What do you think of the new Star-Advertiser?
Several people have asked me the same question, but I’m deferring judgement for now. But it would be interesting to get your thoughts. If you haven’t left a comment here before, you should know that (a) you can comment without providing your real name, and (b) your comment may not show up immediately because it is reviewed first to eliminate spam (would you be surprised to hear that quite a bit of spam enters the comment stream?).
And did you notice this comment left anonymously overnight?
Star-Bulletin news staff who were fired suddenly had severance pay deposited directly in their bank accounts without their knowledge, before they were dismissed. One was an editor with 13 years on the staff.
If true, it contrasts sharply with company policy towards other employees, whose severance has been held up pending resolution of a union grievance which simply seeks to assure severance payments in the amounts set out by contract. KHON reported on the grievance issue yesterday.
“Well we had to file it because they wouldn’t make a commitment. We would withdraw that grievance in minutes if they would come forth and make the commitment to pay the severance pay. Who’s going to get it, when they’re going to get it, and confirm they’ll get the right amount,” said Cahill (administrative officer of the Newspaper Guild until his retirement, scheduled for June 10).
Civilbeat.com editor John Temple, writing on his own “Temple Talk” blog, says that he shared his reflections on the transition to the Star-Advertiser in a posting on Civil Beat. Of course, click through to Civil Beat and you hit a request for payment in order to enter.
On his own blog, however, Temple questions the claim that David Black lost $100 keeping the Star-Bulletin afloat.
I’m sure he can come up with numbers to show that’s the case. But I deeply doubt that his claim represents the underlying situation here. The Star-Bulletin may have lost $100 million, depending on how expenses and revenues are allocated. But his Midweek, a weekly paper distributed to most residences on Oahu, looks to be very profitable. Why else would he have kept it out of the deal when he put the Star-Bulletin up for sale and made an offer on the Advertiser? You might be able to show that the Star-Bulletin lost $100 million, but my guess is that Oahu Publications, the parent company of the Star-Bulletin and Midweek, did far better and made up much if not most of those losses with profits from Midweek. Black put the Star-Bulletin up for sale. Not Oahu Publications.
That’s a good point, and it underscores the point that the claim has been repeated without further questioning throughout this end-game process. Interesting.
And, in Ohio, a group of retired employees of the Akron Beacon-Journal, owned by Star-Advertiser owner David Black, won a round in a court battle over retiree health benefits.
“Having cold-heartedly broken promises to these retirees and now been called on it by a federal judge, one would hope that the Akron Beacon Journal would now simply accept responsibility, comply with the order, and not do it again,” said Subodh Chandra, a Cleveland lawyer who represents the retirees. “We suspect, however, that they will continue to drag out this dispute with appeals hoping that the retirees will just die or go away.”
Mr. Black, who is named in the lawsuit along with the Journal and Black Press, said the company is reviewing the decision. He also defended management’s actions.
“In a paper like the Akron Beacon Journal which has reduced revenues, we must lower costs,” he said in an e-mail. “Retiree medical expenses were rapidly increasing, not decreasing. Management thought that switching to generic drugs rather than brand-name drugs would be one way to continue retiree medical coverage while controlling costs somewhat. The judge apparently did not agree.”
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m dissappointed that nobody seems to update the SA website throughout the day with breaking news (or as breaking as Hawaii gets from local press).
The SA web site is not being updated with news because SB manager wanted to get rid of web staff with journalism credentials. No one on the web staff now has any news experience whatsoever. The people Bridgewater got rid of are the ones who had to convince him that 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq were actually breaking news.
We had the same problem at the Advertiser. After all the editorial staff had left the web guys refused to post any breaking news because they said there were not journalists.
Then why did HA post all those phony “breaking news” stories that were really press releases, and every little sports story as “breaking” and would “break” the same lame story day after day for a week?
Guess what? The two webbies that got the ax were both “at will'” hires, that means they were outside of any union protection.
Both had “issues”.
Just because one has “news experience” doesn’t mean you won’t held accountable. As a matter of fact the biggest problem the old SB had was a lack of accountability and consequence.
“New World Order” is a phrase that has been bandied about in the newsroom for the last few weeks. It is here.
The only person in the newsroom whom I heard spout that tired cliche about a “New World Order” was you. Your comments here are disappointing but not surprising coming from a member of the popular kids’ clique at the SB -> SA.
Survey in today’s paper on your impression of the new paper gives 3 options: A. Love it! B. Solid debut. C. Wait and see.
Hmmmm
I’m glad to see the article exposing the illegal lobbying by a nonprofit yesterday. Today however the online version is very light on news. I’m looking and looking for real news but it’s not to be found. I’m sure the civil beat will take up the slack for those who can afford 20. a month extra. Wish there was another way.
The new SA is ACTUALLY WORSE than either
the old SB or HA. Figures.
“SA – The worst of both worlds”
Does SA = square root of (SB + HA) ?
It would be useful if you would list the things you don’t like about the new S-A as well as anything you do like.
Otherwise, it’s impossible to guess what your general impression is based on.
Thanks.
I think it’s a mathematical formula, for sure. One half-decent newspaper, merging with another half-decent newspaper. But it is not
1/2 plus 1/2, as we had hoped. Nope, it’s
1/2 times 1/2, leaving us a quarter decent paper!
The online addition looks like somebody’s startup website. If I am going to root for a struggling online local news source, I might as well throw in with the Hawaii Independent. They have a lot less money, but they make up for it with heart:
http://www.thehawaiiindependent.com
Star Advertiser does not allow posting of other websites in Comments. It will tell you that it has to be moderated i.e. deleted!
It’s too bad because it expounds on issues further.
I don’t know why Star Advertiser is so afraid of this. Is the newspaper’s mission to inform or not?
They have the right to set their own commenting standards and many “link to other site” comments are vicious, irresponsible hit pieces with no basis in fact.
Now the news media workers know what it’s like to be stonewalled and ignored.
The public should know about this but there is a lock-down on this issue in SA.
So far all the local photographs are BORING. And large graphics are still being used to fill up space which leads one to wonder don’t they have any more information on the story.
I like the Star-Advertiser’s print version better than the online version, because the former covers local, national, and world news better. The design of the printed version is very nice as well.
However, I do miss the HA’s website, which offered more breaking news than the SA does.
My guess is that before long, we’ll see a paywall go up for some or all of the the S-A web content.
The Honolulu Starved Duh Tiser.
Wonder if the SB/OPI is playing more games with severance. The subtext to Francis’ snarky comments seems to be that the union should drop its grievance unilaterally based on his verbal promises. Classic forked-tongue attack on union activity.
As for the breaking news issue … the Advertiser committed to it at the ground level, its news staff was filing those reports. The drive for quantity did lead to some questionable postings, however no one can deny that good information was out there as well.
The Star-Bulletin has yet to make this kind of commitment and it remains to be seen whether they even understand it.
The SA does seem thin on news although I appreciated the story on the non-profit lobbying. Also, the layout isn’t that clear to me yet – was trying to find some of the blogs but there doesn’t seem to be a full listing anywhere. Also, how do you find out what reporters/staff are handling which beats or responsbilities?
As for the comments section rejecting links, is that the SA/SB or is it the comment system the SB adopted some time ago? Whatever the cause, I agree that’s lame. I was disgusted by this last month when the SB clearly obtained a story idea from another online source. The reporter who wrote the original story wrote a comment, directing readers to his original articles for more information. The SB deleted his comment & mine, which also provided a link to the stories.
still too early to post any serious critiques, positive or negative. . . needs time to grow. . . however, did notice in sports that five of the bylines were from former advertiser folks. . . believe there was one from the old s-b?
I believe the SB’s “at will” webbies were originally Guild but were taken out of the union when they were transferred from news to web against their will. The Guild should been on top of that but were likely consumed by Advertiser problems.