Comments on: When not talking says volumes

by: RLR

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:03:18 +0000

J. Peder Zane is out on the streets? Couldn’t happen to a more nuanced historical context-minded guy.

(I signed his silly butt off as soon as I read the first two grafs of his anti-CSA memorial tirade.)

by: Barry Sheehan

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:46:39 +0000

The tit-for-tat dynamic is there but I wouldn’t put the two companies on an equal basis.

WRAL is an entertainment company with a news division and the N&O is an honest to goodness journalistic outfit. My guess is that WRAL will never mention their cuts - or if they do it will be a through one 20 second spot. I do not expect any long stories from them on how TV news coverage is declining.

I think the N&O has probably been too forthright in reporting its problems - I can’t imagine another business that would regularly tell its customers “Hey, you’re getting more for less.” But that is the truth and the paper ought to get some credit for leveling with us in a way that WRAL probably never will.

by: Chappy

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:37:06 +0000

The N&O’s relevance, alarmingly, has become a valid question. I’ve heard that one of the staffers lost Monday is Peder Zane — in which case, the paper is losing one of its most provocative, and sometimes conservative, voices. (This is not to slight all the other employees’ work in all the other departments where there were cuts. Each one will have a diminishing effect, and this time I think the impact will be much more noticeable than with previous layoffs.)
In part it’s the Web sites that have me thinking about this. While I would always pick up the N&O before watching TV news — it’s akin to going to library and reading an encyclopedia vs. People magazine — online I’ve found myself going to WRAL much more frequently. Sadly, this is mainly because WRAL’s site is much easier to use… and perhaps because the information there has been gone over by someone older and wiser than WRAL’s cute, error-prone reporters.
But who knows? We’re discussing the N&O’s relevance here, which means… it’s still has some relevance.

by: Walt-in-Durham

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:58:35 +0000

Tit-for-tat? I really think this is an indication of how little clout the N&O has left. Drescher gave WRAL an interview about his employment cuts. WRAL responds with a snub because they can. With each successive round of cuts, the N&O slides farther into irrelevance. WRAL and the rest of the TV media is not near large enough to replace the N&O’s coverage. Yet that is what they will have to do. McClatchy management and the N&O specifically do not appreciate that it is the intelligence provided by the journalists, not just the information.

by: Sheila

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:53:21 +0000

Felicia is haughtiness and condescension personified. How she ever managed to become a mouthpiece for the company is baffling.

by: NotThatImportant

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:59:06 +0000

“haughtiness and condescension over its no-comment”

Considering the source of the quote, the odds were much better than even that those words could be used to describe whatever was offered. Had Mr. Quarles spoke for himself, I think you would have had a more diplomatic statement. Mr Goodmon and Mr. Quarles actually have a pretty cordial relationship. Mr. Goodmon has even attended private holiday gatherings at Mr. Quarles home.

by: Locomotive Breath

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:09:41 +0000

The rats who stuck on the ship of the sinking mainstream media turn on each other. Gotta’ love it.

by: Bob

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:45:00 +0000

This tit for tat is pure silliness among a couple of children, the N&O and WRAL. Quickly ignored, but long remembered for two organizations who should not be airing their dirty laundry. Sad that both of them could not show better judgement here.