New York Times plans to cut 7 percent of newsroom positions

[ondeadline]

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/business/media/14cnd-times.html">That translates to 100 positions. Will the crappy news ever stop?</a>

 

[Pulitzer Wannabe]

And you have to skip through an ad to get to the story. Go figure.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

With 1,332 newsroom employees -- the story says no other paper has more than 900 -- I don't think we'll see a significant decrease in quality. But in symbolic terms, this is the apocalypse.

 

[wickedwritah]

But in symbolic terms, this is the apocalypse.

Fatal blow?

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Note this in fourth graph:

According to our sources, Keller also left the open the possibility of saving some jobs. He said that "The leadership of the newsroom will share in the sacrifice." Richard Perez-Pena, the publishing reporter, asked what he meant. "Apparently there is a pool of money made up of bonuses for the salaries for top editors that may be used to save top jobs," said one person present. "He said he hadn't decided if they would use that."


http://www.observer.com/2008/more-keller-meeting

 

[deskslave]

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/business/media/14cnd-times.html">That translates to 100 positions. Will the crappy news ever stop?</a>

Sure. There was good news just hours later.

Shares in The New York Times Company rose almost 5 percent Thursday after the newsroom staff reductions were reported, closing at $18.84, up 86 cents.

Good to know that in these turbulent times, it's still possible to make money off the suffering of others.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/business/media/14cnd-times.html">That translates to 100 positions. Will the crappy news ever stop?</a>

Sure. There was good news just hours later.

Shares in The New York Times Company rose almost 5 percent Thursday after the newsroom staff reductions were reported, closing at $18.84, up 86 cents.

Good to know that in these turbulent times, it's still possible to make money off the suffering of others.

Wall Street scheunfreude.

Keller could leave, and set up housekeeping with Wolfowitz. That would be a good place to start.

 

[OnTheRiver]

At my little shop out in flyover country, we lost 15 percent of the newsroom last summer in one fell swoop of buyouts. It was a swipe of the sword that took out 11 people and over 300 years of experience. None of them were replaced.

Since then, we've had four other departures -- one replacement. Another 60 years of experience out the window.

Suddenly, here I sit, a 30-year-old who's suddenly a newsroom veteran doing two people's jobs.

A lot of days, I feel like a pitcher who's standing on the mound in some random late-September game. I've already thrown way too many innings this season, but the manager's not coming to get me because there's no arms left in the bullpen.

If you want to think the "apocalypse" has shown up in the form of a 7 percent reduction at the New York Times, so be it.

For a lot of us, the "apocalypse" came a long time ago.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

If you want to think the "apocalypse" has shown up in the form of a 7 percent reduction at the New York Times, so be it.

For a lot of us, the "apocalypse" came a long time ago.

I was on a paper that lost nearly a third of its staff within about a year. But if you don't believe the NYT holds more symbolic significance than any other paper, I'm not sure what to say. They have by far the largest news staff, they do by far the most ambitious striving and they responded to the Jayson Blair scandal by ADDING bodies in order to better ensure it wouldn't happen again. They've been a rare shining beacon for the argument that spending money on the product is a good business decision.

 

[Joe Williams]

A lot of days, I feel like a pitcher who's standing on the mound in some random late-September game. I've already thrown way too many innings this season, but the manager's not coming to get me because there's no arms left in the bullpen.

Actually, it sounds like you could look over your shoulder and see that there's no one with a glove standing in center field, either. And a couple of grade schoolers as middle infielders.

 

[goalmouth]

The notion of allocating bonus money to save jobs is beyond a red herring, and despicable.

Maybe Sulzberger is fixing up the shanty for a sale.

 

[Some Guy]

I guess I understand why we'd take this news hard, symbolically.

However, a bloated newsroom at a publicly traded company slashing bodies is hardly shocking. I'd have been more shocked if it didn't happen, actually.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

The notion of allocating bonus money to save jobs is beyond a red herring, and despicable.

Maybe Sulzberger is fixing up the shanty for a sale.

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?

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

However, a bloated newsroom at a publicly traded company slashing bodies is hardly shocking.

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?

 

[Some Guy]

However, a bloated newsroom at a publicly traded company slashing bodies is hardly shocking.

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.

 

[fishwrapper]

If you want to think the "apocalypse" has shown up in the form of a 7 percent reduction at the New York Times, so be it.

For a lot of us, the "apocalypse" came a long time ago.

I was on a paper that lost nearly a third of its staff within about a year. But if you don't believe the NYT holds more symbolic significance than any other paper, I'm not sure what to say. They have by far the largest news staff, they do by far the most ambitious striving and they responded to the Jayson Blair scandal by ADDING bodies in order to better ensure it wouldn't happen again. They've been a rare shining beacon for the argument that spending money on the product is a good business decision.

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.

 

[Some Guy]

If you want to think the "apocalypse" has shown up in the form of a 7 percent reduction at the New York Times, so be it.

For a lot of us, the "apocalypse" came a long time ago.

I was on a paper that lost nearly a third of its staff within about a year. But if you don't believe the NYT holds more symbolic significance than any other paper, I'm not sure what to say. They have by far the largest news staff, they do by far the most ambitious striving and they responded to the Jayson Blair scandal by ADDING bodies in order to better ensure it wouldn't happen again. They've been a rare shining beacon for the argument that spending money on the product is a good business decision.

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.

 

[fishwrapper]

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 ****ing 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.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

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?

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.

 

[Ace]

If you want to think the "apocalypse" has shown up in the form of a 7 percent reduction at the New York Times, so be it.

For a lot of us, the "apocalypse" came a long time ago.

I was on a paper that lost nearly a third of its staff within about a year. But if you don't believe the NYT holds more symbolic significance than any other paper, I'm not sure what to say. They have by far the largest news staff, they do by far the most ambitious striving and they responded to the Jayson Blair scandal by ADDING bodies in order to better ensure it wouldn't happen again. They've been a rare shining beacon for the argument that spending money on the product is a good business decision.

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.