We finally CANCELLED the Tennessean

The final straw finally came this past weekend, with the delivery of the Tennessean’s Sunday edition. Picking it up in the driveway, it seemed lighter and smaller.

That was indeed the case and this was the reason why….

Changes in sections
Beginning this week, we will conserve some newsprint by making these changes:

• The daily Local and Business sections will be combined. We will not reduce the amount of coverage devoted to local news or local business issues. Some national business coverage will be trimmed and a few business columns will be placed on hiatus. We will continue to print separate Local and Business sections on Sundays.

• The Friday Weekend and Life sections will be combined into a single, full-size section that will focus on things to do and places to go for each weekend. It also will contain the staples of the Life section such as the Daily Crave, advice columns, crossword and other puzzles, the bridge column and comics.

• We will eliminate the television listings from the daily Life section but will continue to publish the Sunday TV book. More than 4,000 of you responded to my question about the TV listings, and we heard you loud and clear: The Sunday TV book stays the same.

• The Sunday Life and Travel sections will be combined. The new section will contain the best of each, from society news and wedding features to three-day travel escapes and the Hometown Tourist feature. Sunday Life will continue to reflect the people and ideas that make Middle Tennessee special.

• Most Wednesday editions of Davidson A.M. remain unchanged. The Friday edition becomes a community-wide section that will continue to highlight grass-roots news and features.

As I read this opine with my morning coffee, I thought at what point will they cut so much that it will no longer be worth paying for this recycling bin filler. Well, once I opened the Williamson A.M. Section, the question for me was no longer in doubt. The section contained little news and happenings, but was full of advertising in its’ entire 8 petite pages (give or take a page or two).

I read the paper only on Saturday and Sunday, going to their free website Monday thru Friday.
Kimberly, however, reads it everyday, so I passed along my views to her on the matter for her to make the call.

Kimberly chose and made the phone call to CANCEL OUR SUBSCRIPTION TODAY.

She will read it on her new laptop, free of charge, without paying for the dismissive liberal bilge that the Tennessean insists on selling OR as time shows not so much anymore.

We have been subscribers to the Tennessean for most of our 21 married years, the cancellation has been a long time coming….not an impulsive or flippant act.

At least, it will reduce the trips to the recycling paper drop-off, there you have it, the Tennessean did make me a leaner greener.

Their Opinion Matters throughout the ENTIRE Tennessean

I state the obvious in today’s post regarding the Tennessean’s claim of news neutrality.

Their Opinion Matters throughout the ENTIRE Tennessean

This falls under the category…Uh Huh…I can believe that….Not!

It is all too clear, through their use of article selection, content, tone, headlines, and even story placement, that the Tennessean editorializes throughout their entire product AND NOT JUST IN THE EDITORIAL SECTION.

Editorial board offers only its opinion
Those of you who maintain that The Tennessean’s editorial page positions influence news coverage might consider recent pieces on the bailout for the U.S. auto industry.

In a strongly worded opinion piece, the editorial board made clear its position that the nation — and our government — cannot afford to let General Motors and Chrysler fail. The message was don’t make scapegoats out of American workers and the overall economy for a situation largely beyond their control.

Three days later, columnist Gail Kerr took the United Auto Workers union to task for rejecting a compromise proposed by U.S. Sen. Bob Corker that sought some concessions from the union. Her suggestion to the workers: Give something back to save jobs.

Those were two different takes on the same story — and another clear example that our editorial board offers opinions and suggestions on its own; its views in no way influence news coverage or the opinions of news columnists.

Standing apart from the editorial board and Kerr is Chambers Williams, our reporter who covers the auto industry and other manufacturing issues.

Williams has covered the auto industry for 20 years and his work is nationally known.

Since he works out of Nashville and not Detroit or Washington, his reporting on the bailout has focused largely on the reaction to the debate from local autoworkers and other industry figures. It matters not to Williams whether the editorial board approves or disapproves of the bailout or whether our signature news columnist agrees or disagrees with the UAW’s position. Chambers has reported on the possible impact of various scenarios on workers’ lives and on the future business of both foreign and domestic automakers in our part of the country.

Each has a role

The editorial board, Williams and his editors, and Kerr and her editor typically don’t know what the others are planning to write. They have their own roles.

That’s why you have seen many different takes on the issue in The Tennessean.

Williams has some interesting insights into the mess. He maintains strong sources in the U.S. companies and is well aware of the background. My eight years in Detroit exposed me to some of those same sources, and Williams and I were comparing notes.

What’s ironic, Williams said, is that General Motors had been making progress toward producing vehicles that truly meet drivers’ needs in recent years. From the Chevy Malibu to the Cadillac CTS, a number of the company’s cars are clearly on a par with imports in similar segments.

But GM’s big problems are that it has too many brands, too many models and too many factories. It still suffers from an image of poor quality that it has largely outgrown. And its labor contracts have placed it at a competitive disadvantage with the imports for years.

And yes, all of those issues should have been addressed by the GM management long ago.

And yes, the national recession that has destroyed profits and killed jobs in almost all areas of our economy has killed any progress that GM and Chrysler might have made.

But as you make up your mind on the bailout, consider this:

In addition to the GM and Chrysler workers who stand to lose, the imports might feel some pain as well.

Here’s one example: The companies use many of the same parts suppliers as do Nissan, Toyota and other imports. If the suppliers are seriously hurt by a failed or bankrupt GM and Chrysler, some of that pain may be felt by the Nissans of the world as well.

Finally, consider the tangential impact of a GM or Chrysler bankruptcy. What happens to the people who work in the industry but not directly for the companies — such as employees at auto dealerships? What happens to those who work for uniform companies and restaurants near plants? What happens to the tax revenue that the companies, their plants and their suppliers produce — revenue that helps to pay for education, police protection and other vital services?

My point here is not to defend or to criticize the auto bailout.

It is to suggest that this is a complicated story with no simple solutions.

And that’s why focusing on news reporting is as important as keeping track of divergent opinion pieces.

They all bring clarity to the situation — and we need them all