Globe buyouts end, anonymously
Twenty-three buyouts and no layoffs. That's the gist of an email from Globe editor Marty Baron, on the culmination of the paper's latest buyout offer, that was
posted on Romenesko earlier today.
Citing privacy concerns, Baron declines to identify the buyout recipients. "While some of you may wish to see a list of those taking the buyout," he writes, "I have chosen not to release one out of respect for employees who prefer not to have their names widely disseminated."
This is an interesting approach: sensitive to the employees in question, but less sensitive to the readers who may be wondering which of their favorite writers might be leaving.
Some names have
already been revealed, of course. But if--in the coming days--the paper found a way to let readers know which other marquee figures are exiting, it would be a nice show of respect for the reading public.
-
Does whining ever cease with "critics" of big media. Like readers are going to lose sleep over who took a buyout. PULEEZE stop being so naive.
-
E., I didn't say anyone would "lose sleep" over who takes the buyout. Instead, I said readers might like to know which big names are leaving. To cite one example: I have no reason to think that Joan Vennochi is taking the buyout. But if she were, plenty of people around Boston would appreciate that info--even if you wouldn't.
-
really, who cares about this? you must have worthier subjects to explore. seems like a cheap excuse to criticize the least objectionable aspect of the buyouts, which is the protection of workers' personal privacy. the more important question is why and how the skewed economics of the newspaper industry and its wall street masters are forcing the industry to pursue this kind of cutback. cmon, you can do better than this.
-
I respectfully disagree, excaliber. I didn't read Adam's post as whining or as criticism; rather, I read it as an extension of a reader's/fan's perspective. For example, say the only reason you picked up the Globe each day was to see what Gordon Edes had dug up on Daisuke's flu-like symptoms. Knowing that Gordon Edes is heading for Yahoo! would be pertinent information for you, no? Likewise if you read the Globe for Adrian Walker, and it turned out he wasn't going to be there anymore, you might not be as interested in picking up the paper. That seems like a legitimate thing for a column like DQM to question, no?
-
And av, I fully agree that the "skewed economics of the newspaper industry" is fertile ground for consideration and discussion and dissection. But does wondering aloud whose bylines may no longer appear in the paper of record for this region really merit such -- or any -- scorn?
If Adam was devoting his time to calling for the release of detailed information as to which long-tenured security guard or which heralded type-setter accepted a buyout, I'd say you're right. But he's talking about bylined personnel, and as a reader, I'd say there's some legitimacy in that question. And if you really think it's baseless and ancillary, I ask you: Do you ever check certain publications or Web sites just to see what particular writers have to say?
-
Obviously that information will come out in due time. It seems to me this is the proper approach: Be sensitive to your employees and let them inform family, friends and the public as they wish.
I'm quite sure Adam would have been able to find a way to criticize the Globe if it had taken a different approach: "Globe breaches employee confidentiality, goes public with buyout list."
-
@ BobH: You're right. That information will come out in due time. But given that Adam covers the media beat here in Boston, isn't talking about Baron's decision -- and the possible (if, as has been noted, unlikely) downside of readers feeling slighted at being kept in the dark -- you know, his job?
And I respectfully disagree with the characterization of the initial post as in some way overly critical ... he didn't blast the Globe, say Baron and his team had dropped the ball, angrily demand open accounting and the naming of names, or even speak negatively of the decision. He merely said it might be a nice gesture "if--in the coming days--the paper found a way to let readers know which other marquee figures are exiting." What's so demonic about that?