New York Times plans to cut 7 percent of newsroom positions

I don't follow your logic. Red herring for what? How is it a red herring?

And on what other newspaper has anyone even suggested such a gesture?

 

Bloated? How do you know that? They do cover more of the nation and the world than any other newspaper. The largest newsroom on my resume had a little more than 500, yet people worked harder there than they did on papers one-third that size.

You folks baffle me. The NYT has done the things you'd want your own paper to do -- cover everything, usually hire veteran journalists for top pay, remain almost immune to idiotic gimmicks -- and yet you want to take shots at it. Is it jealousy or politics or what?

 

whoa, slow down there hoss. I'm not saying this staff cut is right or justified. Just thoroughly unsurprising.

 

Their newsroom isn't bloated. Not even close. They do cover everything. An incredible magazine staff. Book review staff. They support an entire news service. Making that statement is unlearned or uninformed.

 

So you are shocked, in this day and age, that a publicly traded newsroom staffed 400 people larger than any other paper in America would carve staff? Really?

Because it sounds like "Sun rises in east, sets in west" to me.

again, not saying it's good, or that the quality of the work won't suffer ... just that it doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

Some Guy, I read your posts. I know you're informed about the business.
This day in age -- and the week I've had -- nothing fucking shocks me.

The NYT stock price has been lagging, struggling even. And, I've been saying for months, has even left the entire company vulnerable. One hundred spots is quite a few positions. It's enough to get investors' attention. What this action does, ultimately, is buy some time.

 

They have a two-tier stock system in which the family owns all the voting stock. The other shareholders, it's a straight investment deal, buying stock with the expectation they'll make money in the long term but no real say in how the business is run. So, yes, the NYT to this point has been immune to knee-jerking at the commands of those who can see no further than one quarter to the next. The cutbacks indicate to me not a matter of the NYT following a trend, but an independent decision that they can no longer sustain a philosophy that the more you spend, the stronger your business becomes. And that's very bad news for all of us.

 

Good post. The Times has its flaws, but they do good stories, and quirky feature stories all over the country that no other paper would spend the money to do.

When that goes, we have lost something.

 

The company is worth 31% of what it was eight years ago.
That was indication long before a decision on 100 positions.

 

No, the stock is worth 31% of what it was eight years ago. There's a difference.

 

Tell that to the 100 people about to lose their position. Semantics.
Tell that to the rest of the Ochs-Sulzberger family that's watching their future tick away at the close of each session on Wall Street. Everyone always states that the N.Y. Times doesn't have the pressure that other companies have because of their tiered structure. Bullshit. Ask the Chandlers and Bancrofts if they ever felt any family pressure.

 

I'm all for buyouts at my shop. We've got some old farts who have been around for a million years and one group of about six-seven people could save the company about half a million per year. You could divide that up over our entire newsroom and everyone would get about $10,000 raises.