New York Times to cut 100 newsroom jobs

[Gerry]

This thread is about the New York Times, it has nothing to do with the previous thread.

These threads do seem to get off track rather quickly...

[Seraphim]

These threads do seem to get off track rather quickly...

Indeed Doc. It's like when I criticized some of our soldiers conduct in Fallujah, I was chased around here as an anti-American for a week or so. Obviously not the case at all...

It would seem that some individuals are unable to comprehend the fact that most people have fairly diverse political views, with some views even being at odds with each other at a glance. For example I'm pro-Palestinian civilian and pro-Israeli civilian, but I catch flack for walking that line as well. Same with religion, some people can't handle the fact that I could defend some aspects of it, yet not be a raging fundamentalist or zealot (my forum moniker wasn't chosen for religious reasons).

[Gerry]

I'd rather talk about the demise of newspapers and print in general. And talk about how that bodes well for those of us (I presume all of us) who have an internet based business(es).

Shifting of advertising dollars away from traditional media to internet based is huge and can no longer be ignored.

Years ago I penned a piece on this very thing as well as mentioned the order of those to fall to the wayside;

radio
print
television

The toughest task at hand for these newspapers online is going to be convincing their subscribers of paying a fee to have access to the news. I am keeping a watchful eye on Rupert Murdoch and his conglomeration to see how this pans out.

It is going to be difficult to convince people that they should pay for content. In order to do this, the content would have to be exclusive and current.

[Seraphim]

It would seem that Rupert Murdoch is stuck in the 20th century. The only way forward for print media, is to weather the harsh free digital media transition, and then lean heavily into locking down regular visitors. They can do that successfully by providing users with a news presentation that no one else can afford to provide. There is still is a lot of pioneering yet to be undertaken in news presentation technology, especially in mobile technology.

The main killer probably isn't even in free information monetization, it's how does Murdoch combat Twitter, YouTube, LiveLeak, FaceBook, etc... 24/7 user contributed news breaks are here to stay, he should be thinking how to harness that concept and fold it into his "new" business model.

The inevitable downsize is going to sting him though badly, we should see more lashing out at Google in the near term.

[Gerry]

It would seem that Rupert Murdoch is stuck in the 20th century. The only way forward for print media, is to weather the harsh free digital media transition, and then lean heavily into locking down regular visitors. They can do that successfully by providing users with a news presentation that no one else can afford to provide. There is still is a lot of pioneering yet to be undertaken in news presentation technology, especially in mobile technology.

The main killer probably isn't even in free information monetization, it's how does Murdoch combat Twitter, YouTube, LiveLeak, FaceBook, etc... 24/7 user contributed news breaks are here to stay, he should be thinking how to harness that concept and fold it into his "new" business model.

The inevitable downsize is going to sting him though badly, we should see more lashing out at Google in the near term.

He's not what I would call "stuck" in the 20th century as he does see value in internet media. Then again, just because you own a computer does not make one tech savvy.

I am just not sure his business models work - so, in that sense, yes; he is stuck in the 20th century. He has all the tools he needs to create those new business models you mention. But does he have the people to pull it off.

As for pioneering, yes - wireless mobile media is still in its infancy. That is why you are seeing many traditional enterprises getting a bigger stake in the media and telecommunications sector. There is one device that everyone has at their disposal 24/7 and that is their mobile. Whether it is streaming media, news, movies, games...much more focus by many of these companies should be in that direction.

A year or two ago, the CEO of Google told a group of investors and businesses to either go mobile or die.

Right now, at this very minute, Apple has the biggest, broadest, most diverse audience thanks to their Apps. If there is any one entity dominating the mobile industry it has to be Apple. The irony to all of this is they simply produce a product. That's it. They are not a telecommunications company.

What makes them so damn successful at it is the after market service they offer their customers. You buy a phone and you subscribe to a service. Same thing all telecomms and phone producers do. So what seperates them? The after market service.

It will be very exiting to see how Android plays out. Going open source? Could get interesting. I have seen many Android commercials out on the tele and they are going directly at Apple and the iPhone. If people think the cola wars were something, wait until they see the Apps and Phone wars.

And you bring up a good point on instant feedback, news, and information via twitter and other social networks. Because of this, how can anyone even think of having exclusive content? I can not imagine how to even secure this without it being leaked or posted on the internet.

[Seraphim]

I wonder what the direct traffic vs. search traffic split looks like for CNN, CBS, The New York Times, etc... It would be interesting to know how much power Google has over the traffic pull of these operations.

[DomainsInc]

Are you high? Sure they are saying they are upset about Obama in another thread because of the job losses, but at the same time they are in here saying they are happy about these job losses...

I gave Obama a "B" for his overall rating...

So by my understanding of your comments, whether the president is good or not, you want the country ONLY to succeed under a conservative president, but if it's a 'liberal' president you want them to fail? How incredibly stupid are you?

I don't care what party president we have in the white house, I want them to do whats right for the country...

You really do just go around trying to find a argument wherever there might be one and respond with some of the most idiotic comments I have ever seen come out of one persons mouth... holy moly...


Btw, what conservative supposebly succeeded?

There shouldn't be any such thing as liberal or conservative reporting. Defeats the entire point.

[Gerry]

There shouldn't be any such thing as liberal or conservative reporting. Defeats the entire point.

Precisely.

It is up to us to seek out all sides and from that information we digest, we draw our own conclusions.

But if we limit ourselves to one source, one side, then how can we possibly claim to have made an informed decision?

[Raider]

Are you high? Sure they are saying they are upset about Obama in another thread because of the job losses, but at the same time they are in here saying they are happy about these job losses...

Nobody stated they were happy about these job losses, You and you alone are making that claim, your making an assumption were happy when in fact were not... I'm certainly not.

Were happy the paper is FAILING, Kind of in the same way an environmentalist would be happy seeing a Coal or Nuclear power plant close, where thousands of jobs are lost, These people also have wives, husbands and children.

Would we make the claim that environmentalist's are happy these people are out of work?. Of course not, Only a bonehead like you who cant think out of the box would make the claim.