Regional publisher Trinity Mirror was today facing claims that it is planning to axe up to eight titles in the Midlands and turn the Birmingham Post into a weekly.

The company has neither confirmed nor denied the claims, which were made in a statement by the National Union of Journalists published on its website this morning.

The union says the plans are set out in “internal company documents” which it claims to have seen.

It says an announcement about the axeing of the eight Midlands titles will be made within the next few days, and that the Post will be switched to a bi-weekly or weekly publication in the autumn.

In the statement, NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear said: “The company needs to come clean about these disastrous plans and the community needs to stand up for quality journalism.

“If Trinity Mirror shareholders are more interested in filling their pockets than providing the resources necessary to ensure the people of the Midlands are properly served by their local papers, they should step aside and let others take over the titles.”

The NUJ subsequently published a further statement, revealing that Observer Standard Newspapers boss Chris Bullivant was offering to “save” some of the titles it claims are facing the axe.

It quoted Mr Bullivant as saying: “I would love to take part in negotiations over the future of those titles in the Midlands that Trinity Mirror wants to close that aren’t in conflict with our existing publications.”

NUJ officials are refusing to name the eight papers it believes are threatened with closure, saying it is up to Trinity Mirror to provide more details about its plans.

The union says the planned cuts will reduce costs by a further £2.5m following last year’s cutbacks which resulted in more than 70 job losses at the Midlands titles.

A Trinity Mirror spokesman said: “We are constantly reviewing our business, particularly in the current challenging economic environment.

“As always, if we do have any plans to announce, our staff would be the first to know.”

Comments

Subbedover (24/06/2009 13:37:33)
So the NUJ is speculating on what might happen, putting the fear of god up people before anything has actually been confirmed?

onesmallvoice (24/06/2009 14:22:22)
This is completely irresponsible of the NUJ. f there is no truth in this they are damaging those papers further, if what they claim is true then it’s up to Trinity Mirror to talk to staff. No company closes papers without havng good reason. The NUJ wants to get its head out of the clouds and have a good look around. This is the real world!

inthecorner (24/06/2009 14:23:24)
are not all publishing firms looking at all options? should a company be lambasted for checking out which way to go? do these considerations need/have to be shouted about in public, or is the nuj doing a disservice to its members? discuss

A Hack (24/06/2009 14:50:23)
I think there’s some management lackeys in the quotes above! So trying to break the agony of not knowing what new doom awaits us is wrong for the NUJ to do is it? They’ve clearly seen documents pertaining to the plans – why not put it out? Last time we waited for the announement, had the meeting and only discovered when we got to the last page of the huge document, that we’d all been sacked and had to reapply for our jobs. There’s really something to trust there lads!

Hacked off (24/06/2009 15:01:03)
As someone who may be affected by the alleged cuts above, I’d rather hear this speculation from the NUJ rather than have a completely unexpected bombshell dropped on us, as was the case last summer.

Tom Davies (24/06/2009 15:07:55)
So what, exactly, is wrong with journalists obtaining material and publishing something that is clearly in the public interest? No denials from Trinity Mirror yet either, let it be noted.
It seems curious to argue that it’s more in people’s interests for something like this to be kept from staff.

Subbedover (24/06/2009 15:18:03)
I’m not in management, I’m a paid up member of the NUJ, although I’m not sure for how much longer. If the NUJ really has seen these documents, then why hasn’t it said which eight weekly newspapers are to close? And even if it has seen the documents, it must know these aren’t the final plans. But by putting the details on the website, less than a week after saying it wanted to work with management, will only cause speculation from people outside of the Post and Mail, potentially putting the papers at greater peril. I had hoped last week would be a turning point for the NUJ – I mean the national NUJ, not the local reps by the way – but it seems it is business as usual, anything for a quick headline. A great shame really, because the NUJ, if it really had seen these documents, could have used them in a much better way to try and influence decisions from the inside. But never mind, Jeremy’s got a headline and scared us all.

Rich S (24/06/2009 15:28:48)
@Subbedover
“If the NUJ really has seen these documents”
“And even if it has seen the documents”
“if it really had seen these documents”
Repeating this three times in 177 words is either a tic or a clear accusation of lying. Which is it?
You’re a journalist, work out why the NUJ has made the existence of these documents public. Then get off your computer, and go and talk to your NUJ rep about how to plan a united fightback in Brum. In solidarity.

Donnacha DeLong (24/06/2009 15:43:05)
This is Trinity Mirror. Unless someone has substituted Sly Bailey with a clone that understands the media, then it’s probably going to be business as usual for the company – cut, cut, cut. Maybe it’s not yet confirmed, but everyone involved should know when TM are planning cuts, because they always happen.

Chris Youett, Esq (24/06/2009 15:44:20)
I am surprised at comments condeming the NUJ for exclusively revealing this story. After all, this is what real hacks are supposed to do, as opposed to dancing to the spin.
I have two questions for Trinity Mirror’s bosses:
one, if the digital programme is working why are these cuts being proposed: and, two, why are digital subscriptions to all printed titles being sold way below market price? TM and all other owners loose £10 per month for each reader of the printed version who goes digital.
There is no reason for the Birmingham Evening Mail to become an overnite paper. This will knock another 5,000 off its circulation. Management should try actively marketing their titles. Even the muppets who run Ford manage that.

Subbedover (24/06/2009 16:57:04)
What we need is for the NUJ to try and work with management. Shouting from the rooftops speculation can only harm the papers involved. The NUJ should be seeking to get involved with management to try and show them a different way of doing what they have to do. Trying to force them to go public on whatever they have planned will only serve to create a bad atmosphere in the newsroom and force management even deeper into their bunker. But like I said before, at least the NUJ got a headline

Hacked off (24/06/2009 17:04:44)
@Subbedover. Sorry, but you are spouting utter nonsense. The NUJ in the Midlands regularly tries to engage with management, and only last week has done exactly what you suggest, “try and show them a different way of doing what they have to do”. I know that for a fact, because I made suggestions which were put forward.
Are you seriously suggesting the NUJ are the problem here?

Rich S (24/06/2009 17:14:27)
@Subbedover…mate…get real. The union here has done what we should be doing everywhere – exposing the lies and obfuscation that usually precede an announcement of massive cuts. Yours and your colleagues’ jobs. Stop slagging off the NUJ and go to a chapel meeting.

Subbedover (24/06/2009 17:16:55)
No, Hacked Off, I’m not. I’m saying their response to the problem could be much better. As I said b
efore, offering to work with management seemed to be a great step forward, but then doing this has been a great step backwards. You might think I’m uttering rubbish, but it’s my opinion and I am entitled to it. I want a union which can influence the outcome, not one which is shouting from the sidelines, that’s all.

Fred Basset (26/06/2009 13:58:00)
Confirming that I would prefer not to know what my employer is planning, as it may be scary.