An interview is a conversation between two parties. Each party wants something from the other and is willing to give something in return for having its want satisfied. If both believe that the other is willing to satisfy its want in return for what it is willing to give, an agreement to exchange those things is made.

It has been suggested that AAN agreed coming in that it was willing to make the relevant agreement with certain folks. If so, those interviews consisted of a conversation and a decision by the potential employee.

Are journalist interviews different? If not, what’s unreasonable about that conversation and decision?

Note that the problem can’t be the terms of the new employment – Levine objected to the interview itself.

Is there a point other than you think that interviewing is a big deal and I don’t?

> Yes, because the writing that needed to be done didn’t change so much. (If it were, they would have hired other journalists! They did not do that.)

If it’s exactly the same set of journalists (no one lost a job, no new folks were hired), the only thing that happened is that they interviewed for a job that they were guaranteed to get.

Does that really count as poor treatment?

If there were some changes, or at least the possibility of change, interviews gave folks an opportunity to talk about their vision for going forward, outside of the context of day to day work. Is that really such a bad thing?

> One wonders if there was a union and, if so, what happened to it. Jeff?

Union contracts don’t necessarily survive bankruptcy.

Since pretty much every other contract is up for grabs then, why should employment agreements be any different?

>>>Every job that I’ve had has essentially been constant interviewing to keep the job. It didn’t matter how well I did last week . . .

You’re missing the point. From what I understand, these were all “at will” employees, so any of them who weren’t performing could have been warned or dismissed anyway. This was a special case . . .

>>>As to whether it was actually the same company, didn’t the biz model and format change significantly? Were they really filling the same positions as before?

Yes, because the writing that needed to be done didn’t change so much. (If it were, they would have hired other journalists! They did not do that.) They basically just gave a ton of money to a consultant with some vague ideas and cut the salaries of the people who did the work. One wonders if there was a union and, if so, what happened to it. Jeff?

Every job that I’ve had has essentially been constant interviewing to keep the job. It didn’t matter how well I did last week – what mattered was what I did now, whether or not it was the same as I did before.

As to whether it was actually the same company, didn’t the biz model and format change significantly? Were they really filling the same positions as before?

I think it’s unreasonable for _anyone_, given that it’s essentially the same company! And it’s even more unreasonable that **Jeff said this would improve journalism**. Just disgusting.

The horror – they had to apply for jobs, jobs for which they had priority. Is interviewing for a different position really such an offense, or is it just unreasonable for journalists.

Would really have been better if the company had just laid off the ones that it thought that it didn’t want instead of giving them all a shot at being part of the new organization?

In the end, some had jobs and some didn’t. Why does it matter how they got to that point?

Google didn’t take the ad revenue.

Google gets ad revenue for its pages (adwords) and for placing ads on other people’s pages with their permission (adsense).

The most that you can say is that Google gave advertisers other places to spend their money.

Then use custom publishing profits to pay Journalists to write the News Content out of some commitment to the greater social good. It would keep us all better informed, and also continue to contribute to Google’s fabulous bottom line while not requiring Google to actually spend money creating the awesome abundant content they monetize! Hey, anything we can do to help Google’s margins, right?!?

Please don’t forget to mention that this consulting project involved the Ann Arbor News getting rid of all the journalists they employ and forcing them to re-apply for their jobs.

We must be careful to understand that there is a distinct difference between what is good for “journalism” or “society” and what is good for the shareholders and economic stakeholders of the newspapers. Unfortunately, in the short term, these interests may not be aligned even though the long term inevitability of reorganization may be apparent to all.

bob wyman

Certainly times are moving forward, but there’s quite a bit of this ‘denial’ still hanging around.

Thanks again for your terrific insight!