Parents Petition Caltrain to Reduce Train Speed In Palo Alto
Gavin Newsom's Mariah Carey-like Interview Demand
How to Keep Your Car Windows Safe In the Tenderloin
Urgent: SF Food Bank Needs Your Help
Gavin Cans Film Commission Head Stephanie Coyote
We're almost certain that more esteemed colleagues like Steven T. Jones and Joe Eskenazi didn't come across a request from a Chronicle reporter to unpublish their items on yesterday's involuntary layoffs
But we sure did.
Hi, Brock:I'm a reporter at the San Francisco Chronicle and shop steward for the Guild. I just wanted to drop you a note about your blog post listing the names of those who've been laid off.
Several folks who've been laid off are extremely concerned about their names being posted on your site. They want to keep it as private as possible for a number of reasons. For some, there are emotional issues involved. But for others, there are much more serious ramifications to being laid off that have to do with their careers and personal finances.
Is there a way you could take that post down?
Thank you for considering. I really appreciate it. I'd be happy to talk to you about it.
- matthai C:415-xxx-xxxxMatthai Kuruvila
Religion/Spirituality Reporter
San Francisco Chronicle
w: (415) 777-xxxx
f: (415) 896-xxxx
xxxxxxxxx@sfchronicle.com
www.SFChronicle.com
Does this mean the Chronicle is in the habit of censoring news that might cause, you know, hurt feelings? How often does the Chronicle unpublish news items that are true because of "emotional issues involved" or "serious ramifications to being laid off that have to do with their careers and personal finances?"
Prick the bubble, Chronicle. Only then will you truly be free.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
*pulls up chair. waits for the comment fight*
*sticks a couple of bags of blast-o-butter popcorn in the microwave*
Dear San Francisco Chronicle,
In your newspaper today you published an article about my steroid drug use. Please could you take my name out of the article as there are emotional issues involved and serious ramifications to being suspended that have to do with my career and personal finances.
Thanks bitches,
Manny Ramirez
Ya know, I can sympathize with the reporters but this is news. As a reader, I want to know who I won't be seeing in the paper anymore (and decide if I want to keep reading it.) As a journalist, nothing is more disturbing than the culture of secrecy surrounding layoffs...we're often unaware of who is being laid off (esp. in other departments within the newspaper) until the rumor mill spreads the news...
I truly feel for these reporters and copy editors...best of luck.
wow, I'm mortified, and I don't even work in journalism. Obviously, the email is a faux pas, but Brock, are you a member of the Media Guild?
As I understand it, the Media Guild is for newspapers. So: no, I am not a member.
Or the Lollipop Guild?
I mean, as a layperson, I found the layoffs of people with bylines to be news...the copy editors, not as much. I can understand why people "behind the scenes" might be upset that it's googleable to friends and family and creditors that they were let go, but I'd leave it to the Poynter folks as to the actual ehtics of the situation.
At any rate, this particular post just seems like rubbing salt into it.
If the layoff is not public yet, and you are going through a refinance, you can still tell BofA that you have a job and get the refi done, etc...
But if the Chron was concerned about that, they wouldn't have laid them off...
"News" is in the eye of the beholder. The fact that the Chron laid people off? News. Their identities? I don't think so, but that's my opinion, I certainly don't begrudge SFist coming to a different conclusion.
Question, Brock did you actually call the guy to determine whether he was actually calling on behalf of the paper or just himself? Or the Guild? Because I don't read his email as being from "The Chronicle" per se asking you to un-report stuff, I read this as being from the union or a co-worker asking you to un-report stuff. In which case, the headline of this isn't really accurate.
I think it is fair for Brock to assume that this person was representing the Chronicle in their request, seeing as how they used their work email address.
I don't think it was fair to so assume and judging from the comments here, neither do some others. And as a journalist, why assume anything? Why not just nail it down? The guy gave his info and indicated he'd be happy to discuss why he was asking. I would think the journalists among us would always prefer facts to assumptions.
Again, I think SFist had every right to print the list. I just think the site is (possibly) being unfair by portraying "The Chronicle" as complaining about it.
It was an error in judgment to send the e-mail from a Chronicle address, but I seriously doubt he was speaking for the Chron. Or the Guild. He was speaking as a friend.
i'm surprised that a news organization would make such a request. they hurt feelings all the time...
"I got laid off from the Chronicle... waaaah..."
Whatever. Once it's posted on the web, it never goes away, even if the posting is deleted.
guys, it's not the Chron making the request, it's the shop steward for the media workers guild. so it's on behalf of the workers themselves, not the paper.
i don't know if that changes your level of snark on the matter, but it might.
I think it was fair to print the names, but also a fair request to remove them. But to post that the "Chronicle (reporter)" is requesting said names removed, only to bring more attention to it, is a little immature.
I disagree. It's just like All the Presidents Men (if you agree that "just like" means "it happened on Earth and humans were involved") A denial of a story isn't news, a denial of a denial is news. People being laid off isn't news (it is, but it's not very interesting), but a complaint by a newspaperman about invasion of privacy is news. Le kettle est noir.
I fail to see how listing the NAMES of people who have been laid off is "news." Isn't just the fact that there are lay offs in progress as that wretched rag begins to collapse into its final death rattle news in itself? These people haven't done anything wrong and this Mattalusa person at the Guild is right - publication of their names can both be embarrassing and financially damaging.
By the way, was that cutting edge journalist Nevius one of the guys getting laid off?
As the bloke who played the saxophone on Baker Street used to say, "I never made any money off that record, Gerry Raffety lives in a mansion and I'm stuck here doing condom commercials, and by the way, you're contradicting yourself". You don't want the names published, but you do want to know if well-known-womens'-underwear-sniffer Nevius has been canned. Which is it? Anonymity for those laid off or news about the job prospects of San Francisco's biggest welsher of bets, CW Nevius?
I am contradicting myself. Good point, fizzandpop. How about anonymity for everyone but Nevius. Why? Just cruelty.
When your career is a public figure, you don't get to whine and be selective about what bits people see, unless of course that's your schtick or you're Rupert Murdoch. Naturally, private life should remain private. Otherwise everything is fair game.
Who said copy editors are public figures? In a purely legal sense, I'm sure they're not. A staff writer with a byline? Maybe. A columnist? Probably.
I think layoffs are legitimate news, and I think often the names of those laid off are fair game as well, but Brock misses the point with this self-righteous post : The guy stated he was a shop steward for the union. That explicitly means he's not calling on behalf of the Chronicle and asking SFist to take down a post. And that makes Brock's post somewhat hyperbolic.
What part of "I'm a reporter at the San Francisco Chronicle..." are you having difficulty?
Leaving your snark aside, I'll point out again that he's a shop steward. Maybe you're not familiar with the term. Basically, he's a union advocate. He e-mailed Brock because he was looking out for his union people. So the idea that the Chronicle, as an organization, is asking SFist to censor itself, is just not true.
Your patronizing aside, my post isn't disputing the author's position or his agenda. And it's more than a little disingenuous for you to pivot to that, but I understand the need to defend yourself, albeit poorly.
I'm disputing your interpretation of his intentions and agenda based upon your statement that he was "explicitly" representing himself as a shop steward. That is patently false because he referenced himself first as a staffer of the Chronicle. Not even a layman author makes this mistake but I understand and point it out as a subtlety that seems to escape you. Using that as a foundation of your (loosely stated) "opinion," renders your viewpoint as wholly absurd.
self-righteous? i merely presented a list of facts.
that said, e, your obsession with me now borders on creepy.
Maybe it is me, but what I find more telling is:
a) the Comical has a Religion/Spirituality Reporter, and
b) the Religion/Spirituality Reporter was not one of the people laid off
Lets print some more Woo in the newspapers, because what this country needs is more make believe thinking.
At the rate the Chronicle is going, continuing to fire off the people who create the product they are allegedly trying to sell, there is going to be no one left to carry on this much vaunted tradition of "journalism".
There will, it seems, continue to be the constant, shrill whining from those in the industry, and those who now spend more time talking about themselves then going out and reporting all those Big Stories only they can do (but don't.)
At what point does this "fire staffers to save money" death spiral stop? Right now I can't think of a single reason I would want to part with 50 cents for a "newspaper" that's mostly made up of wire service copy I can get from the source, for free. And what is the Chronicle offering that's of value that should make me change my mind?
As for the post, in question, well the irony is that folks are going to do this thing called "reporting" and figure out who's missing from the lineup we have known thus far, and assemble said info and disseminate it on the interwebs and elsewhere. I suppose if Brock xeroxed this on a piece of dead tree and handed it out, the Chron union would have no issue whatsoever.
Or not. At this point there's going to be no "Chronicle" by the well heeled upper management at Hearst anyways, so I suppose it won't matter much in the end. A pity , as many talented people are losing their careers just because lazy executives couldn't figure out how to compete in a non-monopoly environment!
There was a time when reporters were required to begin their lead paragraphs with: " Who , what, when, where, and why." Of course, there was no such thing as a Religion/Spirituality Reporter in those days. Maybe Matthai Kuruvila could channel Walter Winchell and discuss the matter.
We live in a world in which religious extremists commit terrorist attacks in the name of God, in which religious zealots donate millions to influence elections, and in which a large percentage of the U.S. population doesn't believe in evolution because of religious convictions. And yet commenters sneer at the fact that the Chronicle even *has* a religion reporter? Seems like a pretty important aspect of human society, one that journalism has a duty to help explain.
What duty does a religion reporter have that encompasses trying to supress reporting on the internet?
Sex is arguably an even greater concern for the vast majority of people around the world and especially locally, but I doubt they have a dedicated sex reporter. The best they manage to do is maybe rope Violet Blue into writing some online-only columns.
"Prick the bubble, Chronicle. Only then will you truly be free."
Just embrace your self-righteousness. You'll be happier. P.S. Not sure what you mean by obsession - that I criticize you?
http://gifparty.tumblr.com/post/80939115
Maybe it is just that people who were laid off wanted to have the opportunities to tell their families first before people read about it on a blog. As someone who has learned about some of the most private (and upsetting) details of my own family's life from the Web and the media, I can understand how hurtful this is. As a former reporter, I also have to agree with the commenter who stated that the job titles and sheer numbers may have been news, but the people's names were not. In the newspaper business, we would have at least checked with people first to see if they were OK with their names being mentioned. At least out of decency. When you get laid off, you want the opportunity to come home, sit down at your kitchen table and tell your family about it in your own words--not to have to explain after the fact why they saw your name on a list. Love your blog, but compassion also has a place on the Internet.
don't take this the wrong way, but: shame on you.
seriously.
Shame on you. Presenting "a list of facts" is one thing; adding your snarky, not-so-original commentary is quite another.
thanks for your input, lowly copy editor. your faux-pain amuses us deeply.