GateHouse Media, the parent company of The Girard Press and The Morning Sun, announced Tuesday that it is closing The Press.

The March 25 edition will be the last of the publication.

“The decision to close the newspaper was not an easy one,” said Stephen Wade, editor and publisher of both papers. He noted that economic challenges have overwhelmed the newspaper’s ability to continue printing weekly.

The Morning Sun, with a circulation that overlaps much of The Press’, will continue to serve the area.

GateHouse blames the bad economy, but I note that the company’s entire business stratgey has always been based on buying up every single newspaper in a region, and then eliminating redundant costs. Overlapping circulation? Yeah like that was going to last long.

Struggling newspaper publisher Gatehouse Media Inc. has had its lines of credit reduced by $35 million through an amended loan agreement with its lenders.

[snip]

As of Sept. 30, Gatehouse had roughly $1 billion in debt on its books.

GateHouse owns the Peoria Journal Star, the Peoria Times-Observer and many other daily and weekly newspapers in the Peoria area.

Hat tip: Turner report.

It’s not quite true that I’m out of a job. I’m just no longer employed by GHM. Details in a week or two.

Kennedy says the following of Owens:

Within journalism new-media circles, Owens is a highly respected thinker. Before joining GateHouse in September 2006, he helped launch pioneering new-media ventures at the Bakersfield Californian and, before that, the Ventura County Star, according to his LinkedIn profile.

At GateHouse, Owens pushed a strategy of Web-first journalism, exhorting reporters and editors to post breaking news stories on the company’s Wicked Local sites before running them in their print editions. He was also a strong advocate of quick-and-dirty video for the Wicked Local sites. In addition, he’s a co-founder of the Wired Journalists social network.

Owens’ blog, HowardOwens.com, appears to have gone dark, although a “whois” search reveals that he’s still the owner. Worth keeping an eye on, I’d say. He continues posting to Twitter.

Owens possesses one of the more interesting minds I know in new-media journalism, combining vision and practical experience. Yet his blunt, occasionally caustic manner has not played well with many of GateHouse’s reporters and editors, who work long hours for short money.

I’d agree with Kennedy’s assessment. I know Owns only electronically. We disagreed on the future viability of subscrition-based online news organizations. He thinks history shows the public won’t buy it. I think they won’t as long as the media keep offering up dead tree versions of the news.

And he’s a Libra.

Critics of GateHouse Media was out of their minds with indignation that a media company would object to anyone linking to the content. Others, myself includes, actually looked at the site the NYT had put up and concluded what they were doing wasn’t simply linking or making fair comment, but using GateHouse content to comprise the content of their own portal page. Since both companies sell ads on competing portal pages targeting the same readers in the same geographic area, I could see why GateHouse would object.

Just as they were about to go to court, they settled. the NYT agreed to stop it. GateHouse agreed to stop suing the NYT. In other words, GateHouse won. The people who criticized GateHouse for wanting to end links (which is bull) were happy because they thought it averted a catastrophe for the Internet.

I’m printing the memo GateHouse sent to employees in the New England area.

GATEHOUSE MEDIA NEW ENGLAND – MEMORANDUM

To: GateHouse Media New England Colleagues

From: Rick Daniels, president / CEO GHMNE (and the GHMNE Senior Team)

Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

We just wanted to inform you that we have settled the lawsuit that was to have begun Monday morning in Federal Court. A lot has begun to be written about the case, and more will be, but we wanted to take this opportunity to address you, our colleagues, to whom this great outcome belongs.

The outcome of this case addressed each and every substantive point of why there ever was a lawsuit in the first place. Despite the “chaff” that has been thrown up, this case is not, and never was about, “linking”; it’s about the ability of GateHouse to protect our valuable content from inclusion in websites, or anywhere else where it doesn’t belong – and being used by competitors who have no permission to use our content. We could not be happier with the outcome, and it will be clear to anyone who has followed this case and the extensive trail of public documents that have been generated, why. You will hear or read a lot of opinions from those who have no idea what they are talking about. For instance: “GateHouse should have tried to settle this quietly and without going to court”. We did. Please ask us about ANY question or concern you have.

You, our professionals, have built an extensive array of local websites that are the “real McCoys” because hundreds and hundreds of LOCAL journalists and advertising professionals nourish them with content and revenue. Our journalists have been reporting LOCAL news and events in our newspapers or websites that have become part of the very fabric of over 150 greater Boston towns. Similarly, when local, and now so many regional and national advertisers look at their best market coverage options, they turn to OUR newspapers and websites due to the over 1.7 million readers we have each week, and about the same number of unique web visits. As we all know, success breeds imitation – always has, always will – but it SHOULDN’T breed violations of our legal rights to protect the content and journalism we generate.

We embrace – absolutely – the most core principles of the Internet and Web – linking and content sharing that supplements our own content and exposes this content to a wider audience. We also have enlisted a virtually countless number of local contributors, bloggers and webmasters with whom we have shared – and will most certainly continue to share content – vigorously and actively. We only expect those with whom we share content to comply with all applicable licenses and copyrights, as we do ourselves. Respect for these rights actually leads to the creation of MORE content, as the content creators have the potential to earn an economic reward for their efforts. For anyone who thinks or says that GateHouse is against the well-embraced Internet practice of content sharing and linking, and that we don’t understand the great value of these practices, they are dead wrong. If, by defending our legitimate copyrights and our ability to control where our content appears, we are thought to be “old school” – guilty as charged!

Both the press release and the letter agreement between GateHouse and the New York Times Company can be found at the GateHouse investor’s website: http://investors.gatehousemedia.com/. A word of caution: Settling a lawsuit requires certain each party to honor certain agreements, our Chief Counsel, Polly Sack has asked that the attached directive go out to all GateHouse employees. [Note: Media Nation does not have the attachment.] Please read it and comply with it – fully. She and we want to ensure we comply with both the letter and spirit of the agreement. It’s how we do business. If there are ANY questions on the requirements of this agreement, please contact Polly Sack [contact information omitted].

There are so many people and organizations to thank for the case we put forward, it wouldn’t be fair to try to list them all, but credit has to be given to our Corporate GateHouse colleagues, and especially Mike Reed, for their willingness to undertake this complex action based on their judgment of the merits of the case. Polly Sack, our GateHouse corporate counsel was, from start to finish, immense in her wisdom and expertise. The litigators from the firm of Hiscock and Barclay were extraordinary in their professional skill and stamina. Speaking of stamina, those who produced most of the discovery documents, prepared for depositions, and endured the grueling ordeal of depositions have to be credited. Much of this work was done on a “nights, weekends and holidays” basis. Recipients of the “Cool Under Fire” awards have to go to Kirk [Davis], Greg Reibman, Anne Eisenmenger, Chris Eck, Bill Blevins and Howard Owens, among others. MANY others not only contributed thoughts and helped the case in various ways, but also held down the fort as so many of us were otherwise occupied by doing in one month what our attorneys said would typically take 12-18 months!

Having this behind us is great, but it’s the road ahead where the battle for the hearts, minds, dollars and eyeballs of local readers and advertisers will be won or lost, and make NO mistake, we will win, but we will face formidable competition at every juncture, which is something that we’re not afraid of – whether it be print, digital or any other form of the media. This agreement just ensures that critical aspects of the competition will be within appropriate legal boundaries.

We also, thanks to the great majority of our reporters, editors, photographers and others who “get it”, will continue to make our websites, and certainly our newspapers continue to be the beneficiaries of content partners who both USE our content in appropriate and legal ways, and provide content to our sites that enriches them. We urge you to re-double your efforts to partner with any and all content partners who can make our offerings more compelling, or expose our content more widely.

Thanks again for not only your great support during this difficult, yet so very successful case.

Rick

Fine. Let them die. People will still need news, and entrepreneurs will find a way to make money fulfilling that need. The new model is for small online start ups. Some of them are trying a non-for-profit model. For others, a for-profit model is the best fit.

But as the media changes, so should the rules that the operate under. And that’s good. The public is dissatisfied with the news as practiced by the mainstream media. They find it shallow and sensational, and consider claims to be unbias to be dishonest. Robert Niles at the Online Journalism Review has suggested new rules that will be a better fit as news gathering moved away from the media conglomerate model to the online blogger/citizen journalist model:

• Old rule: You can’t cover something in which you are personally involved.
  New rule: Tell your readers how you are involved and how that’s shaped your reporting.
• Old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each.
  New rule: Report the truth and debunk the lies.
• Old rule: There must be a wall between advertising and editorial.
  New rule: Sell ads into ad space and report news in editorial space. And make sure to show the reader the difference.

THIS is more honest, and certainly more workable when you have single blogger/citizen journalists out there doing original reporting and trying to make a living at it. And lets face it, the contribution a part-time journalist can make is limited. To do it right , you’ve got to do it full time. That means citizen news organizations have to spend some time selling ads and les time trying to maintain the fiction they don’t have a point of view.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The public doesn’t really care about objectivity. What they want is fairness. They know that newspapers are affected by the need to sell ads, They know that reporters have opinions and those opinions inevitably MUST creep their way into their reporting. They know when someone is telling a reporter a bald faced lie or is spinning the facts. What they want is for reporters to be honest with them about these things.

These opposed rules work better. But the MSM won’t adopt them because that’s not how corporations do it.

Hat top: Poynter’s Romenesko.

So, the writing is on the wall. She’s going to be paid $275,000 per year, compared to the $250,000 her predecessor Mark Thompson took home in 2007. She’s also eligible for a $137,500 bonus, four weeks of vacation, and be eligible for medical and dental coverage. Apparently, outsourcing jobs can make you both sick and tired.

And Mr. Turner ads:

As usual, while she undeniably will be involved in decisions that will cost people their livelihoods, GateHouse Media has made sure Ms. Janik is protected in case the company has to send her packing. If that occurs, she will receive her full year’s salary and bonus, adding up to $412,500.

Boy, I bet it’s nice to see GateHouse putting to good use all the money it’s saving by having reporters do double duty because it cannot “afford” to replace reporters who leave.

Also, Don Baker — former teacher who wrote sports on a part-time basic for decades — was let go as well. As my source says: “Baker covered almost everything kind of sport, an uncomplaining and competent guy in an industry run by weak whiners.”

Another source sells me today what I am hearing from almost everyone still working there: Morale is low because of the staff reductions, but a core of reporters continue to plug away out of a commitment to their profession.

GateHouse Media decided to not replace two reporters who have left: Erinn Deshinsky (night cops) and Frank Radosevich II (East Peoria and medical beat). This source used the phrase “downright depressing and scary.” Everyone is certain there are more reductions on the way. Right now, some beats are being handed out to full-timers who already have their own beats to cover, or they are going to interns.

Also — special sections like the Family and KJS pages — are being reduced or eliminated, my source says.

The newsroom is protected by a union contract, so if there are involuntary layoffs, senior staffers won’t be affected. But how many more reductions in staff can the PJS endure before it becomes impossible to perform  acts of journalism at an even adequate level? When staffing is so low it’s a struggle to fill th4e newshole with any kind of copy whatsoever, how can readers expect reporters to be real watchdogs and make that extra phone call or two?

I am told a visitor to the newsroom would be greeted by a vista of empty desks. It’s a depressing scene.

A commenter in a previous post says that for many employees, the first word they got about this was reading the memo on Poynter, and not from their newspapers’ human resources departments

I have no idea how much GateHouse’s contribution was. In some places where i worked, it was a set percentage. In others, it was a dollar for dollar match, right up to a certain percentage of the employee’s paycheck.

I don’t know how much the company wants to save, or thinks it can save. Perhaps they’ve given up the ghost on the idea that GateHouse newspapers are places people want to finish out their careers. I know that a lot of GateHouse publications are fit only for people right out of J-school, and are NOT where one wants to work for 30-40 years.

Maybe GateHouse needs the money to buy more of their stock, now that it’s cheap.