2009.02.08
Roanoke Times rolls out changes
Roanoke Times editor Carole Tarrant’s From the Newsroom column today:
Beginning with tomorrow’s paper, you will see some changes in the makeup of your Monday-to-Saturday Roanoke Times.
As you might expect, these changes come about as our business joins many others in adjusting to the country’s weakening economy.
In an effort to conserve newsprint – the wood pulp most of you are reading this on – we are combining some sections of the newspaper into the front news section. Most notably, the Virginia and Business sections will fold into the front news section.
I’ll take a few minutes below to explain more of the changes in detail. But before I do, I want to emphasize a few things.
The first is we are a strong and profitable company whose dedication to serving the community remains unmoved. While our business, like many others these days, is challenged, our audience, is, in fact, strong. That’s because while wood pulp carries our words to some people, we are reaching an expanding audience of readers every day who get our content on their computer or mobile device from our Web site, roanoke.com.
The second is we don’t expect this reformatting of the paper to result in a considerable reduction in the news we deliver, particularly local news. We realize that many of you look to us, foremost, for our daily community coverage. We appreciate that you value the work of our 100-plus journalists who report on and explain the significance of news happening in Southwest Virginia.
Yes, we realize the changes you’ll see Monday will take some getting used to. But we’re asking for your patience during a time when businesses need to take prudent, proactive measures to ensure their future health.
Again, these changes do not affect your Sunday paper. That remains our largest publication of the week, the one where we broaden our coverage and write stories you can settle in with at a leisurely weekend pace.
Here’s what will be different Mondays through Saturdays, beginning tomorrow:
- Content from the Virginia section moves to the front news section. This includes local and wire reports from our region, as well as the opinion/commentary pages and obituary notices.
- On Tuesdays and Fridays, opinion/commentary will run as one page (as it now does on Saturdays) instead of two pages.
- Business coverage, which had run on the back of the Sports section, moves inside the front news section. We expect this to please readers who have asked us to give business news more prominence.
- The weather map moves to Page A-2.
- Lottery numbers, formerly on Page A-2, now will run on the first page labeled “Virginia” inside the consolidated front section.
- The Sports and Classifieds sections will combine on Tuesdays and Wednesdays (as they now are on Mondays).
- To help guide you through the larger front section, we have expanded the index at the bottom of Page A-1. It includes a color-coded key to specific content within the section, such as Virginia and Nation & World.
Early feedback
Last week, we previewed these changes with our readership panel, a group of nearly 700 people who have volunteered to offer feedback via a weekly e-mail survey.
About 250 panelists commented on the changes, and the dominant majority said they could adapt – some easily, some given a little time – to the new format.
Here’s a sampling of the feedback:
- “I think the changes are obvious, but I will need time to get used to [them]. Everyone has the sections that they prefer to read. I’ll just have to read the paper differently.”
- “We are all making adjustments due to the times, so I don’t think these changes will make any difference in reading the news.”
- “I think I will like the changes. Especially the business section moved off the sports part. I commend the changes, anything to save time, paper and money. I like the compact nature of what you are doing. If you ask me, it is a welcome change!”
- “My impression is that I will get less local news than previously. Local news and opinion are important features. There are a lot of online sources for national news, so if local news is reduced, I might not need to buy a local paper.”
- “If these changes are being made to save money I am not happy. I think that The Roanoke Times has changed too much too many times lately. I do not feel that these changes have made the publication better.”
- “The reformatting doesn’t bother me so much as long as the content is informative, educational and honest. Stay true to your business and you could print news on toilet paper in block letters and maintain customers.”
If you’d like to join our reader feedback panel, go to www.roanoke.com/panel.
Ask for a bailout! If people don’t think the paper is worth subscribing to, force them to support it through taxes. Of course, the government will own you and will get to tell you what to write and what not to write, but with dems in the white house and governor’s mansion, the RT should be okay with that…..
Comment by Charlie Shield — February 10, 2009 @ 8:48 am
You raise the price by 50% and decreasse the size- then wonder why sales are decreasing. Circulation falls because prices go up therefore ad revenue falls. Vicious cycle? Try charging less and increasing circulation thus increasing ad revenues. Of course libs can never see that by charging less (tax cuts) you make more. Hey- heres an idea, charge the stinking rich more for their paper!
By the way- are you going to replace Shana Flowers or will it be the same as it was with Joe Kennedy? The paper continues to shrink.(except for the price)
Comment by RMac — February 10, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
why would you want shanna flowers replaced? good riddance to bad rubbage (and a bad column)
Comment by Chris — February 11, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Of course, the editorials have NOTHING to do with the paper’s woes. Like the one condemning VT president and Police Chief saying they should be reprimanded. Not only was it wrong to write that, it wasn’t very smart. This is VT country, people feel terrible about that tragedy and blame the perpetrator (rightfully so), and advertisers sell alot to VT people in this area.
I loved the one endorsing Rasoul over Goodlatte. For the same reason the RT gave for Goodlatte needing to go, they said Boucher should stay! How biased can you get? Goodlatte’s re-election by an overwhelming margin says alot about how in touch this paper is with its constituents.
And now you cry the blues about you are hurting? Tell you what, put your editorials on even thinner paper and deliver them on a roll, then they might have some use to the readers.
Comment by Bob H — February 11, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
I asked one of the paper’s writers once (in person) do you think the charges of editorial bias so often leveled against the paper are even worth considering? I mean, in my business, we have to listen to customers. Do you think it might even be a wee tiny bit possible that you should consider that you are so far left you’re out of touch with some reasonable, moral, worthwhile people who might otherwise read the paper? This writer ended up screaming that such charges aren’t worth considering; the people of Roanoke are religious, ignorant nuts; and Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News, so there. I hate to see my neighbors and friends lose their jobs, but Roanoke Times brought it on themselves. Get back to me when you’re a one-page mimeographed sheet so I can buy the last one for a souvenir.
Comment by Former Subscriber — February 11, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
Your continued bias makes msny of us anti RT. Try being more center than bleeding heart liberal. I enjoy your business pages, some of the comics and the weather. The rest is wasted since I gave up trying to stomach your biased editorials, even in the news section. Gross.
Comment by CSMack — February 12, 2009 @ 6:03 am
Wait, I have an idea you might want to try! Actual journalism! Instead of shilling for one political party and one point of view, follow the facts in a fair and balanced way….
Oh , forget it. It would be good for the community and the country if you could, but I know it’s not in you.
Comment by Charlie Shield — February 12, 2009 @ 7:26 am
I subscribed to the Roanoke times in the past, but canceled my subscription due to the incredible liberal democratic bias evident in your articles. I always thought journalists should write from an unbiased point of view….you proved me wrong!
Comment by Lisa — February 12, 2009 @ 11:08 am
Like many companies, the paper will claim it is strong and profitable until the day they file Chapter 11. When you are out of touch with the general public and refuse to change, you are doomed to failure. I look forward to the demise of the paper since they decided to drop delivery they had served for over 50 years. No many businesses shrink themselves to profitability.
Comment by Ken — February 12, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
It is ironic that most of the posts regarding the changes your paper is undergoing criticizes the liberal slant of your publication, while no one from your paper addresses that it is a problem.
The foundation of one-sided opinion is weak. The lack of candor and contrition from you and other papers may well be the final act of arrogance. It will be your downfall far faster than the economy or the changing face of modern media.
Radio didn’t kill books. Television didn’t kill radio. And the Internet will not kill your industry. There will always be a market for the fair and accurate reporting. But are you wise enough to see the need for honest change and insight into your business?
No one believes the lie of your staff being “impartial”. Why keep singing the same ol’ tune? Give honesty in reporting a chance. At least if your paper fails, you could keep your integrity by being honest with not only your readers, but to yourself.
Comment by DBH — February 12, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
I am glad to see so many agree on this subject. I am sure we are all being dismissed as conservative right wing idealists. There are many points that have been brought up, all of which are valid. I would add that the telephone didn’t kill the postal service either. And if the postal service does die it will be because it is not longer a “service”. We all know that a private comapny handling that could do it better and less expensively.
I notice that the RT didn’t have any problem coming up with enough paper for a special inaugural edition for BHO, many of which they are now trying to palm off on collectors as “collectors editions”. Good luck!
Comment by Bob H — February 12, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
I assumed that everyone understood that the opinion pages of the newspaper were supposed to include “opinions”. I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the opinions expressed there but enjoy the intellectual exercise of reacting positively or negatively to what has been written. Overall I find the rest of the paper to be balanced and fair. I am sorry that the paper, like so many other businesses in our country, is finding it necessary to cut back during these difficult economic times. (Perhaps if our Republican friends had provided a little better stewardship of the economy over the past eight years we wouldn’t all be in this mess.) I don’t like the changes made by the paper but understand the necessity of doing so.
WLM
Comment by Weldon Martin — February 12, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
“I am sure we are all being dismissed as conservative right wing idealists.”
Comment by Bob H — February 12, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Yes, you are! I would counter that there are no longer any progressive national columnists in the op-ed section other than the occasional Gene Robinson. Cal, Kathleen and George do not a liberal bias make. The paper also takes a distinctive right-wing slant when Dan is on vacation. Wonder who the resident Wingnut is? Poor RT, with America this polarized, you guys can’t win.
Comment by Art Hill — February 13, 2009 @ 3:04 am
Art,
The problem is that I am not a conservative right wing idealist despite probably being dismissed as one as I mentioned in my post. On environmental and humanitarian issues I am liberal. Opining has its consequences. We all know what opinions have been compared to-everyone has one. Over the years I have learned to keep my opinion to myself, especially when expressing it would cost me dearly.
The RT can opine. There are consequences. The RT doesn’t appear willing to see thar their editorials have cost them economically. Today, there are too many other options for news and there are consequences for being so far off from your consituency in your opinions.
Peace!
Bob
Comment by Bob H — February 13, 2009 @ 10:05 am
To Weldon, Art, Sandi, Tommy Denton and Dan Radmacher,
Peace and Love! I welcome opinions! I, too, like to think and read!
But when RT runs a headline about a local fallen soldier and puts “hero” in quotes as if to dismiss his sacrifice…. when RT runs stories about reenlistment bonuses and chooses to say “miltary DOLES out money” (‘dole’ is a term for charity)…. when RT calls Goodlatte old and tired, but Boucher is “experienced”…. when RT portrays Sarah Palin as dangerous and inexperienced, but Obama as fresh and transformative…. when RT runs an editorial QUOTING President Bush as saying “To hell with the constitution.” without any attribution….
I could go on and on and try to argue RT out of its dismissiveness, its hypocrisy, its intellectual dishonesty, and its smug arrurances that all of its critics are either immoral or stupid….
But its really easier to save my 75 cents and just sit back and await the demise.
Have a nice day.
Comment by Charlie Shield — February 13, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
Bob,
Elections have consequences. A clear majority of Americans voted for change, so it would appear the Times is now in the mainstream. (If, as some charge, they are indeed, “liberal.”) Progressives realize Republicans aren’t much on the Constitution, but there IS such a thing as free speech. Unfortunately there are some who attempt to manipulate it using the pocketbook. Fear didn’t work this last go-around, perhaps conservatives should try something else.
Peace to you as well.
Comment by Art Hill — February 13, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
No wonder your downsizing. Your liberal position on firearms, or should I say their owners, is completely out of touch.
I say the sooner you are out of business the better. You’re not news, you’re opinion. Your editors don’t seem to know the difference.
Comment by C Hassell — February 14, 2009 @ 1:15 am
The overwhelming response about the paper sliding because of “liberal views” is amusing. Sure, it definitely is contributing to a slide at our local level; but more importantly, this down trend is all across our country. Print is disappearing. It is almost like a horse and buggy dealership at the turn of the century telling you how profitable they still are.
The web is taking over and will win this war. There will always be demand for local news – it will just be in a digital format and the best content providers will come out on top. I’m just waiting for the Roanoke Times to figure out how to shoot good video.
Comment by Scott Philstead — February 14, 2009 @ 10:33 am
Employees of the Roanoke Times:
Flee as fast as you can.
Comment by Juan Foryer Life — February 14, 2009 @ 10:35 am
So this feedback is obviously being monitored and “edited at will” by the Roanoke Times.
Not necessarily for profanity or lewd remarks. But more in an attempt to hide a truth that is now unfolding – a collapse of print media.
I posted: “Roanoke Times Employees….. flee”. And it was immediately taken down. How sad.
The web is the new media.
Comment by The Illusion of Free Speech — February 14, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
A smaller Roanoke Times is great news we can all use.
Comment by Mike G — February 15, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
Ah, freedom of the press! What would we do without it! I’m a genuine card-carrying liberal, and I don’t even like the Roanoke Times enough to buy it every day. I much prefer to read the Richmond Times Dispatch online. More news, as in real news, not local politics for the few Virginians in this area that believe there are more serious topics than Tech football.
Such as hundreds of people losing their jobs recently — my husband recently lost his as a byproduct of the Big Three automakers fiasco — the poverty in this area, homelessness, discrimination against transgenders in the area, and other social issues that appear not to count to many.
Liberal newspaper? Really! Far from it. Opinionated, yes. Definitely. But opinionated and liberal are not one and the same.
Comment by Shirley — February 15, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
I think its time for the Roanoke Times to shut down..The paper once reported the news but now creates the news..several stories I have direct knowledge on were reported without cooberation by the Times..Just as in the Victory Stadium issue they preferred to have secret emails to the mayor and taking sides in the issue to just reporting the news..theyve become more like the national inquirer preferring to sensationalize issues,like City Council prayer for their own profit!!Do us all a favor.Go somewhere else!
Comment by Bobby — February 16, 2009 @ 8:18 am
I think it’s funny how many people are insulting The Roanoke Times.. yet here you are at roanoke.com, browsing articles. If you don’t support the company, stop reading their news. Do you really think the Times is doing poorly because it has a liberal slant? Every newspaper in America is in a decline because the internet allows us to get news without paying for it. It has nothing to do with the Roanoke Times’ liberal slant. It is a fact and you sound gripey and uneducated blaming editorials for the reason the paper is doing poorly. If you want conservative, read and support the Star Sentinel or whatever that rubbish is called. That’s what they created it for.
Comment by Allison — February 16, 2009 @ 10:01 am
Free speech doesn’t mean someone else has to buy it. This isn’t about free speeach. It is about a business tansaction called a purchase. One party buys at an accepted price and the other sells at an accepted price.
What one does with his or her purchasing decisions is also freedom.
Just because someone has the right to say something doesn’t mean what they publish has to be purchased.
Comment by Bob H — February 16, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Amazing how we got off the topic of the paper’s size. I love the RT, and I find it a superior product to papers in similarly sized cities.
I will like having the weather back on A2. It should be easier to find there. I would also be willing to see less world news in the A section. World news is covered by just about every media outlet, but local news is what the RT does best. Smaller pictures would also save money but keep the integrity of the product. I’ve noticed that the front page tends to have very large pictures and text lately. The New York Times does OK with a more compact look.
Thanks for making the tough decisions and being so open about them.
Comment by Joe — February 18, 2009 @ 11:20 am
The problem is only a trend of the times. Newer generations are reading their news at an instant online or even through their phone. By the time we get a paper, the news is already old or has been looked over online. Another problem is that most newspapers are owned by large conglomerates and local coverage is shrinking year by year. If the RT wants to remain a viable option it needs to stick to its base of readers wanting to know local stories. We can get national news from CNN/Fox/MSNBC/Reuters/AP or many other credible and thorough sources.
I hope that these cut backs will also shift the focus back into the community instead of wasting ink on issues that have zero meaning in our day to day lives.
Comment by Brian — February 18, 2009 @ 7:21 pm