Media General in Tampa: ‘Convergence’ Equals Layoffs
Just in time for the FCC Tampa hearing, conglomerate Media General, which owns both the Tampa Tribune and WFLA Channel 8, has cut 70 newspaper staff from its payroll.
According to an Associated Press report, the cost-cutting measures include consolidation and outsourcing of certain “unspecified operations” and combining sections of the paper.
Media General’s ownership of the Tribune and WFLA was grandfathered under the 1975 cross-ownership ban, which prohibits a company from owning a daily newspaper and a television station or a radio station in the same market.
The Virginia-based conglomerate has put its Tampa newspaper in the same building with its television station and online operation, “the better to exchange stories and, ostensibly, resources.”
This inbred relationship between newsrooms has degraded both coverage and staffing. Spokespeople for the media giant like to sugar coat these sorts of cost cutting efforts with terms like “convergence” and “synergy.” In reality they translate to mean layoffs and cheapened news.
In 2003, WFLA was chastised in national media for its outrageous practice of charging guests $2,500 to appear with the program’s hosts on its news magazine show, “Daytime.” But the Tribune took a “kinder and gentler” approach to the story, rushing in to defend “Daytime” as an “advertiser-driven talk show” with “no journalism elements.”
The news conglomerate chose to ignore standing FCC statutes that prohibit such on-air shilling without disclosure — as evidenced by its decision in October 2006 to air a “video news release” (a prepackage corporate press release dressed up to look like local news) prepared by the American College of Physicians.
One Tribune TV critic reported that editors “forced him to lay off criticism of WFLA for nearly a year prior to the opening of the News Center [which is the name for the building that houses the Tribune and WFLA news operations], supposedly to avoid ill will between the staffs.”
Examples of the Media General’s approach to “convergence” in Tampa make a solid case for retaining the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule that prevents these types of abuses from occurring elsewhere.
I do some work with the NAB and think that this story begs the question of where would the Tampa Tribune be right now if it were not owned by Media General? With newspaper readership numbers falling steadily and showing no sign of a rebound, an independently-owned paper of the Tribune’s stature would be hard pressed to compete with other print media, radio, television, and the Internet for the advertising dollars on which it relies. So while layoffs are an unfortunate reality of any business, I would argue that the Tribune would find itself in much more dire straits were the resources afforded by corporate ownership not available to it.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:42 pmIf the Tribune and WFLA were under separate owners, you wouldn’t see the sort of journalistic malpractice that occurs when they fail to critique one another (As outlined above). You also wouldn’t see as many layoffs as have occurred under Media General’s dubious banner of “synergy”.
So, in short, better reporting and more employed journalists. Given the double-digit profit margins of both the newspaper and the TV station, I think they’d both survive and residents of Tampa would be better off for it.
One question for you. Does your work for NAB include posting pro-Big Media talking points on this site?
April 12th, 2007 at 8:46 amHaving worked for 5 years in sales for media General in the broadcast television division, the last three as a sales manager and the unititled market convergence coordinator in another market, I can tell you that convergence as presently defined presents numerous problems. It is important to note I did not get fired or laid off. I left on my terms, for my own reasons and maintain a healthy relationship with many within Media General. I have NO AX to grind with Media General.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:15 amFirst is that with respect to having independent hyper local news content the whole concept of “together but seperate” is filled with land mines as discussed previously. Secondly from a sales and revenue aspect, in these extremely challenging times, there is tremendous potential to converged internet, print and broadcast promotions for clients. The issue is the “together but seperate” model here is just as problematic, not necesarily from an ethical stand point but from a revenue and client stand point. Sales operations are completely stove piped and therefor you essentially have an environment where sales personnel are asked to work together but are measured individually, a recipe for hidden, unhealthy competition, seperate goals and agenda’s and just a general atmosphere of distrust. The ultimate loser is the client caught in the cross fire of all the tugging an pulling.
So from a news point of view convergence, as presently configured at Media General, does not serve the reader/viewer best and from an advertising point of view it also comes up short in delivering the best product to the client. There is potential for this methodology to work but given how “dug in” Richmond appears to be in protecing their seperate turf I am not hopeful that in the near future anything good will come of any of this.
Lastly the layoffs at the Tribune should serve notice of things to come, anyone ever remember a company, the size of Media General, just making one round of layoff’s/buyouts/early retirements?
Stay tuned!
cfa0e32e2006…
cfa0e32e2006ad8b853a…
May 8th, 2008 at 10:00 pm