New York Times to Cut 100 Newsroom Jobs, Invest in Its 'Digital Future'

They were even better people.

I must have received an e mail a day last week offering me a special
12 week deal that included the NYT Opinion app. There was a limited time
deadline to subscribe. I guess they were not kidding. I feel bad now that I
did not sign on.

The Times has lost a fair amount of readership due to current political climate. A lot of people
have just given up on following national politics. Out of site out of mind.

 

Well, except for Aaron Burr.

So, you slash 100 jobs from the profit-making center of your operation and "invest" in the area that really isn't coining it? And who's going to actually write the articles that draw in subscribers? The magic digital elves?

 

Guess I shouldn't worry about whether or not I get a tryout there now. Finished the editing test a few weeks back. Oh well.

 

Readership is still there -- it's just not as profitable. And it is pretty expensive to fly someone into Liberia to do an Ebola scener.

 

Kind of off-topic, but in some ways I feel like the WSJ is a better newspaper. It doesn't have the quantity of news every day that the Times has. But while sometimes the Times is like reading a magazine, the Journal is a true newspaper. I find their A1 to typically be much more newsy than the NYT A1. That's just my feeling. I guess we'd have to track them for a while to see.

 

I agree.

If memory serves, WSJ is the only newspaper in the country to have grown, both in circulation and in newsroom jobs, in the last decade or so.

 

This is not great journalism. It's the kind of garbage you find on Deadspin.

http://online.wSportsJournalists.com/articles/the-2014-baseball-playoffs-hateability-index-1412008971?tesla=y

 

Brian Costa does some great stuff. Have you never read him before?

 

No. I try to avoid New York-centric publications.