New York Times plans to cut 7 percent of newsroom positions

[fishwrapper]

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.

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

 

[jgmacg]

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.

 

[fishwrapper]

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. Bull****. Ask the Chandlers and Bancrofts if they ever felt any family pressure.

 

[pressboxramblings07]

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.

 

[Pulitzer Wannabe]

You could divide that up over our entire newsroom and everyone would get about $10,000 raises.

If you really think that would happen ...

 

[Baron Scicluna]

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.

And what planet would this newspaper be on?

 

[Joe Williams]

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.

No offense, PBR, but what are you, 14?

 

[Joe Williams]

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

So reporters and editors face the loss of their livelihoods, while bosses face the loss of their bonuses in order to "share in the sacrifice." Yeah, more inspiring newsroom leadership.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

This is how family-owned large businesses self-destruct. First, large numbers of the family lose interest in the business and turn their attentions to just being rich. Second, sooner or later the family member in charge turns out to be an incompetent-which Pinch Sulzberger has been.
The DuPont company, which was sort of important in Wilmington, Delaware when I was growing up, was an exception. The DuPonts had SO MUCH money already, they didn't ***** when competent outsiders were placed in charge of the company.

 

[suburbia]

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.

Which is all these corporate owners really care about. They don't understand, let alone appreciate, the importance of the news media, and how all these "cutbacks" are doing nothing more than perpetuating the vicious cycle. And they certainly don't appreciate the people whose lives they are affecting. They just want to make themselves and their equally narrow-minded shareholders rich.

 

[fishwrapper]

Oh, Christ. You think anyone gives a ****? Ask the aerospace industry. Auto industry. Biotech. And damn near anything manufactured.
No one, no one has gotten rich buying the N.Y. Times stock in the last eight years.

 

[Joe Williams]

This is how family-owned large businesses self-destruct. First, large numbers of the family lose interest in the business and turn their attentions to just being rich. Second, sooner or later the family member in charge turns out to be an incompetent-which Pinch Sulzberger has been.

Like what happened in Chicago, when goofball Ted Field wanted his share of the family dough out of the newspaper biz so he could go Hollywood, and Marshall Field wound up running for the hills.

 

[Birdscribe]

This is how family-owned large businesses self-destruct. First, large numbers of the family lose interest in the business and turn their attentions to just being rich. Second, sooner or later the family member in charge turns out to be an incompetent-which Pinch Sulzberger has been.

Like what happened in Chicago, when goofball Ted Field wanted his share of the family dough out of the newspaper biz so he could go Hollywood, and Marshall Field wound up running for the hills.

And like what happened at the OC Register, when the Hoiles family had its own internecine battle. This battle will result in the dismantling and evisceration of what used to be a great paper, because to pay off the rebel Hoiles horde, Freedom had to borrow nearly $1 billion from two venture capital firms.

Someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but if they don't pay it off by 2010, I believe those firms take over the company. Then, you'll see carnage on a grand scale.

 

[fishwrapper]

They don't take it over, but can leverage for a sale.

 

[pressboxramblings07]

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.

And what planet would this newspaper be on?

The land of family owned papers that has employees who are worthless but make a ton of money. One of the "higher-ups" has been there for 57 years.

No offense, PBR, but what are you, 14?

Close. Why?