Friday, May 8, 2009

More cuts at the Tacoma News Tribune?... reader says 11 employees getting laid off

A reader says the Tacoma News Tribune is handing out pink slips in its printing operation:
Tacoma is reducing its pressroom by nine journeymen and two trainees this afternoon.

If you have more info, leave it in comments.


Anonymous said...

Why these dolts prefer going under to printing a product that readers want is beyond me.

Maybe some lib can shed some light on this phenomena without saying, "It's just this darn economy"

Anonymous said...

I'm not a lib but I can answer your question.

Affirmative Action has stacked their ranks to the brim with like minded souls in a field that was predisposed to attract leftist ideologues in the first place.

To alter their content to reflect an objective newspaper would be a blatant admission that they were not only wrong, but that they themselves were in large part responsible for their own demise.

It isn't human nature to acknowledge that ones core beliefs are entirely wrong. This realization comes only after long periods of time.

What person would accept responsibility for their failures when they can easily point to circumstances beyond their control to place the blame?

Common sense dictates that intentionally alienating a major portion of your potential audience is bad business. However, when your intent is to affect public opinion to advance your agenda, offending your customer base is not an issue. Converting them to your own ideology is all that matters.

Now that the cash flow has dried up, ask yourself, are they doing anything to change their business practices? No, they are begging for government handouts, public handouts and anything else that they can think of in hope of continuing on as usual.

Appealing to a wider audience never enters their minds.

Anonymous said...

10:47 to 11:25 Thank you, and I appreciate your in depth perspective.

Having seen this phenomena in government, it’s tragic to see it played out in the private sector.

But as for newspapers, with the generic AP cut and paste and lib agenda, I can not fathom buying, let alone subscribing to a newspaper.

Maybe post newspaper demise, there might be something to come from the rubble.

But until then I refuse to pay for some lib to espouse socialism to me.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, right-wingers, but you don't have a clue. The New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch, is in the same financial straits as the alleged "liberal" papers, as is the Boston Globe, hardly a bastion of liberalism. Try thinking for yourself instead of listening to Limbaugh and Hannity.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, right-wingers, but you don't have a clue.

So the NY Post being owned by an Australian business man is the proof of your convictions?

I think you better examine what a clue is.

Anonymous said...

Why is Murdoch's nationality relevant to the fact that his newspaper, which hardly anyone calls "liberal," is suffering the same economic downturn as the ones the right-wingers love to scream about as "liberal" or "socialistic"? Seems like this disproves 11:25 and 11:55's argument.

Anonymous said...

Seems like this disproves 11:25 and 11:55's argument.

It would to me too if I were a simpleton. Your argument states as fact that the NY Post is in the same situation as the liberal papers.

Your argument is specious from it's very beginning. The NY Post and Rupert Murdoch's enterprise is actually healthy enough that should he choose, he could literally buy the entire print media industry in the US, lock stock and barrel, without even noticing his bank balance has changed.

You didn't disprove anything, you just made something up and declared it proof.

Here is a little fact for you. Ruppert Murdoch took a 100k dollar paper and turned it into an International Multi billion dollar conglomerate. How did he do it? By sticking to the principals of journalistic ethics, objective reporting and offering voice to all sides.

Arthur Sulzberger Jr inherited a 4 billion dollar Empire and turned it into an 800 million dollar mess. How did he do it? By butchering journalistic ethics, betraying his country and acting as a tool for International terrorist organizations, International Socialists and Communist thugs.

Anonymous said...

You think Ruppert Murdoch was the only one that accomplished this type of growth?

I have been in the paper business for quite some time, I feel the print publication is in very dire straights, but to underestimate the advertising revenue that goes with it is foolish. Even with considerable more losses, as long as there is a medium in which to reach the masses there will be advertising revenue attached.

Local news can not be replaced so easy and though the industry as a whole will continue to transform into a more digital format it will continue to be in demand.

The idea that the sole reason for the net loss in advertising and circulation is political is not accurate in the least.