N&O to cut 10% of its news operation

Media27

Can’t help but find it a little ironic that on the same day that Jim Valvano’s basketball program of the 1980s got just a little vindication that WRAL breaks this story

The News & Observer is preparing to lay off about 10 percent of its newsroom staff and will announce other cuts affecting its news operation, sources inside the N&O tell WRAL.com.

Asked about layoffs, Felicia Gressette, vice president of marketing for the N&O who spoke on behalf of publisher Orage Quarles III, said, “We’re just not going to comment.”

When asked about other cost-cutting moves, Gressette noted: “Any changes will be announced in the N&O, not WRAL.com.”

Other cutbacks and changes include:

* The folding of the Business section into the City/State section. Business is currently published as a separate section, although the newspaper no longer runs extensive stock listings.

* The size of the space devoted to news will be reduced.

First, how in the world can they reduce their Business coverage any more than they already have? Their business section is horrible.

Secondly, we selfishly hope that they do not touch their ACC Blog, ACCNow. This site quickly became one of our favorite on the internet and deserves a ton of credit for its dynamic coverage of the ACC.

Lastly, my favorite quote from Pack Pride’s message board reads as follows:

Barry Saunders can now go back to being a street mime.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

Media

27 Responses to N&O to cut 10% of its news operation

  1. EverettBeez 06/13/2008 at 1:59 PM #

    the are picking on you DFMo. that increase only effected readers of this blog. Its persecution I tell you!

  2. Ismael 06/16/2008 at 10:48 AM #

    hmm, newspapers…my theory is that with the general and almost complete dumbing-down of the populace, a newspaper can’t be what it used to be. Who cares if “facts” are checked and the all-so-important question of: “Is this really news?” is asked. A bigger consideration may be “is there any moral imperative that could be gained, or worse morality lowered, by printing a particular story?”

    News should be “boring” to most of the younger populace which should make it necessarily appealing to the older population who makes decisions anyway. That whole dynamic has had a switcheroo done to it at some point.

1 2

Leave a Reply