the talking head shows, which, more and more, remind me of the farcical (yet entertaining) commentary you find on ESPN.

It truly is entertainment and ratings first, news second, in almost all cases.

Hopefully, newspaper organizations will merely switch formats, as we desperately need their reporting capability. Without it, our democracy is imperiled.

Regardless of their content, newspapers are taking a hit in an evolving economy. Like all industries, the conventional newspaper industry is passing maturity and is rapidly approaching the end of its life cycle. Darwin knew what he was saying - evolve or die.

I think the DOK is a pretty good paper. I've lived in a lot of places and have read a lot of papers. It is always somehow comforting to pick up an Oklahoman in a coffeehouse. Yes, their opinions have hisorically leaned strongly to the right; and even today, they continue to piss me off. But the paper is a part of our community and is reflective of community standards. Oklahoma is a conservative place.

Altough I have had my disagreements with the DOK, I'm truly sorry to hear of their troubles. I will always be a proponent of local companies no matter their political opinions. Tom Ward and Aubrey McClendon support causes that make me ill. But their companies, like the DOK, help build OKC into stronger place. A successful, thriving, locally-owned and managed company pays substantially higher dividends to the community than a shiny new Bass Pro in a tilt-up concrete box.

Maybe the DOKs online and other ventures can soften the blow. How great would it be to see OKC develop into an even stronger high-tech center?

I'm sorry, but journalism right now sucks across the board. With the exception of Steve Lackmeyer, who is an avid Oklahoma Citian, every news paper JUST DOESN'T IMPRESS ME!!!! The Dallas Morning News, NYT, Tulsa World, LA Times, I don't care.

Hear hear!

With Lackmeyer, I can tell that he's doing a job which he loves. He seems like the kind of person who would be happy to do his job with or without pay (happier with pay though!). Few writers have the sort of passion for what they write about.

Another fine writer they have up there is Greg Elwell. He's just a damn good writer.

Sadly,

Pete's commentary is dead on. I was at a conference a year or so ago and there was a blowdried former OKC TV "journalist" sitting next to me. She was gleefully trumpeting the demise of newspapers.

I couldn't resist: I told her that if newspapers vanish we will have no true journalism left, as local TV news does no actual reporting.

Oddly, newspapers can make it work online, but the revenues are just not as lucrative right now. Maybe they will strengthen over time.

Watching the current election cycle, I've been astonished at how little actual reporting goes on among the major TV networks. Almost everything is the talking head shows, which, more and more, remind me of the farcical (yet entertaining) commentary you find on ESPN.

It truly is entertainment and ratings first, news second, in almost all cases.

Hopefully, newspaper organizations will merely switch formats, as we desperately need their reporting capability. Without it, our democracy is imperiled.

There is very little, if any, investigative journalism going on anymore.

Many years ago, Vince Orza, to do a story about the local business leaders colluding and illegally spending taxpayer funds on projects for themselves.

Orza actually took on E.K. Gaylord himself -- and these were the sort of reports which could have sent E.K. Gaylord to prison had Mike Turpen not been elected to the A.G.'s office after the D.O.K. ran a ridiculous flurry of front-page editorials about how the current A.G. was "bad for business." The good 'ol boys were clearly shaken.

I'm not old enough to remember the OIA scandal, but I do know that some damn fine journalism was going on. Orza actually followed a paper trail which the OIA folks had done a lot of work to cover up. You won't find that much anymore. I think I was shocked to see Allie Meyers doing something investigative in nature a few years back, but nothing since.

Local TV news these days seems to consist of nothing more than a regurgitation of the police blotter, the repetition of a few press releases, with maybe a few VNR's mixed in. That's why I don't watch local T.V. news. Frighteningly enough, I am much better informed about the goings on in this city by reading this message board.

It's so disappointing to hear this news. This has been happening all over the nation, and the Gazette recently had a story about the dying of the community (smalltown) paper. I agree with Peter - if you think news is biased and one-sided now, just wait.

What is most troublesome is that over the years working in PR, I have witnessed so many journalists plowing through the details. They were paid to do this and they sometimes worked hours on end to ink a story, and sometimes fight for it. Bloggers who pander to technorati rankings and are especially brazen to attract visitors to their Web sites - to increase their viability to earn ad revenue are going to wield more and more influence.

There are no fact checkers for these bloggers. Nobody calls their Ed Kelley to say "Your reporter got it wrong!" Retractions are at the will of the blogger. The Web provides anonymity reporters don't generally enjoy. In addition, online news sources feel the need to sex it up. The news has to entertain and stories can't exceed 500 words. Gone is the expose. Now, we must rely on water cooler fodder.

I think part of the blame has to be put on schools, which failed to educate their students about the role of journalism in society. If the Oklahoman is weakened then the watch dog on government is weakened and we absolutely cannot afford that. That is why this news is so incredibly disappointing. Had we nurtured a greater value for the daily paper three decades ago, things might be different. In addition, I witnessed the Oklahoman on a few occassions correct a story electronic media butchered. So, they actually served as a watch dog not only on government but other media.

The bottom line is the Internet stole their ad revenue. People can cherry pick their news, now. They can remain singular in focus - skipping passed business and on to the latest story about (Lord help me) Lindsay Lohan. I nearly always skipped the Sport page, but over the years, I still came to know Trammell and Carlson. The Oklahoman had one of the last society pages in the nation, and I actually rather liked it. I learned a lot from that page over the years. It sounds superficial, but what I learned from it wasn't.

On a final note, they said radio was going to die, but a few years after that, radio was bigger than ever. So, I'm looking into my crystal ball and predicting that while newspapers will suffer in the short run, they will rebound eventually, coming back leaner, but stronger for it. They're also going to cost more.

The solution to this is so so so easy. The producers of the written word need to stop giving it away to 3rd party distributors. If a big story breaks in OKC then it shows up on Oklahoman web site. When I read the story there are ads all around it and I assume the paper gets money for those ads. However, 2 hours later there is an Associated Press story WITH THE EXACT SAME WORDS available on Yahoo. I assume the Oklahoman doesn't get any money when someone reads it on Yahoo.

It's evolution. As far as the death of tv reporting goes, we can thank cable and the remote control for that. The local affiliates used to have a corner on the news market. If you wanted to know what happened during the day, you had to watch the 5, 6, or 10 pm news. If you didn't want to watch the news at those times...tough. You just didn't watch tv because there wasn't anything else on. Heck, if you even wanted to see what the other stations might be covering, you had to get up, walk over to the tv, and change the channel by hand. That's why folks tended to pick a channel and stick with it in those days. Then along came remote controls so we no longer had to get up off the sofa to change channels. And then came cable to offer us an alternative to the news...and now we have the internet. By the time the local newscasts come on, most of us have already read about the big stories, so there's not a lot left to tell. About the only thing that can be offered that can't be found elsewhere on cable or the internet is local investigative stories. But the irony is that the stations can't really afford to have investigative units anymore due to the loss of revenue that came along with the decreasing viewership. So it's a slow spiral downward. If you've noticed, the stations offer more newscasts to try and offset the revenue losses, so now we have newscasts at 4pm, 4:30pm, and even 6:30pm. More shows + less staff = far, far fewer stories that demand time to investigate and develop

The Joklahoman pays AP to be able to reprint their stories.

The solution to this is so so so easy. The producers of the written word need to stop giving it away to 3rd party distributors.

I think you're right, but I think we're going to have to get to the point where there's only one or two local news sources. Then they're going to have to sell online "subscriptions" and sue the crap out of any one who posts or links to one of their stories without permission.

Supply and demand.

IThere are no fact checkers for these bloggers. Nobody calls their Ed Kelley to say "Your reporter got it wrong!" Retractions are at the will of the blogger.

The fact checkers for bloggers are the folks who read the blog. Blogs such as the Huffington Post, Think Progress, and Daily KOS are known to publish false information and not check their facts. Consequently, while people might click and read these things, they know that the information contained in the blog is questionable at best. Bloggers are actually more accountable than the paper is in a way -- if they lose their credibility, there are other blogs which will move in and take their place. If a newspaper lies or misstates the truth, especially if it's "the paper," and there's no one threatening a libel suit, then there's really no hit to their reputation whatsoever.

On the line of the libel suit, both blogs and newspapers are equally exposed to libel suits. Things said in the context of a blog or an internet message board are just as subject to libel laws as anything else. Retractions are not really "at the will" of the blogger in that context, if he refuses to retract, he can be sued just like the newspaper can be.


If the Oklahoman is weakened then the watch dog on government is weakened and we absolutely cannot afford that.

The Oklahoman is the watchdog of the government??? Where were they when the tort-reform lobbyists wrote a bill which would have helped nursing homes to shield themselves from discovery requests in patient abuse claims? Where was the Oklahoman when that same law would have placed hard caps on the worst kind of medical malpractice/insurance bad faith, which would have allowed insurance companies to actually be able to make the call that a bad faith decision not to cover a procedure they were obligated to cover would be cheaper than any potential jury verdict? The Oklahoman has been a pretty piss poor "watchdog" of government. Blogs such as okpns are far and away better at uncovering the truth as to what goes down at the state capitol (if you can read them with their obvious bias in mind).

I don't necessarily believe that blogs=good/newspapers=bad, I just think that blogs have risen up as a response to the laziness and complacency in the 'dinosaur media.' Newspapers can recover, but they're going to have to change and get out of bed with the powers that be if they know what's good for them. Newspapers, particularly the Oklahoman have been quite irresponsible with regard to that and now their employees are quite literally paying for it.

Midtowner,

I agree with much of what you say. I will somewhat defend DailyKos, however. It is vilified, but it's members are much like those here. If someone posts BS, other bloggers on the site will call them on it, such as what happened when the "babygate" rumors were posted there. 90 percent of the responses were that the diary lacked verifiable evidence and could not be trusted. It was also "troll rated" by the members of that community.

I see that stewardship here. Pete is about the best moderator out there, IMO. Also, 90+ percent of the posters here are thoughtful and serious (and funny occassionally). This is truly a great online community. Hopefully, as it grows, it will continue to attract intelligent and thoughtful contributors, as I've seen other forum communities decline in quality once they became moron magnets.

I only offer DailyKOS as an example and a poorly researched one at that. I occasionally click over to their stuff from Digg, but really, not much more than that.

I can't think of any conservative blogs which even remotely compare to Daily KOS or the Huffington Post, unless you want to say that on a local level, okpns is somewhat like that, their stuff is usually decent, but anyone can pretty much tell when the writer just has a personal axe to grind with whoever they're attacking.

I really like the forum format as participants are able to interact as equals. I, like you, think Pete and company do a stellar job and since their taking over, this place has really been what it should have been all along.

Unless I'm hallucinating, I recall that an editor for a major daily (somewhere, can't remember where) recently retired/quit suddenly, and proclaimed newspapers as "dead." I don't think he's far off.

This evolution hasn't happened in the last four or five years, but over the past two or three decades. Does anyone remember when there was the Oklahoma City Times *evening* newspaper? Or the Oklahoma Journal? The contraction of the print media has been going on for a long, long time. The decisions that have been made to alter how newspapers present themselves haven't helped the "loyalists" to that media.

As an example, I finally quit the Oklahoman earlier this year because I found their content lacking, and their sports section all-but irrelevant. I compared it to the kinds of sports section they had "back in the day," and the differences are astounding. The biggest victim is depth of reporting, and others here are spot-on regarding thd death of investigative journalism. It has devolved into hyperbole and feature mcnuggets disguised as news.

Personally, I don't think newspapers in their present form can survive. I really don't. We live in an era where people take email rumors and legends as fact and spread them to 100 of their friends on a whim. They take questions on message boards and relay them as gospel. People don't read, they don't think critically, and those two elements are imperative for a "good" newspaper to endure. While there are obviously those that would support such a venture, the broader market indicates that pool is ever decreasing.

I always thought the alliance between Channel 9 and the Oklahoman to be bad for both, because the willingness of either to report adversely on a benefactor of the other imperils the partiality of both. It guarantees you get an even lower common denominator of journalism, such as it is, from both sides. That said, since the consultants took over local news, investigative journalism died an ugly death long before it was put on life support at the local paper...

-sd

OK, since I'm apparently doomed to be at a street corner soon with a "will work for beer" sign, I'm curious: do you see there being a role for someone to report on local events and news in a way where they can still pay the mortgage, car bill and utilities?

Bashing of my employer aside, this has been a very interesting discussion.

This evolution hasn't happened in the last four or five years, but over the past two or three decades. Does anyone remember when there was the Oklahoma City Times *evening* newspaper? Or the Oklahoma Journal? The contraction of the print media has been going on for a long, long time. The decisions that have been made to alter how newspapers present themselves haven't helped the "loyalists" to that media.

Yep....how about radio stations that have their own news staffs? That's disappearing also although it used to be very common. For what it's worth, the same thing will happen to television, too. Eventually, there will only be one station with a local newscast...two, if we're lucky. It'll become their niche.


As an example, I finally quit the Oklahoman earlier this year because I found their content lacking, and their sports section all-but irrelevant. I compared it to the kinds of sports section they had "back in the day," and the differences are astounding. The biggest victim is depth of reporting, and others here are spot-on regarding thd death of investigative journalism. It has devolved into hyperbole and feature mcnuggets disguised as news.

It's money, plain and simple. The traditional news outlets are no longer the cash cows they used to be. They can no longer afford to let a reporter devote weeks to investigating one story. And when you couple that with the need to not offend any potential advertiser, it results in diminished coverage.

OK, since I'm apparently doomed to be at a street corner soon with a "will work for beer" sign, I'm curious: do you see there being a role for someone to report on local events and news in a way where they can still pay the mortgage, car bill and utilities?

Sure, why not? You might work for a website or blog instead of a newspaper, though. I keep thinking that it will eventually go to a commission type system where folks will be paid by the "click". The more people who click on your stories and read them, the more valuable you are to your website, and the more commission you make.

OK, since I'm apparently doomed to be at a street corner soon with a "will work for beer" sign, I'm curious: do you see there being a role for someone to report on local events and news in a way where they can still pay the mortgage, car bill and utilities?

Bashing of my employer aside, this has been a very interesting discussion.

I don't know, Steve. I really don't.

Somewhere along the way, I have to think the way journalism is taught has changed. I enjoy (in fact, love) writing, and back in my school days I very seriously considered a journalism career - alas, computers beat it out. When I took journalism classes, they were based on the premise of ethics - you aspired to neutrality, you checked your facts, you didn't grind axes. You were meticulous about reporting facts. I'm not sure journalism, in the broader educational universe, is taught that way these days.

I sometimes wonder if a pay-for-play web-based and/or RSS model might not be the wave of the future, targeted at a fairly narrow audience. I think a hybrid site of events with a decidely minimalist bent toward op-ed might be what works. My instinct, though, is that it would be expensive to maintain, because of a) a narrow market, b) relatively high overhead expenses.

I say a "miniimalist" attitude toward op-ed because, right or wrong, people do or don't like CNN or the Oklahoman or (filll in the blank) because of their supposed "biases," and in all honesty I am as guilty as the next man, because my predispositions tell me CNN is biased to the left. It makes me suspicious of their motivations for any story they run. If you keep the op-ed out, you mitigate the opportunity for perceptions to be formed.

Just as television is evolving into a highly decentralized medium with multiple sources, the broader market of information provision is decentralizing from newspapers to very localized and very tailored sources. Look at something like the Journal Record; it seems (at least as far as I can tell) to be doing well on an ongoing basis, and I think its because they serve a very tailored audience, and serve it very well.

Think of what I'm describing as an "OKCTalk, news and events version." This site has general-interest discussion topics for the broader interest of Oklahoma City, with targeted "suburban" discussions. Suppose that model existed for a news and events service. I'm spitballing here, and may be way off base, but if nothing else it illustrates my point that the kind of news service you're into providing is going to have to be thought of in radically new terms, in my opinion.

You're not alone, Steve; the other poster in this thread that recalls local radio news staffs (and substantially local talent, for that matter) is spot-on. That same day of reckoning is ahead for local television news; we've just seen the first half of it. Just as the "big" networks aren't as important as they used to be, local affiliates aren't as important, either, and that's bad news for affiliates who depend on that local newscast as a source for advertising revenue.

My apologies for blathering on too long, but the overarching point is that all the major media formats are undergoing an overhaul, and the kind of news provision that used to be provided (and I think are essential to a functional democracy) will have to be reinvented in order to survive. Exactly how that reinvention is realized remains to be seen.

-SoonerDave

When I took journalism classes, they were based on the premise of ethics - you aspired to neutrality, you checked your facts, you didn't grind axes. You were meticulous about reporting facts. I'm not sure journalism, in the broader educational universe, is taught that way these days.

I can say that it was still being taught that way where I went from 2002-2006 (OBU).

I can say that it was still being taught that way where I went from 2002-2006 (OBU).

That's good to hear, jbrown. It seems to me that more and more, journalism is being taught as an instrument of social activism, one that makes causes more important than meticulous attention to fact, thereby ratifying the notion of ends justifying the means. That is, if you've got a sufficiently "righteous" cause in your own mind, bending a few facts here and there isn't so important if it gets your cause in everyone's face.

t's money, plain and simple. The traditional news outlets are no longer the cash cows they used to be. They can no longer afford to let a reporter devote weeks to investigating one story. And when you couple that with the need to not offend any potential advertiser, it results in diminished coverage.

This will only hasten the demise of newspapers. If they reduce their staffs and cut out meaningful content, there is less of a reason for a consumer to buy their product. This is dumb. They are strangling themselves.

This will only hasten the demise of newspapers. If they reduce their staffs and cut out meaningful content, there is less of a reason for a consumer to buy their product. This is dumb. They are strangling themselves.

EXACTLY!

Paradoxical as it may sound, nowhere is this more evident than in the sports section. [Steve, I know you've been watching this thread, so you might see this particular answer]

Here's where the cuts have shown up on the sports section, particularly during football season. Time was that for each OU and OSU game there was a suite of stories: a game recap story, a "main" analysis/op-ed column, a "secondary" analysis column, at least two side-bar game features, a detailed scoring recap with complete stats, and a feature from the opposing locker room, combined with lots of pictures.

Now, you get large headlines, large pictures, no lead game story,one or two "hybrid" analysis pieces, two pages of large mastheads across the overflow sections, recaps and stats in the same size type as the classifieds, and a USA Today-style mcnugget of psuedo-irrelevant "game facts." Sometimes there's a story from the other locker room, sometimes not. All this comes at the same time they reduce the paper format, decreasing available column-inches of space, and decreasing the number of words the writers have to write. That means less content, less depth, and correspondingly less incentive for me to buy and read it. We get fewer stats, fewer stories, but more fluff pieces by Jenni Carlson, more silly, introspective "Top 10" lists about some inane sports trivia, but no meat.

During OU-Texas weekend, I always pick up a copy of the Dallas Morning News, because it has an awesome OU-Texas section. Its always a keepsake (unless OU loses, of course :) ). Ironically, they're home to neither team, yet they do a better job covering that game than Oklahoma's major state daily newspaper. Yeah, they're bigger, and they're having problems of their own like all other papers, but somehow they're getting the job done.

It used to be one of the special parts of football season to pick up the Sunday paper to read the OU game recap in the Oklahoman. Not anymore. Its been this way the last two season, with last season being the worst of all. I finally realized it wasn't going to get any better, because the people making the decisions are making them in a vacuum, apart from the motivations that drive people to purchase newspapers in the first place. Content. I can't justify the expense anymore. THe Oklahoman is entirely within their right to reduce content. Its their paper. Convrsely, I have to make a decision whether its worth my money to buy it, and, sadly, it isn't.

This year, for the first time I can remember, I no longer have the Sunday Oklahoman for football season. I cancelled my subscription about two months ago. I keep thinking I'll miss it, but when I glanced at a copy of last Sunday's sports section, I realized nothing had changed. And a life-long Sunday tradition had gone with it.

-SoonerDave

Well for one thing the cost of placing adds in the classifieds is so far out of reason it`s rediculous.

Midtowner - that is a good point about libel. Some bloggers have been sued, and I'm sure many more will be sued in the future.

I also think that over the years the Daily Oklahoman became a victim of sterotype. We've all heard people who never read the paper refer to it as "The Daily Disappointment" or the "Joke-lahoman" among other things.

Ironically, Walter Lippman, in his book Public Opinion talks about how journalists don't simply report facts they parlay it with stereotypes. (My paraphrase. Sorry.)

I had someone high up in government tell me one time that bad news reported about our organization by the Oklahoma Gazette didn't matter because "nobody read it." I told him the Gazette's circulation rivaled the Sunday Oklahoman's, and I pointed to the independent audit. It didn't do any good. He had a complete lack of understanding, appreciation and respect for the press -- and it's power.

Is the power shifting? If so, to whom or what?

Anyway, interesting discussion, folks.

Talking Points Memo began as a liberal political blog written by one person, Josh Marshall. It has since grown into a political news site staffed by two or three reporters. The Huffington Post has added at least one full time reporter, Thomas Edsall. This same thing may be happening on the conservative side, but I don't know that for a fact.

What I see happening is that more and more of the successful blogs are going to expand into the newsgathering business. And they have an advantage over the web sites that are extensions of traditional media because they are not bound by the need to cross promote 'Where's Matt Lauer?' or some other silliness that may appeal to traditional media users, but has no interest at all for web users.

Nor are they hamstrung by the corporate bureaucracies that weigh down the increasingly bloated and monolithic big media companies.

This same thing may be happening on the conservative side, but I don't know that for a fact.

The closest thing might be the Pajamas Media site, which has multiple writers and news gatherers.

I love Talking Points Memo. Huffington Post, not so much. It has the look and feel of a scandal sheet, or a more graphically friendly, liberal version of Drudge -- which I actually do frequent habitually.

I agree Huffington Post has a lot more entertainment and celebrity 'news' than I care about, but I'm sure the weblogs tell them what people like.

This will only hasten the demise of newspapers. If they reduce their staffs and cut out meaningful content, there is less of a reason for a consumer to buy their product. This is dumb. They are strangling themselves.


You're right. It's a bit of a death spiral. But these are business people making these decisions and the alternative to cut-backs is to invest hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to maintain and expand the staff based only on hopes that the readership won't erode any farther. That's one hell of a crap shoot. A couple of decades ago, when the oil boom went bust, money got pretty tight here in Oklahoma. Companies couldn't afford to advertise as much as they had in the past...or so they thought. I can still remember an article in the Oklahoman where they were talking to the Mathis Bros. and asking why they hadn't reduced their advertising budget. Their answer was that when money got tight, the first place many companies cut back was in their ad budget because that was an easy cut. But the Mathis Bros. philosophy was that the ad budget was the LAST place they ought to cut-back because they needed customers now more than ever. I believe that our local media needs to make a similar leap of faith and invest in local news coverage rather than cut back on it. I say "local" because that's the ONLY thing they have to offer that can't be found on CNN, FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.... And it not only needs to be local, but it has to be investigative (or certainly enterprised from within their staff) because, again, that creates a product that your competitor doesn't have access to. Now, you're offering a product that people want and isn't available from any other source. Hopefully. LOL LOL LOL Eh...it's like sports. Are you playing to win or "not to lose"? There IS a difference.

You hit right on the head TaoMaas. This is why Steve seems to be a very popular writer. He focuses on Oklahoma City. In my opinion local news outlets should restrict their coverage to Oklahoma. If a hurricane hits Florida the local Florida media and the national media has that covered and I don't see the Daily Oklahoma, or the Chico Enterprise Record, or Iowa Register adding anything of value to the conversation.

I've heard that changes will be significant, including a large cutback in content for the paper as well as a smaller/more modern look here in the next couple weeks. I've heard some people on the street say they've already noticed a small change in the paper since this announcement, mainly certain columns and sections being cut back. All I can say is if you're not happy with the Oklahoman already, I am hearing we definitely won't be soon. Please make your thoughts LOUD and KNOWN not just on OKCTalk but write or call the editors and others at the paper and let them know what you want to see.

I think the Oklahoman could possibly go to a format where they buy work from freelance writers. That might be more cost effective and might be just what we need around here with respect to investigative journalism.

Just because they are redesigning and taking away some of the columns doesn't mean it won't be for the better. Some of the columnists aren't exactly up to snuff...

Sadly,

Pete's commentary is dead on. I was at a conference a year or so ago and there was a blowdried former OKC TV "journalist" sitting next to me. She was gleefully trumpeting the demise of newspapers.

I couldn't resist: I told her that if newspapers vanish we will have no true journalism left, as local TV news does no actual reporting.

Oddly, newspapers can make it work online, but the revenues are just not as lucrative right now. Maybe they will strengthen over time.

Watching the current election cycle, I've been astonished at how little actual reporting goes on among the major TV networks. Almost everything is the talking head shows, which, more and more, remind me of the farcical (yet entertaining) commentary you find on ESPN.

It truly is entertainment and ratings first, news second, in almost all cases.

Hopefully, newspaper organizations will merely switch formats, as we desperately need their reporting capability. Without it, our democracy is imperiled.

What's funny is that those same TV news outlets sit around each morning, look at the paper and ask "So which one of these stories should we cover today?" and that's a big chunk of their "investigating." For the most part, TV stations live off that and police scanners for their "news."


I've heard that changes will be significant, including a large cutback in content for the paper as well as a smaller/more modern look here in the next couple weeks. I've heard some people on the street say they've already noticed a small change in the paper since this announcement, mainly certain columns and sections being cut back. All I can say is if you're not happy with the Oklahoman already, I am hearing we definitely won't be soon. Please make your thoughts LOUD and KNOWN not just on OKCTalk but write or call the editors and others at the paper and let them know what you want to see.


You heard right.

As for my takes on this subject...

Newspapers as we've known them are doomed. They've got a terminal case of cancer. They're still alive now, but we know they'll be gone soon. Just a matter of time. NOW, that doesn't mean the newspaper companies will be gone. I really see those companies (DOK, DMN, etc) keep working toward bulking up their online content (whether it be writter or visual/audio). That will be where they survive. They have enough power, influence and money to make the transition fully when the time comes. I can also see something like they had in Minority Report, where you have a news tablet and have PDF files sent to you in real-time whenever there are updates. And while I think the Mon-Sat newsprints will disappear, I can still see the big Sunday papers being in physical form, because of the popularity and money it makes.

I still think my kids and grandkids will look at a DOK for news... it'll just be on their computer or a subscription tablet. I just can't see daily newspapers still in solid form in a couple of decades.

They are in the process of re-inventing themselves. They'll come out different, yes, but will still be The Oklahoman.

JWil, the future you speak of is what we call the iPhone today (or tomorrow's glorified iPhone) and an RSS feed. This already happens now. In the future it will just be faster, all around better and sexier looking.

Right. I just think that we'll see an evolution of this type of technology in the future. Basically, I think we'll see a trend toward bigger monitors in that area (as an option... not that the iphone type things will die off).

I saw an article today showing off an eReader (similar to Kindle) made for newspapers. You get to see your newspaper in the print form (which I think a lot of people prefer) without dealing with ink on your fingers and huge paper that won't hold up correctly.

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about, jsibelius.

OK, since I'm apparently doomed to be at a street corner soon with a "will work for beer" sign, I'm curious: do you see there being a role for someone to report on local events and news in a way where they can still pay the mortgage, car bill and utilities?

Bashing of my employer aside, this has been a very interesting discussion.

I can't be the only person in the metro that enjoys a newspaper, not a laptop, while sitting on the throne, or on the front porch, or distracting me while my wife drives. Good journalists (you included) will always be able to find work.

I saw an article today showing off an eReader (similar to Kindle) made for newspapers. You get to see your newspaper in the print form (which I think a lot of people prefer) without dealing with ink on your fingers and huge paper that won't hold up correctly.

Did you guys know that the Oklahoman has been providing their "electronic edition" on-line for years?

It's the same sort of concept where the paper is published to the web exactly as printed, and you can page through it. I use it every day.


As stated, the Oklahoman has been out in front of these trends more than just about anyone. Not only is that to the eternal credit of their leadership, it also tells me they might survive better and longer than other 'papers'.