A regional publisher has come under fire after a letter about plans to axe up to 20 editorial jobs contained seven spelling and grammatical mistakes.
Archant Norfolk revealed proposals last week for an editorial restructure which the company said would lead to the creation of a new digital department, greater focus on the weekly titles and more reporters operating ‘on-patch’.
But a letter about the possible redundancies sent last week by management to a representative from the National Union of Journalists was riddled with errors.
These included spelling the name of the company as “Archant Regional Limtited”, along with incorrect spellings of the words initial, announcement and restructure.
Father of Chapel Pete Kelley, to whom the letter was sent, said: “They’re telling us that they need fewer sub-editors at our titles. Really, need I say more?
“But this is a serious issue. The jobs threatened include features writers, photographers, sports journalists, library staff, sub-editors and vital administrative support.
“We suffered 24 redundancies just two years ago and since then staff have been working overtime to keep bringing out good, award-winning papers.
“These are great papers – much loved and very close to our communities. They say they can manage with fewer people in key departments, but seem unaware that – even now – we’re working hours beyond our contracts just to keep the standards up.
“If these changes went ahead, not only would our readers notice, but we think our advertisers would, too.”
Papers affected by the proposals include the Eastern Daily Press, Norwich Evening News and a number of weekly titles.
The company said last week that under its plans no reporting jobs would be lost and a number of new roles would be created.
Archant declined to comment on the letter.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Funny if it is not so tragic
Report this comment
Well done to the NUJ for highlighting the need for more checks in HR departments. But what on earth has this got to do with newspaper production? I really hope jobs can be saved in Norfolk. But this just seems a bit glib to me. I’d rather hear what they had to say about the the jobs and livelihoods at stake.
Report this comment
Sorry, but this is pathetic. Shame on you, NUJ, a below-the-belt attack on HR.
Concentrate on how the union will represent the workers, how you will fight these proposals and what the alternative options are.
Not big, not funny, not clever.
Report this comment
I think this is appalling. Telling your staff about something so important as potential job losses is a big deal, and the company didn’t even respect them enough to check what they were putting out.
How can they possibly command respect from their employees and expect them to work hard at avoiding errors when they produce this kind of guff? Obviously not one single person read through it before it was published. Embarrassing.
Report this comment
Its a miracle any of the journalists actually spotted these errors given their shocking track record in the use (or rather, misuse) or the English language. Perhaps if they put as much effort into doing their jobs properly as they have in criticising management, their roles might not be at risk.
Report this comment
Pot, kettle, black springs to mind. I have seen so many mistakes (typos, grammar, spelling, syntax) in HTFP stories and I do care. But what good would come out of my complaining? I am heading for an early grave caused by the double whammy of being a workaholic and an official ale taster, so I refuse to get worked up over such matters.
Report this comment
I note that critical Lily has at least one grammatical mistake in her own comment. Meanwhile I daresay the NUJ is fighting for jobs, and putting forward alternatives to the cuts – but that doesn’t always get media coverage, which this evidently has.
Report this comment
Clearly a poor show if they can’t find someone to at least check through the letter before sending it out. Shameful, actually, and the union is right to highlight it.
Report this comment
From a company which professes reporters must ‘get it right first time’, this is pretty abysmal.
Surely the publishing director would have cast their eyes over it? If so, what a shambles!
Report this comment