New York Times to cut 100 newsroom jobs

**Arrogance** · 10-20-2009, 02:55 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/compa...35980920091019

By Robert MacMillan

NEW YORK, Oct 19 (Reuters) - The New York Times (NYT.N) said on Monday it would cut 100 newsroom jobs through buyouts or layoffs as it tries to counter lost advertising revenue.

"Let me cut to the chase: We have been told to reduce the newsroom by 100 positions between now and the end of the year." Times Executive Editor Bill Keller told employees in a memo obtained by Reuters.

This is the second time in little more than a year that the Times has sought to reduce its newsroom staff. In 2008, the newspaper cut 100 newsroom jobs.

Earlier this year, it cut salaries by 5 percent.

"When we took our 5 percent pay cuts, it was in the hope that this would fend off the need for more staff cuts this year," Keller wrote in the memo. "But I accept that if it's going to happen, it should be done quickly. We will get through this and move on."

The newspaper has 1,250 editorial employees, down from 1,330, the Times reported on its website. It said no other U.S. newspaper has more than about 750 journalists.

The New York Times Co, which owns the newspaper, plans to report third-quarter results on Thursday. The company has experienced declines in advertising and mounting debt that have forced it to cut costs and sell assets.

Many publishers, including USA Today publisher Gannett Co Inc (GCI.N), which reported its quarterly results on Monday, have had the same problems.

Last week, the Times stopped trying to sell The Boston Globe. It had threatened to close that newspaper unless its unions agreed to cut costs. It also has been trying to sell its stake in the company that owns the Boston Red Sox professional baseball team.

BUYOUT BUY-IN
Many staffers who are union members would get three weeks pay for each year of service if they take a buyout, said Bill O'Meara, president of the New York Newspaper Guild. At most, employees would get two years of pay and extended medical insurance coverage, he said.

Nonunion staff would likely get two weeks pay for each year of service, up to one year's pay, New York Times spokeswoman Diane McNulty said in an e-mailed response to questions about the buyouts.

Earlier this year, the union agreed to the 5 percent pay cut in the hope that the newspaper would offer buyouts instead of layoffs if it had to cut more costs, O'Meara said.

He said the buyouts would not reflect the 5 percent cut.

"It's a great paper, but it's not immune to many of the same forces that are hitting newspapers nationwide," O'Meara said.

(Reporting by Robert MacMillan, editing by Leslie Gevirtz, Toni Reinhold)

**Donald Aquilano** · 10-20-2009, 06:36 PM

I don't feel sorry for the New York Times. Their bias news coverage did them in.

**Seraphim** · 10-20-2009, 06:48 PM

I'm very happy to hear that the NY Times is hurting. They own About.com, and many of their content authors have been scraping content off of my websites for years. They do remove it when you ask, but it's a time consuming process to get them to remove it...

Good news...

**randomo** · 10-20-2009, 06:55 PM

As a former member of the Newspaper Guild, I'm sorry to see this happening.

One recent piece of good news in newspapers: apparently, the Wall Street Journal is about to overtake USA Today as the largest-circulation newspaper in the U.S. (I still remember when USA Today began - their "honor boxes" said "The nation's newspaper", and some people whited out a few letters so it said "The nation's new pap". Not that I would ever condone vandalism ....)

**Mike Cruz** · 10-20-2009, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by bd77

I don't feel sorry for the New York Times. Their bias news coverage did them in.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I'm very happy to hear that the NY Times is hurting. They own About.com, and many of their content authors have been scraping content off of my websites for years. They do remove it when you ask, but it's a time consuming process to get them to remove it...

Good news...

Yeah, because I am sure all 100 of those employee's had the same political beliefs and all of them had something to do with the theft of your content from your websites...

Anyone losing their job in this economy is never a good thing, did you guys ever stop and try to think about these employee's wives, husbands, children?

For you guys to seem so happy about the fall of New York Times, makes you look even more hypocritical and ignorant than you usually do about other comments you have made throughout this forum.

**Raider** · 10-20-2009, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by zurc.net

Anyone losing their job in this economy is never a good thing, did you guys ever stop and try to think about these employee's wives, husbands, children?

Did you ever stop and think about the over 250,000 people in this country that are losing their jobs each and every month? I and others have been posting about this quite a bit, We've also been posting about the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus that was supposed to create Jobs in the private sector and HASN'T... Where have you been?

Did you think we were bashing Obama for no reason?... No, We've been bashing this incompetent fool because he's NOT doing what's required to jump start this economy and put Americans back to work, His policies are a COMPLETE FAILURE, and yet people like you continue to support what he's doing.. You support his failures and the millions of job losses.

Originally Posted by zurc.net

For you guys to seem so happy about the fall of New York Times, makes you look even more hypocritical and ignorant than you usually do about other comments you have made throughout this forum.

No, I think it makes YOU look HYPOCRITICAL

Wasn't it you that gave Obama a "B" rating for his job performance? LMAO.

Nobody is happy that people are out of work, I'm certainly NOT... But I am happy to see Liberal reporting FAILING and Conservative reporting SUCCEEDING.

**Mike Cruz** · 10-20-2009, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Raider

Did you ever stop and think about the over 250,000 people in this country that are losing their jobs each and every month? I and others have been posting about this quite a bit, We've also been posting about the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus that was supposed to create Jobs in the private sector and HASN'T... Where have you been?

Did you think we were bashing Obama for no reason?... No, We've been bashing this incompetent fool because he's NOT doing what's required to jump start this economy and put Americans back to work, His policies are a COMPLETE FAILURE, and yet people like you continue to support what he's doing.. You support his failures and the millions of job losses.

No, I think it makes YOU look HYPOCRITICAL

Wasn't it you that gave Obama a "B" rating for his job performance? LMAO.

Nobody is happy that people are out of work, I'm certainly NOT... But I am happy to see Liberal reporting FAILING and Conservative reporting SUCCEEDING.

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?

**Gerry** · 10-20-2009, 08:37 PM

I've been reading from many in mainstream media and advertising that the newspaper (print industry in general) are not as bad off as every one says they are.

Of course, the ones saying those words are trying to keep investors in the game and are only prolonging the inevitable.

With that said, I am strongly opposed to any "print media/newspaper" bailout that had been mentioned in the past. The falling out of favor is natural and pumping money into a dying industry, again, is only prolonging the inevitable.

Let Murdoc and the other billionaire media moguls divest (which he has) on his own dime.

**Adatise** · 10-20-2009, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by bd77

I don't feel sorry for the New York Times. Their bias news coverage did them in.

I concur with you. More and more people are turning away from all newspapers and all TV news as most are holding back the real truths, if not outright telling falsehoods. I get my news from Google or Youtube. I quit watching all TV and reading all Newspapers. There is so much going on right now in the world that no news outlets are telling the people. They Must keep humans dumb and in the dark to control them and they use the news outlets to accomplish this!

**Gerry** · 10-20-2009, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by randomo

One recent piece of good news in newspapers: apparently, the Wall Street Journal is about to overtake USA Today as the largest-circulation newspaper in the U.S. (I still remember when USA Today began - their "honor boxes" said "The nation's newspaper", and some people whited out a few letters so it said "The nation's new pap". Not that I would ever condone vandalism ....)

I do not remember the name(s) of the business, but more than 20 years ago I did a great deal of work with USA Today's pre-press separation house. They were the only ones capable of handling the volume of color separations we needed for 20-24 page spreads.

**Mike Cruz** · 10-20-2009, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by Doc Com

I've been reading from many in mainstream media and advertising that the newspaper (print industry in general) are not as bad off as every one says they are.

Of course, the ones saying those words are trying to keep investors in the game and are only prolonging the inevitable.

With that said, I am strongly opposed to any "print media/newspaper" bailout that had been mentioned in the past. The falling out of favor is natural and pumping money into a dying industry, again, is only prolonging the inevitable.

Let Murdoc and the other billionaire media moguls divest (which he has) on his own dime.

I agree, a lot of newspapers failed to get prepared for internet. I just don't understand how they didn't see this coming and I definitely don't think we should spend our tax dollars bailing out a company that was not prepared for the obvious.

I just didn't care for the comments made and then the thoughtless additional by everyone's favorite mindless character.

**Adatise** · 10-20-2009, 08:50 PM

Have you have tried to reg a News domain? I have been trying for years. They are like the first names gone.

**Mike Cruz** · 10-20-2009, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Adatise

Have you have tried to reg a News domain? I have been trying for years. They are like the first names gone.

lol, yessir, what I am saying is that news papers in particular should of been the FIRST division of media to get on the internet and start reporting, instead, it seemed like they were the last. They should of got on it a lot sooner and maybe they wouldn't all be in the position they are in. They let bloggers take over their industry and now that they have competition its like they don't even try.

-Mike C.

**Gerry** · 10-20-2009, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by zurc.net

I just don't understand how they didn't see this coming and I definitely don't think we should spend our tax dollars bailing out a company that was not prepared for the obvious.

They did see this coming. That's the point. They have also been in denial for years.

As little as six months ago, an organization that I follow on twitter and have a cordial relationship with had been talking about the demise of print media being overstated and overrated. Of course, they are a big ad agency/pr firm and many of their clients are print media heavy.

Trying to save the newspapers and some magazines is like trying to hang onto the rotary phone.

Dial up, anyone?

**Adatise** · 10-20-2009, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by zurc.net

lol, yessir, what I am saying is that news papers in particular should of been the FIRST division of media to get on the internet and start reporting, instead, it seemed like they were the last. They should of got on it a lot sooner and maybe they wouldn't all be in the position they are in. They let bloggers take over their industry and now that they have competition its like they don't even try.

-Mike C.

I should have said this in my other post that I agree with you completely on both of your post. They should have seen it coming. Only us domainers did and reg'ed the names first. Selling a news name is huge money too because they have deep pockets.

Namaste

**Seraphim** · 10-21-2009, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by zurc.net

Yeah, because I am sure all 100 of those employee's had the same political beliefs and all of them had something to do with the theft of your content from your websites...

Anyone losing their job in this economy is never a good thing, did you guys ever stop and try to think about these employee's wives, husbands, children?

For you guys to seem so happy about the fall of New York Times, makes you look even more hypocritical and ignorant than you usually do about other comments you have made throughout this forum.

Their actions have harmed my livelihood, yet you feel I should be concerned about the overall well being of their business over my own? My content and images have earned them money, and in several incidences my websites have received a duplicate content penalty because of the theft (due in part to their authority PageRank status within Google).

Hypocritical and ignorant, how? I pointed out a factual inaccuracy in one of your posts in another thread, and now you're going to attempt to skew my every political opinion towards that one position? I have no quarrel debating or conversing with you on political issues Mike, but if you're going to swing the grudge at me, I'm going to toss you into the ignore users list.

**Mike Cruz** · 10-21-2009, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Hypocritical and ignorant, how? I pointed out a factual inaccuracy in one of your posts in another thread, and now you're going to attempt to skew my every political opinion towards that one position? I have no quarrel debating or conversing with you on political issues Mike, but if you're going to swing the grudge at me, I'm going to toss you into the ignore users list.

Lol? Is this your new attempt at trying to win a argument? What 'factual' inaccuracy did you point out in another thread?

Dude, put me on your ignore list, lol, I understand its hard for you to read/hear the truth and only you can ever be right, this is why you are ignorant, lets not even mention the harassing pm's you sent me like a 13 year old little girl just because I didn't want to join your cult of Jesus lovers (by the way he really was a fraud).

And you are hypocritical in the sense that you ***** about unemployment being so high and how our president is so horrible for letting it get here, but in the same breath you are in here cheering about 100 people losing their jobs and a company possible going under just because you have different views / they suppose stole your content and gave you page rank penalties... lol.

But its 'just politics' right? Nothing personally against you...

**Seraphim** · 10-21-2009, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by zurc.net

Lol? Is this your new attempt at trying to win a argument? What 'factual' inaccuracy did you point out in another thread?

Dude, put me on your ignore list, lol, I understand its hard for you to read/hear the truth and only you can ever be right, this is why you are ignorant, lets not even mention the harassing pm's you sent me like a 13 year old little girl just because I didn't want to join your cult of Jesus lovers (by the way he really was a fraud).

And you are hypocritical in the sense that you ***** about unemployment being so high and how our president is so horrible for letting it get here, but in the same breath you are in here cheering about 100 people losing their jobs and a company possible going under just because you have different views / they suppose stole your content and gave you page rank penalties... lol.

But its 'just politics' right? Nothing personally against you...

Factual inaccuracy indeed. You stated "religion and abused religion has been the cause for 95% of any tragedy, genocide, etc." That is absolutely false, as I pointed out with actual casualty figures for the world's most horrific conflicts. The only intelligent response you could muster after being proved wrong on that point, is "Jesus is a fraud". That sort of statement isn't going to offend a person like me, but I'm sure there are people here in the forum that would be offended. I wasn't trying to get into a full blown clash over religious or non-religious ideals, my point was to simply chime in on that one tangent.

If you want to be an attention seeking troll, you're on your own. The PM I sent to you was asking if we could bury the hatchet from the previous thread (since you insulted me here in this new thread), it's annoying to have to fend off insults regarding the New York Times, a subject that has nothing to do with you, your beliefs, my beliefs, or the previous topic.

Your posts bore the hell out of me, I don't want to read them anymore. Cheers.

**Mike Cruz** · 10-21-2009, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Factual inaccuracy indeed. You stated "religion and abused religion has been the cause for 95% of any tragedy, genocide, etc." That is absolutely false, as I pointed out with actual casualty figures for the world's most horrific conflicts. The only intelligent response you could muster after being proved wrong on that point, is "Jesus is a fraud". That sort of statement isn't going to offend a person like me, but I'm sure there are people here in the forum that would be offended. I wasn't trying to get into a full blown clash over religious or non-religious ideals, my point was to simply chime in on that one tangent.

If you want to be an attention seeking troll, you're on your own. The PM I sent to was asking if we could bury the hatchet from the previous thread, it's annoying to have to fend off insults regarding the New York Times, and subject that has nothing to do with you, your beliefs, or the previous topic.

Your posts bore the hell out of me, I don't want to read them anymore. Cheers.

LOL, you are pathetic... How about all the pm's you sent me when that thread was going on? The tragedies you mentioned, had very much to do with religion which was pointed out to you by another member. You of course came back with your angle shooting as you are doing here.

Attention seeking troll because I don't let you spew lies and point out the hypocritical nature that you possess?

You guys should try fighting a argument with the truth every once in a while, you might get some where. So trapped in all your own bs it's unbelievable...

**Seraphim** · 10-21-2009, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by zurc.net

LOL, you are pathetic... How about all the pm's you sent me when that thread was going on? The tragedies you mentioned, had very much to do with religion which was pointed out to you by another member. You of course came back with your angle shooting as you are doing here.

Attention seeking troll because I don't let you spew lies and point out the hypocritical nature that you possess?

You guys should try fighting a argument with the truth every once in a while, you might get some where. So trapped in all your own bs it's unbelievable...

Those conflicts weren't religious wars, you uneducated tool. Read an actual book on any of the conflicts that I mentioned.

Stop being a b!tch in heat on my political Johnson. This thread is about the New York Times, it has nothing to do with the previous thread. There's some truth for your tiny little brain to digest.