Anyone disgruntled?

I may need a reality check here, but when I got my weekly email concert update from the News today, I was reminded of the urban legends about disgruntled Disney animators sneaking sexual images into cartoons.

Here's a screenshot of the top of today's edition:

Not to say that there's anything wrong with this picture, but is seems very un-Newsish. (We'd certainly run it, but probably with a snarky cutline.)

So, is it just me, or do you reckon that a photo editor at GuideLive got his walking papers yesterday?

I can't wait until Usher comes to town.

---

UPDATE: OK, so the photo editing couldn't have been directly related to a laid off employee, as no names have been named.?(Link courtesy Romenesko, who I really wish would have permalinks to individual memos-- this one is listed as "9/30/2004 1:23:56 PM..")

Other juicy points:

• ?"Reduction in staff in the newsroom is not synonymous with reduction in the quality of journalism."?

Sure, as long as you completely change the culture.

• Q: How much money does DMN make?
  A: Said he couldn't say without violating federal laws on disclosure. He would say the newspaper is profitable but 35% less profitable than in 2000.
• Q: Were other measures considered?
  A: Some measures were already taken, including reductions in section pages.

Can't quite reconcile that with the first bullet. Fewer pages means less news, right? Fewer people means more wire stuff, right?