Comments on: Fairfax calls its mastheads “Cash Generating Units”

By: Foxy

Foxy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

CGU is a appropriate term to use when discussing impairment and write-down of any business’ assets - especially with an analyst audience.

That Glenn Dyer finds this term, along with ‘content producer’ so offensive betrays a classic journalistic hubris. Journalists *are* producers of content. Newspapers *are* businesses.

By: Helen Rissey

Helen Rissey — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

As any long term reader of the Age and Sydney Morning Herald can attest , these papers, which once enjoyed "journal of record" status , have become increasingly parochial in their coverage and limited in their analysis. They both seem to see themselves as competing with the tabloids.

The Australian has clearly filled the void created by the departure of Fairfax from the quality national broadsheet field. The Murdoch flagship provides greater depth of reporting on, and analysis of, national affairs, although it does have an unashamedly right wing slant. Of course that is something SMH readers, anesthetised by the weekly columns of Miranda Devine, Gerard Henderson and Paul Sheehan probably wouldn't notice.

In short the Age and SMH have become boring. This is evident even in the Letters pages which once carried lively debates on the issues of the day. Now they carry mostly anodyne comments on the truncated narrow range of material in the previous day's papers.

On a visit last year to a remote NSW town I was amazed to find the local daily paper carried more information on federal politics and national issues than the Fairfax broadsheets. I guess there just aren't enough "content providers" at Fairfax any more.

Continually reducing the value of the product is a very strange marketing strategy. No wonder readers and shareholders are deserting in droves.

By: Jane

Jane — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

How sad to watch great institutions trashed by philistines. Are senior Fairfax management and Fairfax board members going to cut their salaries and reduce their fees to help the situation? Not likely. Yet we will probably see more of the journalists and commentators who are the heart and soul of the business sent packing, and the incompetents at the top will probably be paid increased bonuses.

By: The Colonel

The Colonel — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Fairfax's completely insane decsion to outsource it's legal matters and dispense with in-house lawyers (who know the publishing game)is continuing to cause havoc as reported on here with a lawyer from one of the country's largest firms deciding a suing photographer's portfolio covering years of history, should be trashed and deleted. Historically-it would be the only newspaper company in the world that thought it's photographic library is of little importance-others jealousy guarding their photo libraries as a source of continuing revenue.

Now in the same case-a US magazine prepared to pay thousands of $$ for a series of shots from the Fairfax files ( from the same snapper) to accompany a story have been told they no longer exist-in any form. Sheer vandalism from the suits who allowed an outside law firm to charge up to $25K to defend an action for a mere $5K claim-only to cave in at the last moment with the whole exercise costing Fairfax around $40K in total but with an added inestimatable loss in future revenues.

I'm told the photographer's lawyer at the time described his counterpart defending Fairfax's honour as not only incompetant but a total f***wit in his ignorance of the media.

Yet again-why aren't Fairfax shareholder's screaming for blood with the sheer vandalism of those steering this once great masthead ?

By: phil

phil — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It’s an accounting term numbnuts. Of course, you wouldn’t know that?