The Telegraph press room in Fleet Street, 1882
Telegraph journalists have been told that 55 of their number are about to lose their jobs. That is a tenth of the editorial strength and if the cuts are achieved, it will mean that the papers' journalistic staff will have been halved in nine years.
News of the redundancies comes less than a week after the announcement that Jason Seiken was to focus on strategy and finance, leaving the real business of editing to Chris Evans and his weekend sidekick Ian MacGregor.
Seiken, who has not relinquished his titles chief content officer and editor in chief, has sent a letter to staff that begins:
Telegraph journalists have been told that 55 of their number are about to lose their jobs. That is a tenth of the editorial strength and if the cuts are achieved, it will mean that the papers' journalistic staff will have been halved in nine years.
News of the redundancies comes less than a week after the announcement that Jason Seiken was to focus on strategy and finance, leaving the real business of editing to Chris Evans and his weekend sidekick Ian MacGregor.
Seiken, who has not relinquished his titles chief content officer and editor in chief, has sent a letter to staff that begins:
I am writing to update you on changes we are making as part of the ongoing editorial transformation.
As I outlined in a letter to staff earlier this month, we must continue to meet the demands of resourcing our digital-first newsroom whilst also responding to the ongoing challenges within our industry.
As a result, there will inevitably be an impact on staff numbers in several editorial areas.
SubScribe would like to ask one question: why?
Why is it inevitable that there will be an impact on staff numbers - a euphemism for cuts - as part of an "ongoing editorial transformation"?
Journalists are known as a cynical bunch and they/we have come to recognise that any change is accompanied by staff cuts. But why is it inevitable? Why do proprietors and their senior lieutenants regard piling more work onto fewer people as an essential element in any reorganisation?
The one thing that traditional news organisations have to their advantage in this era of citizen journalism, blogging and tweeting is trust. The trust that has been built up through editorial expertise. Readers know where the information is coming from and have, over the years, drawn their own conclusions about whether a particular journalist knows what he or she is writing about.
Look at all the material that is shared on Facebook by people who have no idea of its provenance - from security hoaxes to spurious world records and apparently innocuous comments about British life from racist and extremist organisations. How many of us bother to check back on where this stuff comes from? We glance at the post, it's come from a "friend" we trust and if it seems reasonable, we click "like" or "share" to please the friend.
When we share a link to the Telegraph, the Independent or the Mirror, we have a greater confidence than we do when we pass on a blogpost - even one by SubScribe. And so we should.
But how long will that be the case if experienced journalists are to be replaced by "digital" staff of indeterminate qualifications beyond a knowledge of SEO and social media. It's a dangerous strategy. How refreshing it would be if just one of these revolutions involved investment in journalism rather than in the nebulous "digital".
One thing's for sure, Will Lewis's revolutionary newsroom is going to look a lot emptier.
Why is it inevitable that there will be an impact on staff numbers - a euphemism for cuts - as part of an "ongoing editorial transformation"?
Journalists are known as a cynical bunch and they/we have come to recognise that any change is accompanied by staff cuts. But why is it inevitable? Why do proprietors and their senior lieutenants regard piling more work onto fewer people as an essential element in any reorganisation?
The one thing that traditional news organisations have to their advantage in this era of citizen journalism, blogging and tweeting is trust. The trust that has been built up through editorial expertise. Readers know where the information is coming from and have, over the years, drawn their own conclusions about whether a particular journalist knows what he or she is writing about.
Look at all the material that is shared on Facebook by people who have no idea of its provenance - from security hoaxes to spurious world records and apparently innocuous comments about British life from racist and extremist organisations. How many of us bother to check back on where this stuff comes from? We glance at the post, it's come from a "friend" we trust and if it seems reasonable, we click "like" or "share" to please the friend.
When we share a link to the Telegraph, the Independent or the Mirror, we have a greater confidence than we do when we pass on a blogpost - even one by SubScribe. And so we should.
But how long will that be the case if experienced journalists are to be replaced by "digital" staff of indeterminate qualifications beyond a knowledge of SEO and social media. It's a dangerous strategy. How refreshing it would be if just one of these revolutions involved investment in journalism rather than in the nebulous "digital".
One thing's for sure, Will Lewis's revolutionary newsroom is going to look a lot emptier.
Returning to Seiken's letter, he continues:
As we reduce the overall number of editorial positions we will start the normal information and consultation process. Those who are likely to be most affected will receive further correspondence in the next few days. This will outline the next steps.
I realise this is a time of great uncertainty for you all. I do not want that to continue for any longer than is necessary, but I want the process we follow to be fair and allow time for sufficient consultation. I hope we can complete this initial assessment in just over a week.
A week to bring down the curtain on the careers of journalists who may have spent years with the paper. Yes, that should be fair and sufficient.
If only the Telegraph were a one-off case
If only the Telegraph were a one-off case
RSS Feed
