May I Have a Word? Scab
Tod Robberson, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, reports the threat of a strike by unions at Houston oil refineries. Robberson is no fan of ExxonMobil, especially after what he calls its just posted "obscene" record profits, but he warns that refineries are in a good position to break any strike with "scabs" and the public is not going to be sympathetic with workers who still have a job in this bad economic environment, no matter what their complaint.
So far, no quibble from me. Striking when the economy is flat on its back is folly. I think Robberson has analyzed the situation well. It's the reader response that I find noteworthy. "Trey Garrison" asks, "isn't 'scab' derogatory?" Indeed it is. Many ExxonMobil fans would probably take offense to calling strikebreakers "scabs." To be politically correct, writers probably ought to use the neutral term "strikebreaker." I just find it deliciously ironic that the person who raised this issue of political correctness is Trey Garrison.
Trey Garrison also asked Robberson why he defines ExxonMobil's profits as "obscene." I think dictionary.com's definition number 4 is applicable: "So large in amount as to be objectionable or outrageous." This is a subjective definition and I expect Tod Robberson and Trey Garrison to disagree on how "large in amount" ExxonMobil's profits need to be to be judged "objectionable." For Robberson and many Americans, ExxonMobil's $45.22 billion annual profit, the largest yearly profit in American history, is objectionable. Alternatively, for Trey Garrison, it isn't. It would be interesting if Trey Garrison could name any profit level that he would consider objectionable. My guess is no. After all, Trey Garrison isn't easily offended. Unless it's by calling a strikebreaker a scab.
What's a Newspaperman To Do?
Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, bemoans another round of layoffs at A.H.Belo. Everyone's an armchair business genius, and I'm no exception, so here are my thoughts...
- Newspapers are doomed. The cost of paper, ink and delivery is what is going to kill the business, given the cheaper production costs of online.
- There are efforts to preserve online content. The first notable effort was archive.org (originally known as the WaybackMachine). But funding for this effort is unlikely to match the funding for public libraries in decades past for their newspaper archival efforts.
- Concentrating on local news is probably only a delaying tactic. Economic survival depends on growing economies of scale, and covering suburban city council meetings and school board meetings is moving in the wrong direction. Besides, people may live in, say, Richardson, but work in Dallas and send their kid to UT-Arlington. There's no way a printed product can be produced that will cover that person's interests. Going local sounds good, but is devilishly difficult to implement in a way that makes money.
- The way forward? I'm out of time and space. That is left as an exercise for the reader.
4 comments:
Listen, after Sunday's article, a rancid mixture of resentment, self-pity and spiteful revenge fantasies, Dreher bloody well deserves to lose his job as far as I'm concerned.
I don't necessarily agree with you in regards to local.
Many local papers are making money and are staying in business. The big guys concentrating on "local" is, as you say, a delaying tactic because they are simply trying to find a way to stem the bleeding.
However a simple local paper in an area that needs and desires news can be profitable like on the scale of local businesses. It doesn't have to be the Dallas Morning News.
I wonder how local small press focused n niche areas like the Dallas voice do? There are several small focused papers in Dallas.
You live in Richardson. It has Richardson Living which is a lifestyle magazine (as opposed to hard news.) However, it is free and exists off of advertising alone as far as I can tell.
Yes. The big papers are dying. However I think there is room and demand for smaller press.
I didn't read Dreher's article. I saw a headline that made me think it would be another of Rod Dreher's whines and I just passed on it. I almost never did that before. Dreher's got the potential to say something worth reading, but lately, he's just flailing. The word bitter comes to mind.
My comments regarding newspapers concentrating on local coverage was aimed at the big, mainstream papers like TDMN. TDMN covers too big an area to focus on local coverage. TDMN can't shrink its way to success.
That doesn't mean there isn't room for all sorts of smaller press, focusing on local stories and living off advertising, not subscriptions or news rack sales. But those businesses will grow bottoms-up, not by TDMN getting small.
Post a Comment