-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Gannett staff on strike
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
For reference: The current Gannett is actually the old Gatehouse, which acquired the previous incarnation of Gannett and took its name. And that previous Gannett was a new company that was spun off from the original Gannett, which rebranded as Tegna.
So the current company is the “new new Gannett”.
So the current company is the “new new Gannett”.
Our local Gannett paper did a separate but coordinated walk-out.
In a news story on our local KESQ (TV) a representative of the journalists pointed out that Gannett had revenue of over $2 billion, but failed to note that they have had four years of huge operating losses and 2023 looks even worse for them and the print media industry in general.
My comment: how can a spokesperson for a journalist's union be so ignorant as to confuse gross revenue with net income? And, showing further ignorance, the journalist confused a net loss (hey, the "-" sign in front of the number is a big clue) with a profit!
kesq.com
Yet here are the actual financials: GCI | Gannett Co. Inc. Annual Income Statement | MarketWatch
Am I missing something, or is this just another example of journalists who have no understanding of money, finance, and the economy?
In a news story on our local KESQ (TV) a representative of the journalists pointed out that Gannett had revenue of over $2 billion, but failed to note that they have had four years of huge operating losses and 2023 looks even worse for them and the print media industry in general.
My comment: how can a spokesperson for a journalist's union be so ignorant as to confuse gross revenue with net income? And, showing further ignorance, the journalist confused a net loss (hey, the "-" sign in front of the number is a big clue) with a profit!
Desert Sun union employees join strike against Gannett in hopes of better wages - KESQ
The Desert Sun's employee union is striking against their employer, Gannett. About 30 news publications participated in a nationwide walk out yesterday while striking against their parent company. Janet Wilson is an environmental reporter with the Desert Sun and USA Today, she's also a member of...
kesq.com
Yet here are the actual financials: GCI | Gannett Co. Inc. Annual Income Statement | MarketWatch
Am I missing something, or is this just another example of journalists who have no understanding of money, finance, and the economy?
Some do, some don't. Unions apparently don't. They see this as an adversarial thing. Unions get paid the agreed-upon wage regardless of the profits of the company. They want a dependable wage. What's happening broadly in the media world is that companies are doing percentage deals. So the workers get a percentage of the revenues. It may look like a big percentage, but it may not be a lot of money, because consumers don't want to pay for content, and ad revenue is dropping. It's really the only way these companies can operate, because ad revenue is so undependable. This is why the sports channels are going bankrupt. They signed deals to pay teams a certain amount of money, and now the advertising isn't enough to pay those prices.
My observation is that many journalists and almost all the general public confuse "revenue" with "profit". Out of that comes the idea by some union members... and even leaders... that they can ask for more money even if the company is registering losses and paying interest on loans needed to pay current expenses.
Just announced that the LA Times will cut 13% of it's staff, including newsroom staff, due to advertising declines:
www.latimes.com
The LA Times is privately owned by a billionaire, not a newspaper corporation.
Los Angeles Times to cut 74 newsroom positions amid advertising declines
The elimination of about 13% of the newsroom staff is the first major retrenchment since the paper was acquired five years ago by Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong and his wife, Michele.
www.latimes.com
The LA Times is privately owned by a billionaire, not a newspaper corporation.
Including many regular participants on this very site.
I attribute much of this to riding the wave of the ongoing writers strike. SAG/AFTRA announced yesterday that some of their members have voted to walk out.
Speaking from personal experience, I can say that a J-school education is light on finance, economics, and mathematics, and heavy on a certain level of self-righteousness. When I went back to graduate school in an entirely different discipline, I had to spend a year in undergraduate courses in those fields as a remedial program to get my knowledge - particularly in mathematics - up to the necessary baseline.
Last edited:
It depends on what your area of specialization is. There are some journalists who specialize in finance and economics, and they end up at the Wall Street Journal or CNBC. But most don't study those subjects, and we should point out that the article quotes a union spokesman, not a journalist. So that's a different thing.
I'll also point out that former member of congress Joe Crowley, who now runs MusicFirst, often quotes the same revenue figures for radio companies as justification for his new music royalty he wants to impose. People take information and twist it any way they can if it helps them make their point. That's what's going on here.
Those subjects should be taught in high school. Such knowledge is required for life, not just a college education.